TheLoveBandit
Retired Never Was, Coulda been wannabe
ENSURE PROMPT SENATE VOTES ON EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS
The irony here is thick enough to cut with a knife. I'm not sure how much of his opinion on this was shaped by the finger pointing in this thread about parties using delay tactics to stall out selections based on partisan politics. I think we can all agree on wanting the RIGHT candidates to be voted in (though we differ on the definition of RIGHT), but we all want a proper amount of time to evaluate and ensure we get the RIGHT candidates in. His circus of a hearing only highlights how broken the system is, and it is getting worse. If some which to bend this to being 'empowering the executive branch', I can see that somewhat, as it is the duty of the President to put forth nominees....but it falls back to Congress to actually vote someone in or out of the position. Doesn't matter if the President has a list 20 deep or needs 20 months to come up with a single candidate, this suggestion is addressing the process of vetting and filling vacancies.
But if you read this section, he is addressing not just SC nominees. The comments by some that this is self serving by the President as regards Kavenaugh's nomination...is missing the entire thrust of this article. All positions requiring Senate approval are suffering by the current processes. He points out there is no distinction between nominees for executive branch positions vs judicial branch positions in terms of the hearing process. However, he suggest there ought to be a different approach, considering the executive branch positions serve at the discretion of the President (he can fire whenever, and they answer to him), whereas judicial positions are lifetime vocations answering to no political party or President. The Senate has crippled Presidencies (of both parties) when the majority is of the party opposite the President - the inability to effectively vet and vote on candidates has left cabinet positions and other executive openings vacant for far too long, leaving the President short handed in doing what the people elected him (or her) to do.
He suggests a 30day window for nominees to executive positions. To me, this seems reasonable on several counts. First, such nominees aren't last minute submissions (suprise, Congress!), and plenty of background checks (hello FBI investigations!) are done ahead of nomination. Secondly, in line with the public's expectations that these folks get treated like the rest of us, we get something similar to our court systems with their "the right to a speedy and public trial" or hearing (hey there, sixth amendment!).
To the judicial positions, and SC in particular, he does describe more in depth reviews are appropriate. He goes further to describe the way the hearing process has broken down in recent years where a nominee's views on existing cases (ie, Roe v Wade) has gained more weight for discussion among senators, over qualification and ethical character. he's fine with the expansion of review to address this, according to his article. Where he takes issue and suggests reform is in the procedural aspects. he references senators stalling and putting nominees on hold indefinitely for judicial positions based on political parties rather than addressing the needs of the court systems. Specifically, positions (not just SC) are left open for years, and nominees put their lives on hold indefinitely awaiting word from the Senate. His proposition is simple, put it to a 180d limit to get it to a vote. 6months brings the gap (for the court, and the nominee) to a more reasonable level. I don't see this as wrong. In fact, I see this as a good suggestion for trying to squeeze politics OUT of this process and allow the Judicial branch to more effectively do what it is intended to do. This was supported "...by President Clinton, President Bush, then-Chief Justice Rehnquist, and the American Bar Association among others."
The irony here is thick enough to cut with a knife. I'm not sure how much of his opinion on this was shaped by the finger pointing in this thread about parties using delay tactics to stall out selections based on partisan politics. I think we can all agree on wanting the RIGHT candidates to be voted in (though we differ on the definition of RIGHT), but we all want a proper amount of time to evaluate and ensure we get the RIGHT candidates in. His circus of a hearing only highlights how broken the system is, and it is getting worse. If some which to bend this to being 'empowering the executive branch', I can see that somewhat, as it is the duty of the President to put forth nominees....but it falls back to Congress to actually vote someone in or out of the position. Doesn't matter if the President has a list 20 deep or needs 20 months to come up with a single candidate, this suggestion is addressing the process of vetting and filling vacancies.
But if you read this section, he is addressing not just SC nominees. The comments by some that this is self serving by the President as regards Kavenaugh's nomination...is missing the entire thrust of this article. All positions requiring Senate approval are suffering by the current processes. He points out there is no distinction between nominees for executive branch positions vs judicial branch positions in terms of the hearing process. However, he suggest there ought to be a different approach, considering the executive branch positions serve at the discretion of the President (he can fire whenever, and they answer to him), whereas judicial positions are lifetime vocations answering to no political party or President. The Senate has crippled Presidencies (of both parties) when the majority is of the party opposite the President - the inability to effectively vet and vote on candidates has left cabinet positions and other executive openings vacant for far too long, leaving the President short handed in doing what the people elected him (or her) to do.
He suggests a 30day window for nominees to executive positions. To me, this seems reasonable on several counts. First, such nominees aren't last minute submissions (suprise, Congress!), and plenty of background checks (hello FBI investigations!) are done ahead of nomination. Secondly, in line with the public's expectations that these folks get treated like the rest of us, we get something similar to our court systems with their "the right to a speedy and public trial" or hearing (hey there, sixth amendment!).
To the judicial positions, and SC in particular, he does describe more in depth reviews are appropriate. He goes further to describe the way the hearing process has broken down in recent years where a nominee's views on existing cases (ie, Roe v Wade) has gained more weight for discussion among senators, over qualification and ethical character. he's fine with the expansion of review to address this, according to his article. Where he takes issue and suggests reform is in the procedural aspects. he references senators stalling and putting nominees on hold indefinitely for judicial positions based on political parties rather than addressing the needs of the court systems. Specifically, positions (not just SC) are left open for years, and nominees put their lives on hold indefinitely awaiting word from the Senate. His proposition is simple, put it to a 180d limit to get it to a vote. 6months brings the gap (for the court, and the nominee) to a more reasonable level. I don't see this as wrong. In fact, I see this as a good suggestion for trying to squeeze politics OUT of this process and allow the Judicial branch to more effectively do what it is intended to do. This was supported "...by President Clinton, President Bush, then-Chief Justice Rehnquist, and the American Bar Association among others."
based on his interview, having multiple accusers with have corroboration by witnesses, etc.![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
That's really all I want, facts. If we are left with just a he-said-she-said, we are nowhere. Second best is witnesses, which haven't shaken out so well in providing something closer to facts (still 'they said'). So we are left with taking accusations as true, and condemning a man's career possibly by mistake; or taking the accusations as false, and letting a less than desired candidate onto the SC while ignoring someone's personal trauma. Neither is appealing to me.
