The Debate Over the Next Supreme Court NomineeMike Rappaport

President Obama's statements on the kind of Supreme Court Justice he prefers strongly suggest that he wants someone who follows his own set of values rather than what is in the Constitution.  No, the quotes I have seen do not come right out and say that one should ignore the law, but constitutional scholars would, I think, uniformly understand them to involve a departure from the original meaning or even the settled law in favor of a politically liberal conception of justice.

This is a great opportunity for the Republicans to put the Democrats on the defensive.  They should both pin down Obama and his nominee on these questions.  Most people believe that judges should be bound by the law and should not pursue their own conception of values and justice.  Forcing the nominee either to admit that they depart from most people's view -- or more likely, to claim that they are following the law, even when they are making stuff up -- would be helpful.  

Senators should ask the nominee about Chief Justice Roberts's umpire analogy.  Does the nominee want a biased umpire?  If they reject the analogy, the Senator should force them to explain why.

Of course, one must admit that both sides in the judicial debate have their talking points.  There are politically powerful questions that can be asked of both sides.  But that is no excuse for not making the best of the situation and putting the nominee on the spot.

Comments

[Floridan]

The Republicans are unlikely put the nominee or the Democrats on the defensive.

Here's how I think it will go down: Obama nominates Sotomayer. Some Republicans, even knowing that she is going to be confirmed, make some grandstand plays and make insulting comments.

Republican base applauds futile gestures, with terms like "speaking truth to power."

Clips of Republicans grilling Sotomayer get played in heavily Hispanic districts during future elections. Democrats increase their percentage of the Hispanic vote.

Republicans wonder what went wrong.

[dearieme]

Wouldn't it also be wise to move the Supreme Court out of Washington? I can see why you want the Legislature and Executive in the same town, but surely the Judicial branch ought to be as independent as possible. Move it to Detroit.