Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA Judge Who Can't Be Vetted Shouldn't Be Confirmed
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/a-judge-who-cant-be-vetted-shouldnt-be-confirmed/569422/A Judge Who Cant Be Vetted Shouldnt Be Confirmed
If Brett Kavanaughs extensive paper trail cant be fully and publicly disclosed, the simplest solution is to nominate someone else.
Sep 5, 2018
Garrett Epps
Professor of constitutional law at the University of Baltimore
snip//
There is simply no legitimate reason why hearings for a nominee must be expedited to such a pace that the members of the committee are denied access to the nominees recordand have no time to examine even the fraction of papers they are given. There is also no legitimate reason why executive and private officials should be allowed to withhold relevant documents from a Senate committee exercising its constitutional responsibility, or that documents like those Leahy cited should be made available to the committee but withheld from the public.
snip//
If an applicant for a powerful lifetime position cannot provide the needed documents to vet him, the answer is not to drop the vetting; it is to nominate another person, who can provide what reasonable process demands. Vetting is a constitutional requirement, not an obstacle to be dodged. If the peoples representatives cant vet Kavanaugh, then the president should bring them a nominee they can vet.
The reasons stem primarily from the president and Congresss responsibility to the nation. An incompletely vetted nominee may pose a security threat to the nation. (Remember Sally Yates notifying the White House that thenNational-Security Adviser Michael Flynn was at risk for blackmail?) An incompletely vetted nominee may in fact have disqualifying facts in the concealed record. (Remember Senator Hugo Black, who was confirmed in haste and then found to have been a member of the Ku Klux Klan as a young man?) But even if the nominee has no concealed blot on his or her record, a rushed vetting process will forever leave suspicions in the minds of the public, especially those who lack confidence in the president who has made the appointment.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 769 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (25)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A Judge Who Can't Be Vetted Shouldn't Be Confirmed (Original Post)
babylonsister
Sep 2018
OP
AndJusticeForSome
(537 posts)1. That those words need to even be printed is scary enough
Sign of the times, for sure.
Jane Austin
(9,199 posts)2. Amen!
And anything he does answer is with weasel words.
kentuck
(111,052 posts)3. Nobody knows how this Trump/Russia thing is going to turn out?
The Republicans "dissed" the Democrats with their sudden desire to get another judge on the Supreme Court, after already putting Gorsuch on the bench.
Obviously, McConnell has never heard of Karma. I'm hoping the Democrats take back the House and the Senate. It would only be fair.