Are Republicans a bunch of hypocrites when it comes to confirming judges?
It seems like when it is a Republican president or governor who is doing the nominating, Republicans are all for an “up-or-down vote”, regardless of whether senators were consulted before the nominations were made. However, when it is a Democrat doing the “deciding,” Republicans whine about not being consulted.
Rendell’s nominees to fill the judicial vacancies are all eminently qualified for the positions. I find it hard to believe that Rendell is playing politics, considering that one of his nominees is a Republican. Rather, it is the Republicans in the Senate who are playing politics without regard to the effect that the vacancies have on the ability of the appellate courts to conduct their business.
State Senate leaders are signaling that they want Gov. Edward G. Rendell to reconsider his nominations for four vacant appellate court seats, senior staff in the Senate Republican leadership offices said.“I think there is a sense that there needs to be a restart on the process,” said Stephen C. MacNett, general counsel to the Senate Republican Caucus. “That doesn’t mean the result has to be the exclusion of all of the people who are part of the current package.”
Rendell announced Jan. 29 he would nominate former Commonwealth Court Judge James Gardner Colins to a vacant seat on the state Supreme Court created by former Chief Justice Ralph J. Cappy’s resignation at the start of this year.
He also named former interim Justice James J. Fitzgerald and interim Superior Court Judge Robert C. Daniels to vacant seats on the Superior Court. Duquesne University law professor and Pennsylvania Constitution scholar Kenneth E. Gormley got Rendell’s nod for a vacant Commonwealth Court seat.
Since then, the confirmation process has been quietly proceeding, with nominees meeting privately with members of the Senate. Many members on both sides of the aisle, however, feel Rendell snubbed a bipartisan coalition that stepped forward with a suggested slate of nominees, said J. Andrew Crompton, counsel to Senate President Pro Tempore Joseph B. Scarnatti III. Crompton said that sentiment would likely further delay any vote on the nominations.
“There’s been no decision yet, however the leadership in the Republican Caucus in the Senate has fundamental problems with the way the governor unilaterally selected the four appointees,” Crompton said. Rendell administration spokesman Chuck Ardo said the Senate leaders are employing partisan politics in the wrong arena.
“The administration thought long and hard about its judicial nominees and made those nominations on the basis of legal qualifications and not on political considerations,” Ardo said. “The Senate should make its decisions on the same basis.”
Another example of our disfunctional government.
Our legislators don’t seem to do anything worthwhile since our government is so mired in partisan politics. I bet the Republicans would even find God unqualified if Rendell or any Democratic governor nominated God.
Judicial Nominations
As much as I admire Steve MacNett, I disagree with him, strongly, on this (unless, of course, his comment about the need for a “restart” is based upon his sense of the Republican caucus rather than his own expression of policy).
The courts, and the citizens of this Commonwealth who have important cases before the courts, need to have these vacancies filled. There is no good reason not to confirm these nominees.
If some Senators feel slighted, because the Governor made his own choices rather than approve all the suggestions made by Senators, then they ought to read the Constitution, which gives the Governor the power to nominate. Republican Senators who are prone to criticize judges for not sticking to the text of the Constitution should practice what they preach and recognize that the Governor, not Senators, is the one with the power to nominate.
The Senators, of course, have the power to confirm. That requires a hearing and a floor vote. And, the casting of a vote against confirmation should have some basis in an objectively verifiable deficiency in the nominee’s qualifications or temperament, rather than being based upon politics.
Rob Byer
President's Too?
So does your reasoning apply to President Bush as well? Or does it somehow change when a Republican President is the one appointing judges.
My reasoning applies across
My reasoning applies across the board. I think that U.S. Senators have encroached too much on Presidential prerogatives with respect to judicial nominations. My distaste for the U.S. Senate’s conduct is bi-partisan. The Republicans acted in a disgraceful manner with respect to many of President Clinton’s nominees and the Democrats have been just as disgraceful with respect to some of President Bush’s nominees.
The problems in the Federal judicial selection process shows why in crafting a merit selection process in Pennsylvania, the Federal model should not be followed.
Taking Partisan Politics Out of Judicial Selection
There is a way of taking politics out of the way Pennsylvania choses its judges: adopt the Delaware version of merit selection. Here it is in a nutshell, as described by Delaware Supreme Court Justice Myron T. Steele. The lack of political balance is the one glaring omission in the current Pennsylvania plan for merit selection. By the way, the merit-selection commission in Delaware is also bi-partisan.
Oh, and in case you haven’t heard me say this before, Delaware judges are some of the best and brightest around.
I agree with you about the
I agree with you about the Delaware model. California is another model worthy of consideration. Both states have some outstanding appellate judges. But I give the edge to Delaware.
Rob Byer
Post new comment