The Specter Standard For Supreme Court Nomination Hearings
By on Jul 3rd, 2005 at 11:41 am
The Specter Standard For Supreme Court Nomination Hearings
Here’s what Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, wrote in his 2000 book, Passion for Truth:
[T]he Senate should resist, if not refuse to confirm Supreme Court nominees who refuse to answer questions on fundamental issues. In voting on whether or not to confirm a nominee, senators should not have to gamble or guess about a candidate’s philosophy, but should be able to judge on the basis of the candidate’s expressed views.
In short, Supreme Court nomination hearings are about more than a nominee’s character — the nominee must also answer specific questions about his or her views on legal issues. Let’s make sure Specter sticks by that when hearings start for the person Bush nominates to replace O’Connor.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Hannity
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
If specter sticks by that one, they’ll get rid of him…
July 3rd, 2005 at 11:56 amI hope so peter
July 3rd, 2005 at 4:44 pmI’ll bet that if you ask Spectre to comment on that quote now,he’d deny that he’d ever said it or deny that it ahould be used now since he’s about to be the point man for the White House resident’s first and I doubt sadly,last SCOTUS pick.Someone should email that quote to every US Senator and media outlet available.n
July 3rd, 2005 at 4:46 pmWhat is your hope Cameron, that he is gotten rid of or that he sticks by his previous statements? Show us how fair and balanced you can be, rather than snide hatefulness.
July 3rd, 2005 at 5:03 pmWe may decide to skip your dog and poney show all together:
In contrast to the recent idea that a nominee’s appearance and answers before the Senate are an essential part of the confirmation process, Senator Biden noted that the practice of inviting Supreme Court nominees to appear before the Senate is relatively novel. Senator Biden said: [I]t is useful to recall that testimony before the Judicial Committee by Supreme Court nominees is a new phenomenon. Appearance before the committee became a standard part of the confirmation process only in the year 1955, with John Marshall Harlan. No Supreme Court nominee testified personally until 1925, when Attorney General Harlan Fisk Stone responded to allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in the investigation of a Senator. The next five nominees did not testify at all, and it was not until 1938 that Stanley Reed appeared. The next year, Felix Frankfurter testified, but William O. Douglas waited outside the committee hearing room without ever being called in as a witness. And in 1949, Sherman Minton was called to testify at the hearing on his nomination to the Court. He refused to appear on the grounds that his record as a Senator and as appellate judge spoke for itself. He refused to come. He was called before the committee in 1949. He refused to come and he was confirmed by the Senate.
Senator Biden also commented on the extent to which Supreme Court nominees should answer questions about their potential future rulings. Senator Biden said “the public is best served by questions that initiate a dialog with the nominee, not about how she will decide any specific case that may come before her, but about the spirit and the method she will bring to the task of judging. There is a real difference … between questions that focus on specific results or outcomes, the answers to which would risk compromising a nominee’s independence and impartiality, and questions on judicial methods and philosophy. The former can undermine the dispassionate and unprejudiced judgment we expect the nominee to exercise as a Justice. But the latter are essential and contribute critically to our public dialog.� Senator Biden’s comments should be helpful to current senators and nominees as they reflect the considered judgment of a Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and explain the standards he used for conducting hearings on a Democratic nomination.
Think Biden will stand by his words? This is going to be soooo much fun.
July 3rd, 2005 at 5:25 pmSo Fake, what’s the contrast you’re drawing between “senators should not have to gamble or guess about a candidate’s philosophy, but should be able to judge on the basis of the candidate’s expressed views” and “the public is best served by questions that initiate a dialog with the nominee, not about how she will decide any specific case that may come before her, but about the spirit and the method she will bring to the task of judging … [such] questions on judicial methods and philosophy … are essential and contribute critically to our public dialog”? Are you saying his background information on the process was actually a call to do away with what he called “essential”?
July 3rd, 2005 at 7:30 pmtigrismus, Biden was saying the process is relatively new, and nominees have refused to appear and still been confirmed, and this is true. So it would not be unprecedented for a nominee to bypass this spectacle all together. As to Bidens opinions on the how essential the process is, I, unlike the liberals on this board who now have taken Sen. Hatch’s words to be the gospel, really don’t care about Biden or Hatch’s opinion. The President gets to appoint justices, and historically if there was a problem with an appointee, it involved past wrongdoing of some kind, not questions of philosophy. This all boils down to one thing, liberals are afraid of the constitution, you know that any literal reading of the constitution would overturn many of your judicial bypasses used to push through your warped philosophies that are rejected by the voters and not enshrined in the constitution. I attempted to contrast nothing, I suggest you read that post again.
July 3rd, 2005 at 8:13 pmI was however poking a sharp stick at those who bring up Hatch’s writings on the subject, who now will get to watch both Biden and Hatch show themselves to be hypocrites. Who wants to bet they only comment on Hatch? I’m a Republican out of necessity, because they are fighting my enemies, and I disagree with them about fewer issues, not out of blind obedience. If the Democrats would grow a pair I might vote for them again one day, but they also would have to flush out the vermin in their camp, and at this point, that would leave an almost empty camp.
