There are rumors there could be a vacancy in the Supreme Court in the next few weeks. Chief Justice Rehnquist or Justice O’Conner could step down. Senate Democrats want to consult with the President on Supreme Court nominees. Here is the story from the Associated Press.



Should the President consult with the Senate minority?

Is there is historical precedent for this request?

Will Senate Democrats filibuster a Supreme Court Nominee?

What would justify a extraordinary circumstance?

Should the President consult with the Senate minority..? That's a difficult question to answer, because it deals so much with maneuvering and politics. I would imagine that hard-line conservatives and Mr. Frist would say NO. We're in charge, we'll make the rules, screw the minority party. However, anyone who would oppose the Nuclear Option would say that it would be a wise thing to do. Myself, I actually don't care -- if he makes a rational decision for a nomination, I'll be fine with it. Bush's nominee will be a conservative -- you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out -- as long as it isn't someone that has a history of ruling politically instead of with the law, that's fine by me, and the President certainly doesn't need to ask permission or consult on that.

Will Dems filibuster? Yes. Because I honestly don't believe for a second that, given his track record, Bush will make a sensible nomination. Clinton bent over backward to make his nominations palatable, but I don't expect the same from Bush -- he'll nominate a Bolton-esque nightmare and Dems will be forced to filibuster on principle. Frist is literally chomping at the bit to unleash the Nuclear Option which is what he will do.

What would constitute an 'extraordinary circumstance'? Well, again, that's politics -- I think the Dems would declare anything they thought suited their interests as an extraordinary circumstance and the phrase in the agreement is essentially worthless. That being said, I don't think the Dems would filibuster anyone just to do it.. they don't have the strength to back it up, and they certainly don't want to see the Nuclear Option enacted.

The real question here is centered around the Nuclear Option -- what does it mean for this country if Frist/Delay/Bush-like Republicans control all branches of the government..?

If you look at Justice Ginsburg's record she's hardly a moderate. So the idea that Clinton appointed anything but liberal judges is incorrect. In fact it appears Republicans have done a pretty good job appointing liberal judges themselves (Kennedy, Stevens, and Souter). I think the nuclear option is rather pointless. All it would do is reinstate the majority control of Presidential appointments. When the Democrats were in charge they decided what nominees were suitable (see Bork) and the minority never successfully filibustered any Presidential nominee.

Ginsburg was far from being an acceptable Justice in my opinion but President Clinton (since he was elected) was entitled to choose whoever he wanted.

I do not believe the Democrats will use the filibuster. It would appear too much like a breach of the deal. Bush has had four years to pick his nominees so it is not likely his choice will be too controversial.

Should the President consult with the Senate minority?

Is there is historical precedent for this request?

Will Senate Democrats filibuster a Supreme Court Nominee?

What would justify a extraordinary circumstance?



The first vacancy will most likely be that of Chief Justice Rehnquist and what should happen is for Bush to nominate Justice Scalia for that post. He can consult with the Senate by sending them a note telling them, 'I am nominating Associate Justice Scalia to be Chief Justice.' That will really put them in a bind. Justice Scalia was confirmed to the Supreme Court in 1986 by a vote of 98-0. link

Gonna be pretty difficult to say he's not qualified to be Chief Justice based on what's he done since then. He should sail through the process without a problem, but he probably won't. The liberal special interests that currently own the Democratic Party will have real heart burn with him. That will give us all a clue on what they'll do with the nomination for the replacement for Scalia as Associate Justice.

Just for fun, I'd nominate Ted Kennedy for that so the Senate could open up an investigation of what really happened back in 1969 at Chappaquiddick. I'd like to see his backside "borked" on that one, but it won't happen. I doubt ole Teddy would accept, but hey, that's "consultation" right? Bush could then say, "Gee, I offered the job to one of their own and he didn't want it, so I guess I'll have to offer it to someone else." Then he could find a person who hasn't killed someone.

The answers to the questions posed by nemov are ONE: Yes, he should as the 44 Democrats represent a larger percentage of the American people than do the 55 Republicans, but no, he won't because Bush is divider, not a uniter.

TWO: Yes. President Clinton counseled with Republican Senator Orrin Hatch before he submitted his two nominees to the Court.

