Other Columns by Mike Bayham
Mike Bayham Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

Though I am a conservative Republican, had I been a member of the US Senate back in the early nineties, I would have voted to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer to the US Supreme Court.

My logic is as follows: in the job of a United States Senator in "consenting" to the president's appointment to the country's highest court, the legislator need not agree with the nominee's philosophy, but simply pass judgment on their good character, ability, and academic and legal credentials.

US Senators should not engage in applying an ideological litmus test to nominees; that is the job of the president.

The concept of lifetime appointments is a check against the fickle electorate, thus balancing shifting political attitudes with tenured experience and stability. In a sense, the public "votes" for justices by electing a president reflective of the victorious party's philosophy and unless there are shortcomings in the previously cited criteria, US Senators should abide by the indirectly stated will of the people.

This is how it used to be, as a good example is found in Antonin Scalia's unanimous confirmation in 1987. President Clinton's two liberal jurists fared almost as well, with Ginsberg garnering an impressive 96-3 and Breyer being sent to the court by a 87-9 margin.

"US Senator Bayham" would have had some conservative company in going along with the Clinton judges as stalwart right-wingers like Strom Thurmond and Phil Gramm voted with the majority, even though the GOP held a substantial minority of 43 US Senators at that time.

It should also be noted that both Breyer and Ginsberg received quick hearings and were confirmed within three months of their nominations.

However, if I knew then what we have all seen now through the impetuous antics of Ted Kennedy and Co., I would be far less inclined to consent to Breyer. I would unequivocally vote against Ginsberg based upon her penchant for citing foreign laws and traditions when ruling in American cases, which by the way is a matter for questioning by Republican US Senators when screening all judicial nominees.

Since John Roberts was tapped by President Bush to join the court, Democratic US Senators have pitched temper tantrums, engaging in character assassination through gross hyperbolic insinuation, making Judge Roberts appear as if he wore a white robe instead of a black one.

US Senator Charles Schumer of New York was condemning Roberts as an extremist, only minutes after his nomination had been made public. And pro-abortion militants were trying to block him based upon the chance he would throw out Roe v. Wade, the supposed "law of the land" that mandated the "right" of nationwide pregnancy termination by judicial fiat.

By the way, laws are not invented by judges but are supposed to be passed by the legislative branch of government, though to hold a judiciary nominee picked by a Democrat to this standard would result in automatic filibustering and perpetual gridlock for the judiciary.

>> Continued -- Page 1 2