General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I'm told "If you ever want a balanced SCOTUS, set your values aside and shut up and vote for HRC." [View all]Gothmog
(145,264 posts)Elections have consequences and one of the consequences is that the POTUS gets to control to a large degree the make up of the SCOTUS. The senate can block a nominee but there are political realities and the blocking of a SCOTUS is and should be a rare occassion. In most cases, the POTUS will get his nominee confirmed unless there is a major problem. If your view of the confirmation process was adopted, then no one could get a SCOTUS nominee confirmed. If Scalia had been blocked following the blocking of Bork, then neither Ginsburg nor Breyer would have been confirmed. The Senate Republicans would have been free to block all nominees of any Democratic POTUS. I am glad that Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer and Ginsburg are on the court.
Heck, now I wish that Bush had Harriet Meyers confirmed. She was the managing partner of a major dallas firm and would have been far more reasonable compared to either Thomas or Alito (Harriet was blocked mainly by the republicans). I am friends with partners at that firm and they told me that she would have been a good justice.
As a practical matter, all most of us can do to influence the direction of the SCOTUS is vote for the Democratic nominee. It is not reasonable to expect that the Senate will block all nominees of a republican POTUS and that we can prevent future Roberts, Scalias or Alitos from taking the place of Ginsburg, Breyer and Kennedy.