McConnell foreshadows the fight to replace Souter, accusing President Obama of slanted views on how to pick a judge. From a floor statement by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell yesterday:
Over the years, there has been a growing tendency among some on the Left to pick or promote judges based on policy and political preferences, and President Obama's past statements on judicial appointments strongly suggest that he shares this view.
As a candidate for President, he said that his criteria for a judicial nominee would be someone who would empathize with particular parties or particular groups. This viewpoint was evident again last week when, in describing a good nominee, the President seemed to stress his or her ability to connect with a particular person or group over and above a judge's traditional role of applying the law without prejudice.
The problem with this philosophy is that it arises out of the misguided notion that the courts are simply an extension of the legislative branch rather than a check on it. Americans don't want judges to view any group or individual who walks into the courtroom as being more equal than any other group or individual. They expect someone who will apply the law equally to everyone, so everyone has a fair shake...
The President is free to nominate whomever he likes. But picking judges based on his or her perceived sympathy for certain groups or individuals undermines the faith Americans have in our judicial system. So throughout this nomination process, the impartiality of judges is a principle that all of us should strongly defend.
The Republicans are in severe need of politicians and strategists who did not rise to their position solely based on their ability to attack.
If I was to give the Republicans one piece of advice, it would be this: you don't have to pick a fight over everything. It's okay to agree with Obama once in a while. And if you insist on waging a confirmation battle, at least wait until he's nominated someone first. Sheesh.
Was McConnell wining and dining lobbyists for the entire Harriet Miers fiasco? Who is going to listen to this drivel with a straight face?
What a bizarre statement: "The problem with this philosophy is that it arises out of the misguided notion that the courts are simply an extension of the legislative branch rather than a check on it."
The whole conservative critique of liberal judges is that they put a check on the legislative branch. That is, they overruled local laws against abortion and restrictions against pornography, and promotion of religion, etc. What conservatives object to is the court's defense of the minority against the will of the majority. Alas, conservatives claim that the court "created" rights (forgetting that the 9th Amendment specifically allows for the "creation" of rights not mentioned in the Constitution.
Next week, Obama will say something like, "I'd like to see police that attack criminals first, and then go after Jaywalkers," and You'll hear the Republicans with, "Obama is soft on Jaywalkers. I don't like this philosophy of telling officers what to do," and "Obama is endangering police officers by telling them how to do their job." Obama could say "i'm going to the bathroom," and Republicans would respond, "Obama is wasting water that could have been used to power american homes." "I'm going to have a beer," He's insulting liquor and vineyards. "I'm watching football," He's wasting time. Blah blah blah.
I watch the GOP leaders with an open mind hoping that something new might come out. Still it is the same twisted rhetoric. When this administration took office it was clear the only thing the GOP knew was NO. The Dems and the media made it clear the GOP needed ideas. They have regurgitated only one or two retread ideas, and try to rephrase them with new slogans and labels. The new group "National Council for a New America" that Representative Eric Cantor has initiated to "listen and obtain new ideas" seems to somehow result in yet another way of saying the same things as they have in the past. How does these guys get elected? Is the electorate that they represent really believe and buy into what is being said? I just don't understand it.