Michael Kinsley argues that, with both liberals and conservatives wanting to know more about where Harriet Miers stands, this is an opportune time to revoke the “Ginsburg rule” and require judicial nominees to discuss their views of specific issues, including ones that might come before the Court. I agree with Kinsley that the current level of reticence displayed by nominees goes beyond what ethical considerations reasonably require, and is an impediment to the ability of the Senate to perform its advice and consent role. However, this level of reticence won’t change (and probably shouldn’t) until Senators are once again willing to (a) cut nominees with whom they have ideological disagreements some slack and (b) eschew the filibuster even in cases of severe ideological disagreement. As long as a minority of Senators can block a nominee, and are willing to do so for purely ideological reasons, the current cat-and-mouse game will prevail.
-
-
Most Read on Power Line
Donate to PL
-
Our Favorites
- American Greatness
- American Mind
- American Story
- American Thinker
- Aspen beat
- Babylon Bee
- Belmont Club
- Churchill Project
- Claremont Institute
- Daily Torch
- Federalist
- Gatestone Institute
- Hollywood in Toto
- Hoover Institution
- Hot Air
- Hugh Hewitt
- InstaPundit
- Jewish World Review
- Law & Liberty
- Legal Insurrection
- Liberty Daily
- Lileks
- Lucianne
- Michael Ramirez Cartoons
- Michelle Malkin
- Pipeline
- RealClearPolitics
- Ricochet
- Steyn Online
- Tim Blair
Media
Subscribe to Power Line by Email
Temporarily disabled
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.