From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:30:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.012950.29966@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.001854.21773@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:

>>...Bork has a long history of studying constitutional law.
>>He has, however, gained a set of opinions about the matter that are
>>significantly at variance with many (but not all) other constitutional
>>scholars. Since nobody has anything but opinions about the Constitution...

>That's a very debatable point, but in any case...

Which is debatable, that Bork's opinions are very different from most
other peoples, or that nobody has anything but opinions?

>>...it seems perfectly reasonable that he should be judged
>>by some people to have sufficiently inappropriate ones for the job.

>I don't see how holding unpopular opinions should disqualify a
>Supreme Court Justice. Hugh Black, for example, held many unpopular
>views on constitutional interpertation, but he is considered to be
>one of the "great" Justices of this century.

Um, so?  He didn't say holding unpopular opinions *must* disqualify
someone.  But they certainly can.  Why are Justices chosen by elected
leaders if these elected leaders aren't supposed to use their own
judgement?

>>Would you insist that any person with a Bork's background in
>>constitutional law be eligible for the Court, and that the Senate
>>should pay no attention to their opinions ?

>Actually, I would: My opinion of the "advice and consent" is that
>the Senate should accept anyone technically qualified and able to
>do the job (e.g. exactly what it means when in the case of appointed
>executive officials like the Secretary of Interior. In these cases,
>the Senate doesn't subject appointees to political litmus tests.)

They don't, but they could if they wanted to.  They *sometimes* do.  But
there's a *MAJOR* difference.  Executive officials don't make policy in
theory; of course they have a lot of power in practice, but even then,
they're following the *president's* wishes.  It's a courtesy to the
president, among other things.

On the other hand, Supreme Court Justices are appointed *for life.*  And
they are *not* answerable to the president.

You seem to be ignoring the "advice" half of the role.  There isn't
evidence that the founding fathers wanted to make the Senate a rubber-stamp.
You seem to think the founding fathers wanted the president to be supreme
in choosing Justices.  Why?

Now if the president were limited to picking the guy who was most
qualified, your position would make sense.  But the way you're doing it,
the president picks the guy based on political views, but the Senate has
no say on those views.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory