I must admit I am quite confused about the current state of judicial nominees. I start this thread in hopes of discussing the nominees here.

The names I hear thrown around are:

Charles Pickering

Priscilla Owen

Miguel Estrada

There was an article in the Los Angeles Times that gave a fairly even-handed account (surprise, surprise) about some of the events surrounding the controversy concerning Judge Pickering - it is necessary to read the full article to get both sides of the picture:

Click Here

As I understand it, one of the major contentions that the Republican Party is making is that, if these nominations had been allowed past the Judiciary Committee (when it was in the hands of the Democrats) to come to a vote in the Senate - these nominations would have been affirmed - even though the Senate (last year) was controlled by Democrats.

The argument is, that they should have been allowed to come before the Senate for a vote.

However, I think what is truly upsetting is the trend that is being set (and it doesn't matter to me who started it) that whoever the President is, the other party will automatically block his nominations. This has Consitutional implications that could undermine the entire system.

In the past, for the most part, the party opposite to the President's did him the courtesy (as a general rule) of confirming his nominations. I think this almost automatic blocking of nominations began with Judge Bork - but I could be wrong on that particular.

Because if you listen to what the libs want is to legislate from the bench. If you notice all their questions are asking them how they would rule in certain cases..and if the answer is not what they like they will Bork them. Nice open minds huh.

Darcaine

Only my 2 cents, but both major parties are equally devious in trying to stack the federal and appeals bench.
This is also the only reason I voted Republican in some races, to try and ensure justices were appointed that were at least the lesser of the two evils.

Miguel Estrada troubles the dems a little more than the rest, I think.
They would like to think they can use the racial aspects of an appointee. Me thinks they are still smarting over Clarence Thomas.

Oh, thanks for the blanket. It's cold down here

Do you have any links to any transcripts of the senate hearings? I would love to hear/read the actual questions myself.

Theres no hearings ongoing at present, but I believe you could get transcripts at Senate Judiciary Page

Or link from www.C-Span.org

Watch cspan sometime..you will find how ignorant some of our elected officials really are. HTF can you know how you are coming down on a case without an actual case?

Darcaine

This is a very good question. This kind of question was explored during the confirmation hearings for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. If a member of the Judiciary panel asked her - for instance ( I am completely paraphrasing here - this is NOT an exact quote or even case):

"How would you have decided the Bakke case?" Her answer was, consistently, "I need to have heard that case before I can answer you."

However, nominees for the judiciary are asked all the time, and answer to the best of their ability and/or desire to inform, general questions like: "How to do you feel about affirmative action?" To which they usually answer in a more general vein - if they answer at all.

In other words the candidate can be asked specific questions (for which they need a case) or a general position question - which some answer and some don't.

Some people see this as evasive, and some see this as politic, and some see it as legally sound. It is because of the usually vague way nominees answer, that their writings and verdicts which they have formulated in the past are given such scrutiny. This history is accepted as more accurate as to the position of the nominee, rather than statements given during confirmation hearings.

Personally, I think that a nominee should be judged on judicial temperament, good character, and scholarship and that's all.

Well said, Basheva. I contend a judge can not possibly know how s/he will rule until the case has been heard. To be asked before hand seems futile.

The reason I asked Darcaine for transcripts is because it was he who initially said the questions being asked by the Senate Judiciary Committee were not open minded, but failed to provide proof. Unfortunately, I don't get access to CSPAN while the Senators are in session. I'm usually at work. I've checked out DTOM's link (thanks!) but didn't find anything substantial in the way of transcripts

Jaime, I decided to NOT post a link as it would have been the same that had already been provided. I followed that link and for a web page there wasn't much there except schedules. But, anyone can turn the boob tube on and just watch or set a VCR because there are alot of them. Clarence Thomas was another famous case as well. I mean how many times can one be asked how you would rule on Roe vs Wade? I just think it's funny to go at Clarence Thomas about a pubic hair on a coke can and not a sitting Pres on a BJ in the oval office who perjured himself doing it. Call me crazy.

Darcaine
"The truth is out there"