Tuesday, August 02, 2005
John Roberts - Reciprocity and Comity
Jack Balkin in TPMCafee tries to justify Democratic obstructionism in voting against John Roberts:
The problem is that we are not in a period in which this sort of comity and reciprocity is much respected. The Republican Party is a social movement party that wants to move the Constitution in a strongly conservative direction and therefore is not very much intersted in compromise. Seeing this, the Democrats have become less interested in compromise themselves. Nor should they be.
The last Supreme Court justices appointed by President Clinton were approved by a vote of 96-3 (Ruth Bader Ginsburg) and 87-9 (Stephen Breyer). Justice Breyer had been General Counsel of the ACLU. The prior vote had been that of Clarence Thomas (52-48) in 1991 and the trashing of Robert Bork before that.
This would suggest that the reciprocity and commity lies on the side of the Republicans rather than the Democrats. If anyone needs to earn reciprocity and comity as suggested, it is the Democrats. The new verb created by lack of commity was "borked" not "breyered."
Things change, and someday, one hopes, the two parties will return to a less antagonistic relationship. But that happy day will not be hastened by Democratic acquiesence. The Democrats must earn reciprocity and respect through their resistance ....
Yes, the way to the happy return to a "less antagonistic relationship" is greater antagonism. Right. Does that mean that the Republicans should do the same if the Democrats win the presidency in 2008?
If Democratic Senators properly should vote against confirmation of Republican court nominees whom they believe will move constitutional law in an improper direction, Republican Senators should properly do the same. If Democrats have the right of filibuster, Republicans have the same right. The same duty and right of "advice and consent" applies to Senators of both parties.
This approach will lead to deadlock and suggests the need for reciprocity and comity last exemplified by Republicans in the Ginsburg and Breyer nominations. The way to earn such reciprocity and commity is for Democrats to practice it beginning with John Roberts, rather than once again practicing the politics of personal destruction used against Bork and Thomas.
The problem is that we are not in a period in which this sort of comity and reciprocity is much respected. The Republican Party is a social movement party that wants to move the Constitution in a strongly conservative direction and therefore is not very much intersted in compromise. Seeing this, the Democrats have become less interested in compromise themselves. Nor should they be.
The last Supreme Court justices appointed by President Clinton were approved by a vote of 96-3 (Ruth Bader Ginsburg) and 87-9 (Stephen Breyer). Justice Breyer had been General Counsel of the ACLU. The prior vote had been that of Clarence Thomas (52-48) in 1991 and the trashing of Robert Bork before that.
This would suggest that the reciprocity and commity lies on the side of the Republicans rather than the Democrats. If anyone needs to earn reciprocity and comity as suggested, it is the Democrats. The new verb created by lack of commity was "borked" not "breyered."
Things change, and someday, one hopes, the two parties will return to a less antagonistic relationship. But that happy day will not be hastened by Democratic acquiesence. The Democrats must earn reciprocity and respect through their resistance ....
Yes, the way to the happy return to a "less antagonistic relationship" is greater antagonism. Right. Does that mean that the Republicans should do the same if the Democrats win the presidency in 2008?
If Democratic Senators properly should vote against confirmation of Republican court nominees whom they believe will move constitutional law in an improper direction, Republican Senators should properly do the same. If Democrats have the right of filibuster, Republicans have the same right. The same duty and right of "advice and consent" applies to Senators of both parties.
This approach will lead to deadlock and suggests the need for reciprocity and comity last exemplified by Republicans in the Ginsburg and Breyer nominations. The way to earn such reciprocity and commity is for Democrats to practice it beginning with John Roberts, rather than once again practicing the politics of personal destruction used against Bork and Thomas.
# posted by Thomas A. Becket : 7:30 PM
