Monday, July 11, 2005

Centrist Coalition Speaks Out on Court Nomination

The Supreme Court vacancy has sent partisan groups on both sides into action. The predominant message has been "we're going to fight and fight hard." Today, a different group has entered the debate. The Centrist Coalition, America's fastest-growing non-partisan group supporting Centrist leadership and policies, has released a statement in direct opposition to the "take no prisoners" attitude of so many groups on the left and right.

The statement says, in part:

We at the Centrist Coalition do not believe America needs or wants a "battle" over the Supreme Court. A debate, yes — but not a battle. We could not agree more with a statement President Bush made last week in Denmark: "I hope the United States Senate conducts themselves in a way that brings dignity to the process and that the senators don't listen to the special interest groups, particularly those on the extremes that are trying to exploit this opportunity for not only ... what they may think is right but also for their own fundraising capabilities."

The same, of course, goes for the President. Just as senators should concern themselves with the good of the nation and the representation of their constituents, so should President Bush take into account the long-term consequences of the choice he makes — not any short-term political gains or losses that might result.

The filling of a position on the Supreme Court is a very serious matter and should be politicized as little as possible. I agree with the Centrist Coalition's call for decorum and honest assessment over partisan pandering.


At 10:39 AM, Blogger Heiuan said...

Absolutely! That's one of the reasons that I oppose ANY kind of extremism in the judiciary selection.

Politicians have to face re-election every few years. They are immediately accountable to their constituents.

Our federal judiciary, on the other hand, are appointed to their position and are there for as long as they want to be. Barring impeachment for gross negligence, etc, of course.

We get ONE shot at figuring out if the nominee is capable of judicial neutrality. IMO, professional neutrality is what these nominees should be vetted for, not their personal beliefs.

A person can hold very strong personal beliefs and still rule according to the law of the land; even if the law is diametrically opposite of those personal beliefs. I believe that the President should be actively looking for jurists who meet this kind of criteria.

Did that make sense to you?


Post a Comment

<< Home