[ColoradoTree]

I think it is hypocritical to use a strict contructionist argument to force the replacement of a strict contructionist Supreme Court justice with a judicial activist.

I don't agree that a strict adherence to the Constitution precludes the Senate from blocking a nominee.  Both parties have blocked nominees per the "advice and consent" power.

The American federal constitutional republic is and has been the most successful form of government ever formed.  Unlike some of you Carboarders, I'm not ready to throw in the towel. 

I think it's important for us to be clear what we say when we mean "blocking" a nominee.  Democrats have voted down a Republican nominee in the past, sure (e.g., Robert Bork).  But I'm not away of any prior Senate saying to any prior President that his nominee will not receive a vote, no matter who he nominates.  To conflate the two as equal examples of "blocking" is to take what is truly something new, different, and worrisome and unfairly paint it with the "eh, both parties do it" brush. 

Also, I don't think anyone here has said that the Senate lacks the authority to do what they've said they'd do.  The text of the Constitution doesn't require a particular process by which the Senate gives advice and consent.  But the past 200+ years of practice suggest that Senators themselves interpret the Constitution to require them to give a President's Supreme Court nominee a fair hearing and a vote.  And yes, this decision reveals precisely how ideologically rigid parties can create cracks in our Constitutional order.  If a President nominates a potential Justice, and the Senate never acts on that nomination because of ideological differences with the President or his/her party, what follows?  What happens when a Senate simply decides to refuse confirmation to any nominee to any office because of ideological differences?  Our only remedies are electoral ones, but if rigid partisanship continues to result in divided government, why would we expect things to change? 

And while I love my country and admire the delicate balance the Constitution, as amended, attempted to strike, shouldn't we also be interested in discussing ways to improve upon what our Founders wrote down?  Just because a particular form of government was the best democratic structure in the late 18th century doesn't mean that will hold true forever, particularly as other countries try their own experiments with parliamentary models, semi-presidential systems, parliamentary-presidential republics, and others. 

It strikes me as hubris to claim that we perfected democracy in the 1780s and the issue never need arise again.  Heck, even the Founders figured we'd need a constitutional convention every so often to adjust things to better fit the times.  In every institution in which we are involved, be it a church, a workplace, or a family, don't we always try to make it better?  Isn't it our job to do that?  I think so, and I don't know why we'd treat our government differently.  I don't know what the right model for our country is, but it hardly seems unpatriotic to recognize problems and wonder, if we can't fix those problems, what will become of our democracy. 

The way I read stupac and others here is that they're (rightly) expressing concern over the path of our democracy, and (again, rightly) bemoaning that the same federal constitutional model was never intended to work with ideologically rigid parties, which our Founders saw as the greatest threat to our Constitution (Washington's farewell address is a good example of the thinking on the topic).  I don't read them as throwing in the towel, I read them as being disheartened that the current status quo is subverting our Founders' intentions and that there is no obvious solution to make our elected officials less ideological.  It disheartens me, too. 

[ColoradoTree]

I think it is hypocritical to use a strict contructionist argument to force the replacement of a strict contructionist Supreme Court justice with a judicial activist.

I don't agree that a strict adherence to the Constitution precludes the Senate from blocking a nominee.  Both parties have blocked nominees per the "advice and consent" power.

The American federal constitutional republic is and has been the most successful form of government ever formed.  Unlike some of you Carboarders, I'm not ready to throw in the towel. 

I think it's important for us to be clear what we say when we mean "blocking" a nominee.  Democrats have voted down a Republican nominee in the past, sure (e.g., Robert Bork).  But I'm not away of any prior Senate saying to any prior President that his nominee will not receive a vote, no matter who he nominates.  To conflate the two as equal examples of "blocking" is to take what is truly something new, different, and worrisome and unfairly paint it with the "eh, both parties do it" brush. 

Also, I don't think anyone here has said that the Senate lacks the authority to do what they've said they'd do.  The text of the Constitution doesn't require a particular process by which the Senate gives advice and consent.  But the past 200+ years of practice suggest that Senators themselves interpret the Constitution to require them to give a President's Supreme Court nominee a fair hearing and a vote.  And yes, this decision reveals precisely how ideologically rigid parties can create cracks in our Constitutional order.  If a President nominates a potential Justice, and the Senate never acts on that nomination because of ideological differences with the President or his/her party, what follows?  What happens when a Senate simply decides to refuse confirmation to any nominee to any office because of ideological differences?  Our only remedies are electoral ones, but if rigid partisanship continues to result in divided government, why would we expect things to change? 

And while I love my country and admire the delicate balance the Constitution, as amended, attempted to strike, shouldn't we also be interested in discussing ways to improve upon what our Founders wrote down?  Just because a particular form of government was the best democratic structure in the late 18th century doesn't mean that will hold true forever, particularly as other countries try their own experiments with parliamentary models, semi-presidential systems, parliamentary-presidential republics, and others. 

It strikes me as hubris to claim that we perfected democracy in the 1780s and the issue never need arise again.  Heck, even the Founders figured we'd need a constitutional convention every so often to adjust things to better fit the times.  In every institution in which we are involved, be it a church, a workplace, or a family, don't we always try to make it better?  Isn't it our job to do that?  I think so, and I don't know why we'd treat our government differently.  I don't know what the right model for our country is, but it hardly seems unpatriotic to recognize problems and wonder, if we can't fix those problems, what will become of our democracy. 

The way I read stupac and others here is that they're (rightly) expressing concern over the path of our democracy, and (again, rightly) bemoaning that the same federal constitutional model was never intended to work with ideologically rigid parties, which our Founders saw as the greatest threat to our Constitution (Washington's farewell address is a good example of the thinking on the topic).  I don't read them as throwing in the towel, I read them as being disheartened that the current status quo is subverting our Founders' intentions and that there is no obvious solution to make our elected officials less ideological.  It disheartens me, too.