Choosing a Centrist for Supreme Court Judge

Democrats, particularly Liberal Democrats, seem to think that the President needs to nominate a "centrist" to replace exiting judge Sandra Day O'Connor. What a load of malarkey. Just who is their idea of a "centrist"? Why of course someone who agrees with their views. So, minus siding with a liberals views the person is a right-wing conservative. Without even looking at who the nominees could be the Democrats in Washington, and their puppy dog followers, are wagging their tongues in the slurring sound of "fillibuster". Who is the party of divisiveness? You guessed it, the Democrats. Let's look at our most recent history for the evidence.

George Bush Sr. was not the most loved President when he instituted taxes after promising not to--yet he is not considered a divisive President.

Following Bush Sr. Clinton became President. He became more and more divisive throughout his presidency. His lies concerning his relationships are perhaps most noted. And yet when he nominated Supreme Court justices that followed HIS political philosophy what did the Republicans in the Senate do? I mean...remember what Congress was doing during this time...we had impeachment hearings going on...they could easily have filibustered Clinton's nominees but they did not...in fact they overwhelmingly supported these left leaning judges.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was nominated 96-3
Stephen G. Breyer was nominated 87-9

Why in the world did the Republican's in the Senate do this? Because nominating Supreme Court Justices is a President's perogative and the question is whether or not they will do their job and NOT whether they are liberal or conservative.

However Democrats like Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean are foaming at the mouth that any conservative is going to be filibustered. This is basically what they are saying people and don't think otherwise.

There has only been one filibuster of a Supreme Court judge in American history...and rightly so. Abe Fortas was Democratic President Johnson's nominee.

You can read about the historicity of this filibuster at the US Senate website below.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/
Filibuster_Derails_Supreme_Court_Appointment.htm

The filibuster option was not invoked until after the nominee came forward. Upon closer scrutiny it was seen that Fortas acted questionably due to his very close relationship with the President.

With Sandra Day O'Connor's step down from her Supreme Court bench, President George W. Bush has the opportunity to nominate a replacement. And again, I cannot emphasise this enought, there are many who feel that the only logical choice for the President is to name a "centrist". I firmly disagree. The President has the right to nominate anyone that aligns with his political philosophy. Our last President, Bill Clinton, had no problem appointing judges attuned to his liberal philosophy (Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer).

Our Senate has a Constitutional responsibility in this process too. They are responsible to thoroughly examin the nominees to ensure they are **qualified**. Each nominee should be given the respect of a "yes" or "No" confirmation vote. There has not been a "postponement" of vote since Fillmore's nominee George E. Badger and there have only been 12 nominations rejected (i.e. through a formal vote) in U.S. history. Some nominations have been pulled by either the President or the nominee him/herself and these withdrawls are technically considered "No" votes and this is where some people get the "20" number for the total number of "non-confirmations". But if you look throughout the complete history 20 "no's" is a drop in the bucket.

The President did not win a landslide but he won a majority and that means he has a responsibility to the majority to follow through on the promises of his campaign to nominatee individuals like Thomas and Scalia. If the Democrats attempt to use the filibuster I hope the Republicans keep their backbone and use the Constitutional Option.