President Obama has nominated Solicitor General and former dean of the Harvard Law School, Elena Kagan, to replace Justice Stevens on the United States Supreme Court. At this level, however, the name of the nominee seems almost incidental. The opposing party will try to drag out the process as long as possible, citing a grave need to gather information and deliberate – this is a lifetime appointment, after all! Nevermind that, when a President from their own party makes a nomination, they need all of about 20 seconds to make their decision.
Eventually, two or three sound bites will rise to the fore, largely taken out of context, and we will hear dire warnings of extremism from the minority opposing party. The majority nominating party will describe the nominee as a flowering of legal thought in our time.
Eventually, the President’s party will tell us about the sanctity of the “up or down vote,” forgetting about filibusters when they were in the minority. And, the reverse is true of the minority opposing party, filibustering while forgetting their red-faced demands for an “up or down vote” when they were in the majority. favor of the nomination. More often than not, there will be a vote, and the President’s nominee will be confirmed.
Actually, this is a diversity pick – now there will be all kinds of people on the court who went to Harvard or Yale!
(Were you considered, Doug? I think you meet the qualifications – I mean, that Harvard/Yale thing isn’t written down anywhere. We would miss you, though.)
Me? Pah. I went to a public Midwestern school. Can you imagine the vapors?
Imagining the vapors is the best part!
Actually seeing the vapors would be awesome!
Doug, you may want to use the term “nominating party” rather than “majority party”.
I would definitely describe Harriet Myers as a “flowering mind”.
Good point, Paul. The President’s party won’t always control the Senate in these situations.