From: jfr@RedBrick.COM ()
Subject: Re: Thank you, Anita Hill
Organization: Red Brick Systems, Los Gatos, CA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:01:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.195914.16043@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>In article <adams.720978844@spssig>, 
>adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) said:
>
>> > Let's hope that 4 years of Clinton will help undo the damage to
>> > the credibility of the U.S. Supreme Court inflicted by 12 years of
>> > cynical selections of unqualified candidates.
>> > [bhjelle@carina.unm.edu]
>>
>> Robert Bork was the most qualified man in America to serve on the
>> court.  It was cynical rejection of a highly qualified candidate for
>> political purposes by the DEMOCRATS that kept him off the court.
>
>Come on.  Qualified or not, Bork was nominated by President Reagan (a
>REPUBLICAN) for political purposes too.  One of the more ridiculous
>things about the Bork affair was the carping by some Republicans about
>how the Democrats were (gasp!) politicizing the process... let's face
>it: when the Constitution calls for somebody to be nominated by a
>politically elected officer and then approved or rejected by a body of
>more politically elected officers, you're going to wind up with a
>political process, folks.  That's the way it's supposed to be.
     
  Right on.  There are two areas where people constantly bring up this
  so-called "politicizing" of the process.  One is in the area of
  appointments, when whoever's ox is being gored decides to charge
  the other with "politicizing" the process.  I.e., the Republicans
  charged the Democrats with politicizing the process of Supreme
  Court appointments when Clarence Thomas was put through a rough set 
  of hearings.  And the Democrats charged the Bush administration with
  politicizing the process when Bush made abortion a so-called litmus
  test for appointees.  You can point to many cases of this accusation
  thrown back and forth.  As you so succinctly point out, it is BY
  DEFINITION a political process.  The President can appointly pretty
  much anyone he damn well pleases and the Senate can pretty much
  reject or accept anyone they damn well please, and I see nothing
  anywhere in law or constitution that says either side has to give
  any reasons to anyone for doing so.  THEY MAY WANT TO IN ORDER TO
  MAKE SURE THEIR CONSTITUENCIES ARE HAPPY, but hell, that's political,
  right?  

  The other situation where this issue comes up is in the area of
  impeachment.  Again, there is NOTHING ANYWHERE that restricts the
  Congress from bringing a bill of impeachment against anyone they
  choose as long as they allege "other high crimes and misdemeanors"
  in the bill.  And there is no Court of Appeal if the Senate 
  convicts, even if for the most mean-spirited of reasons.  I don't
  know if this has ever happened, but I would doubt the Supreme
  Court would intervene in an impeachment case, that being one
  of the separation of powers issues that they generally stay out
  of.  So if Congress chose to impeach Clinton (highly unlikely,
  but for the sake of argument) simply because they didn't like
  him, I think they could and the Senate could convict him and
  toss him out of office.  This doesn't happen precisely because
  the Congress understands the system we all live under is indeed
  a political system and they must be sensitive to society's views
  about what they do.  That is the beauty of our system, that it
  is indeed political and that is probably the best thing.  While
  there are small problems with it, it is still the best system
  in the world, as was proven 12 years ago when we survived the
  transition from Carter to Reagan, and as will be proven again
  next January when we survive the transition from Bush to Clinton.

  Jon Rosen