Specter, Hatch, whatever, at least you guys are reading books by conservatives. Amazon thanks you I’m sure : )
July 3rd, 2005 at 8:25 pmBiden said the information gained during confirmation hearings is essential, so it’s not hypocritical for him to want it to continue holding confirmation hearings-he hasn’t changed his tune, the cases aren’t parallel. The rest is strawman and ad hominem, so I’ll pass.
July 3rd, 2005 at 8:33 pmC’mon fake, you just want to be a dick. We’ll see how this unfolds in time. Get off the high horse without the usual “but the Dems and the liberals were mean to me first, Mom” crap.
July 3rd, 2005 at 8:39 pmThink Progress needs better right wing trolls. These clowns are illiterate. I heard Toby Petzold is available, having been fired from his previous position.
July 4th, 2005 at 12:44 amSnide hatefullness? Oh please Skid you moonbats and your over heated rehtoric, it is what causes sane folk to throw up their hands and go running in the other direction you know. Specter’s betrayel of Bork has not been forgoten Skid, elephants have long memories you know.
July 4th, 2005 at 12:55 amYesterday I couldn’t spell “rhetorician” but today I are one.
July 4th, 2005 at 9:27 amThe idea of the congress screening Justices has gone through a lot of changes. I don’t think trying to figure out some orignal intent will help us here. Maybe we should ask what would be relevant in this case. And let’s try to ask this out side the shortsighted partisan questions of current events. Asking about judicial philosophy seems more apt. Though judical philosophies have themselves, become, or maybe always have been partisan. What liberal, myself being one, will have to accept is that Bush gets to appoint someone. That someone will be more conservative than O’Connar, and that is the way democracy works. The fight should center on not getting someone like Gonzalez in there. Have a right of center canidate should be exceptable. We’ll have our turn.
July 4th, 2005 at 11:11 amI wouldn’t hire an applicant for a job without interviewing the applicant first.
What the right is saying, “just hire whomever, don’t worry if they are qualified for the job”.
Thats the exact attitude and lack of responsibility that has destroyed America.
Hey wingers, I would like the job of the Presidency, Here’s my application now start paying me and send a limo to take me to the White House.
July 4th, 2005 at 5:51 pmWow, that was easy. I’m President no questions aked.
Thanks righty tighties, your so easy.
It’s “Arlen Spector” not “Specter”. Although everyone makes this mistake.
July 4th, 2005 at 6:04 pmI don’t think trying to figure out some orignal intent will help us here.
To a man, every one of the founders would laugh at our notions of “original intent”.
“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
Thomas Jefferson
There is good reason to suggest that, to a man, they would invoke the same extreme measures with respect to this self-styled boy King they did with his more mature, regal and equally mad namesake some 229 years.
July 4th, 2005 at 6:15 pm[...] In his 2000 book, ironically titled Passion for Truth, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, wrote that: “[T]he Senate should resist, if not refuse to confirm Supreme Court nominees who refuse to answer questions on fundamental issues. In voting on whether or not to confirm a nominee, senators should not have to gamble or guess about a candidate’s philosophy, but should be able to judge on the basis of the candidate’s expressed views.” Of course, this book came from the same person who created the Magic Bullet Theory regarding the assassination of JFK, called Anita Hill a “flat-out” perjurer, and failed to truly investigate the Iran Contra affair. [...]
July 5th, 2005 at 10:45 am[...] (via ThinkProgress.org)Here’s what Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, wrote in his 2000 book, Passion for Truth: [T]he Senate should resist, if not refuse to confirm Supreme Court nominees who refuse to answer questions on fundamental issues. In voting on whether or not to confirm a nominee, senators should not have to gamble or guess about a candidate’s philosophy, but should be able to judge on the basis of the candidate’s expressed views. [...]
July 6th, 2005 at 11:43 amThe Constitutionally Politicized Confirmation Pro
Remember these points next time someone tries to tell you that all that matters is whether a nominee is resume-”qualified”.
July 6th, 2005 at 4:37 pmSpecter will stick by the republican party – he owes his lifeblood (literally) to them.
Plus if there is any hint of ideological shananighans by Specter, you can bet you ass, his head will be on a platter quicker than you can say Chief Justice Carl Rove
July 13th, 2005 at 12:05 pmSpecter owes his life blood to his constituents in Pennsylvania. Many of these constituents, Democrat & Republican, have supported him for decades. I believe you will find that he is not a conservative as you would like to believe. Nor do I believe Specter will compromise the standing he has with his constituency & the nation as a whole!!!=:)
“Jack”=:)
July 16th, 2005 at 4:48 pm[...] [...]
July 18th, 2005 at 2:07 pmexposed thongs
You can also check out some helpful info about naked young girls tiny teen ebony girls
November 6th, 2005 at 11:54 pmARLEN SPECTER IS A TRAITOR
May 29th, 2006 at 4:09 pmArlen Specter is not to be trusted and goes to the side that is most beneficial to him. He is an unprincipled traitor to this country and wants to hand over our immigration and border policies to Mexico. The entire senate is made up of traitorous scum, and we need to wrest control from these fat cats by voting in strong 3rd party candidates who actually represent us. That’s the way to make real change.