What does "Advise and Consent" mean to you?

[maxiep]

With Sonia Sotomayor's vote today, I thought it would be a good time to get the board's opinion on what the role of the Senate should be in determining the idea of "advise and consent".

Here is the exact wording from Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution:

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

I have a pretty limited view of the Senate's power in the case of judges. As President George W. Bush said, elections have consequences. One of the consequences is that the President gets select who he wants for the bench. My hurdle in this case is that they're qualified and worthy of the bench. So, although I disagree with her view of the law, I'd vote for Judge Sotomayor. She's shown she's smart enough and qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Conversely, while I probably agree with many of her views, I would have voted against Harriet Miers. I just didn't think she's qualified.

What does everyone else think?

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I pretty much agree. The Senate has legal power to advise & consent, but to me not the legal power to block (except, of course, under fillibuster) as happened in the Bush administration.

I would probably vote 'no' on this nominee as she has made it clear in her past decisions that the rule of law & precedent often takes a back seat to political activism or personal opinion. I perfer a more impartial judge.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

It looks like everyone else is too busy responding to one of the other 32423423 threads started by either you, PapaG, BTOWN_HUSTLA or Shooter.

Who says Portland is liberal?

 

[Ed O]

I, too, think that it's generally the prerogative of the President, not Congress, to dictate the makeup of the Supreme Court. As a result, unless there were some ridiculous reason not to, I would vote to confirm or, at most, abstain.

Ed O.

 

[barfo]

It looks like everyone else is too busy responding to one of the other 32423423 threads started by either you, PapaG, BTOWN_HUSTLA or Shooter.

Who says Portland is liberal?

Well, to be fair I believe Shooter lives in NJ or Tennessee, BTOWN_HUSTLA lives in LA, Maxie lives much of the time in Denver, and PapaG lives somewhere in the suburbs of Portland.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

It looks like everyone else is too busy responding to one of the other 32423423 threads started by either you, PapaG, BTOWN_HUSTLA or Shooter.

Who says Portland is liberal?

Care to answer the question posed?

 

[Denny Crane]

Advice and Consent literally (legally) means the congress has to approve by vote. There's no question about the original intent of the phrase, as it was well established British (and other nations') laws at the time the Constitution was written.

I'd have no problem voting for her. Obama is the president, he gets to make his choice. It'd have to be something along the lines of judicial misconduct for me to not vote for an appointee. Whether I agree with the person's political beliefs or not.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Care to answer the question posed?

No, I don't.

My opinion on a specific constitutional wording when applied to a Supreme Court nominee would be pretty weak, considering this is not something I know or care about.

So, uh. What do you think, Denny Crane? Oh wait, you already answered. I honestly thought you hadn't because I skimmed through the thread and didn't see a giant news article posted in its entirety.

Hahaha I'm awesome.

 

[Idog1976]

With Sonia Sotomayor's vote today, I thought it would be a good time to get the board's opinion on what the role of the Senate should be in determining the idea of "advise and consent".

Here is the exact wording from Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution:



I have a pretty limited view of the Senate's power in the case of judges. As President George W. Bush said, elections have consequences. One of the consequences is that the President gets select who he wants for the bench. My hurdle in this case is that they're qualified and worthy of the bench. So, although I disagree with her view of the law, I'd vote for Judge Sotomayor. She's shown she's smart enough and qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Conversely, while I probably agree with many of her views, I would have voted against Harriet Miers. I just didn't think she's qualified.

What does everyone else think?

I actually don't know enough about Sotomayor to comment but I respect that you would endorse her but not Harriet Meyers. Frankly the Obama admin is starting to scare me as much as the Bush admin, albeit in a slightly different way.

 

[Eastoff]

I pretty much agree. The Senate has legal power to advise & consent, but to me not the legal power to block (except, of course, under fillibuster) as happened in the Bush administration.

I would probably vote 'no' on this nominee as she has made it clear in her past decisions that the rule of law & precedent often takes a back seat to political activism or personal opinion. I perfer a more impartial judge.

So would a "no" vote be "the legal power to block" ?

 

[Eastoff]

It looks like everyone else is too busy responding to one of the other 32423423 threads started by either you, PapaG, BTOWN_HUSTLA or Shooter.

Who says Portland is liberal?

I would assume sports fans are not an accurate sampling of the city of portland.

 

[maxiep]

The Journal's read on Sotomayor's confirmation: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204908604574334851400082442.html