When John Roberts and Samuel Alito were nominated to the Supreme Court, Republicans argued that they should be confirmed based on their impeccable qualifications and mainstream jurisprudence. Now, Democrats are in power, and the same standard should apply….
If I were a U.S. senator, I would vote for her confirmation, because objective qualifications should matter more than ideology in the judicial confirmation process….
Ideology is important when it comes to electing public officials. In a state such as Pennsylvania, where voters elect judges, ideology can play a legitimate role in judicial selections. But in our federal constitutional framework, judicial nominations are shielded from voters.
In the federal system, judicial ideology is dealt with when we elect a president. When a president of one party is elected, the proper role of the opposing party is not to go on politically charged ideological campaigns against judicial nominees. It should be limited to determining whether a nominee is well-qualified and within the legal mainstream….
We Republicans have long said that the role of the Senate with respect to judges is to provide “advice and consent,” not to thoughtlessly veto based on ideology. Our principles have to apply whether we are in the majority or the minority.
I still prefer my construct: “But at the end of the day, we are not they, and we always should remember that. And be thankful.”