THREE: Depends on who Dubya chooses. Here's a list of possible candidates:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2121270/

FOUR: Who knows? That depends on how extreme the nominee is, how badly the Dems are spoiling for a fight and the chances of the filibuster succeeding.



Tell you what Aquilla, you lose the cheap shots about Ted Kennedy and I won't mention George W. Bush's drunk driving arrest, abusing cocaine and paying for a girlfriend to have an abortion (allegedly), deal?

Should the President consult with the Senate minority?

Why not? It could make Bush look like a more effective leader. It could get a justice that might be in the best interest of the country.

Is there is historical precedent for this request?

There probably is plenty, documented or not. It is just politics and not a bad idea.

Will Senate Democrats filibuster a Supreme Court Nominee?

Magic 8 Ball says, probably only if the Republicans and Bush really want to make a political fight out of the nomination. The Dems would have a tiugh figth on their hands.

What would justify a extraordinary circumstance?

Nominating someone who appears to be a partisan hack, or who feel that he/she has no need to answer any of the Senate's questions during the process, or nominating someone who seems woefully unqualified for the job.

The Clinton Hatch citation really does not hold up to any strong scrutiny.



The article above makes a very valid point. The Democrats will label anyone Bush picks as an extremist. Look at Senator Kennedy's rhetoric about David Souter when he was nominated. Souter's record on the court has been very liberal. He sided with the liberals on the court Friday in the eminent domain case.

I doubt the Democrats are going to give Bush a free pass on nominations because he received a larger portion of the popular vote than his Democrat challenger. The same could be said of the "Democrats represent more people" rhetoric. While it is clever it is completely meaningless.

I didn't say anything approximating this. In fact, what I said was that Clinton bent over backward not to nominate any judges who were crazy liberal, or far-far-left. As I said, it's a no-brainer that Bush would nominate conservative judges -- that's common sense -- and it's common sense that Clinton would nominate liberal judges. My statement was that Clinton tried very hard to nominate palatable liberals in order to avoid the problems that we can see nominating nuts causes. Bush's track record so far is the exact opposite... well, no, let me retract that -- he's actually nominated quite sane judges that have been appointed with no problems, but Republicans whine so horribly about the less than 6% that DON'T get through that even *I* forget that the sane ones (and even some not-so-sane ones) get through without a problem. So, I guess my point is if he nominates a conservative that is palatable there won't be a problem, if he nominates an individual who has a history of troubling problems (ie, Bolton, Brown, etc.) there will be.



At least we agree on this point! :)



I think we probably WILL see a filibuster because I think the GOP is anxious to launch the Nuclear Option -- they WANT to do it. Frist is frustrated at not having gotten it done already, so I think they'll nominate a controversial person just to bring the issue to a head. I actually hope I'm wrong and you're right in this case, but I guess we'll see soon enough!

I cannot agree. Clinton did not bend over backwards to nominate palatable moderates. Ginsburg is clearly an extreme left winger. She was a legal director for the ACLU for a number of years. How can you suggest that Clinton's nomination of her was moderate?

Did he say he was claiming that Clinton nominated a moderate. He said that he worked to find palatable liberals. Judges that would not raise the ire of the other side. I don;t remember his nominees stonewalling the Senate in the investigation side, and I do remember a lot of vacancies.

It is good policy and bipartisan by definition to work with the other side on issues like this. A uniter could do this and still get the kind of judges he wants in the benches.


I am hard pressed to see Ginsberg as an extreme left winger. The ACLU does not qualify for me. I am speaking from a vague knowledge. But if she is an extremist, in my mind Thomas and Scalia clearly are as well.. (I know, I know, you disagree and feel they are moderates.)

No one is asking for a free pass, Nemov. But Hatch actually advised Clinton and claims to have been the one to suggest Breyer and Ginsburg.

I think that's all the Democrats are asking for, a chance to consult in a similar fashion. I hope Hatch is right and Bush does take the high road by consulting with Leahy. The GOP would have much to gain by extending that olive branch in this process. Needless to say, my faith in it happening isn't terribly high.

Doc

Well, looks like that approach is about to get tested, because Sandra Day O'Connor is retiring. /sigh I was really hoping she'd wait 3 more years. Oh well.

O'Connor has always said she'd only step down during a Republican administration. There were some rumors that this was coming.