Democrats in their own words: hypothetical decisions “risk compromising a nominee’s independence and impartiality”
With President Bush’s nomination of Judge John G. Roberts the Left might look to the example of the confirmation process of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. While Ginsburg had worked for the ultra-liberal ACLU, Senate Republicans acknowldged it was the President who had the electoral mandate. No litmus tests were applied to Justice Ginsburg’s nomination, and Republicans treated the process with dignity and respect.
Senators would do well to remember Senator Joseph Biden’s (D-DE) comments on appropriate questions for the nominee during the Ginsburg confirmation hearings: “The public is best served by questions that initiate a dialogue with the nominee, not about how she will decide 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 dialogue.”
Narrow-minded special interest groups on the Left have swung into full action to begin a smear campaign against John Roberts. Before Roberts was even announced, the Left’s propaganda machine was throwing mud at whomever President Bush was planning to nominate.
Democratic senators would do well to dismiss the rhetoric of the far left and fulfill their constitutional responsibilities by examining Roberts’ qualifications, not by asking him to gaze into a crystal ball and render decisions on future cases.