By: rlw895

rlw895 — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 05:58:48 +0000

Generally a president’s nominees SHOULD be confirmed unless something new is discovered about fitness to serve. I held the same view during the Robert Bork hearings as Supreme Court justice back during the Reagan administration, which is where this tit for tat silliness started. It’s made it harder on presidents and nominees alike from both parties. Now, Bork WAS a poor choice to replace moderate Louis Powell, but the country elected Ronald Reagan president, and I felt he should get his choice. Bork didn’t do himself many favors during the hearings—BIG ego. In the end, the Democratic Senate rejected the Bork nomination and Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy instead, who won confirmation and still serves. I’m not sure I’m right though. The next big SCOTUS nomination battle was over Clarence Thomas. I again sided with the president, George H. W. Bush. Thomas got through, but I now wish he hadn’t. So maybe the Senate was right about Bork too. But I can’t see how Hagel is a similarly bad nominee, and I REALLY object to the Republican minority blocking any nomination by Obama without a major revelation.

Comments on: Hagel should be confirmed

By: rlw895