A Lady's Ruminations

"Jane was firm where she felt herself to be right." -Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice

Thursday, June 23, 2005

Does that mean "non-ideological" like Ruth Bader Ginsburg is?

So, the Democrats want to have a say in who President Bush nominates to the Supreme Court.

According to Teddy "the Drunk" Kennedy, "It doesn't take much to get our consent. All the president has to do is seek out his preferred non-ideological choices, ask us about them, and listen to our answers."

By "non-ideological choices," Teddy Kennedy means "liberals who will ignore the Constitution and do whatever they want, including inventing non-existent rights."

Obviously Democrat presidents have been able to choose whomever they wanted and put them on the Supreme Court. If only non-ideologues were allowed, then however did Ruth Bader Ginsburg make it? Has she ever voted for a conservative position?

Is Teddy actually saying the President needs to ask the Senate who he should pick? I thought the document that guides our country, The Constitution, gave the power to pick judges to the President of the United States, not the Senators.

After all, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution says:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Article II concerns the Executive Branch, which, for those liberals who have never read the Constitution, means the Presidency. The Congress is in a different section.

For 200 plus years, "advice and consent" has meant the Senators would have some hearings, make sure the nominee hadn't been selling nuclear secrets to China (oh, wait, that was Bill Clinton) or in the Klan (oh, wait, that was Senator Robert "Sheets" Byrd, D-WV), and then say ok. The President has the right and duty to pick whomever he wishes. The Senate is only supposed to say, "well, some of us don't like him, but as there is nothing legally wrong, he is approved."

Apparently there was some sort of time limit on this and now the minority party, and the Senators, get to pick the judicial nominees. And, apparently, "non-ideological" means "anyone who is not conservative." Great.