US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6552

Given the unusual rancor that prevailed in the Thomas nomination, the need for some serious reevaluation of the nomination and confirmation process and the overall level of bitterness that sadly infects our political system and this Presidential campaign already, it is my view that the prospects for anything but conflagration with respect to a Supreme Court nomination this year are remote at best.

Of Presidents Reagan's and Bush's last seven selections of the Court, two were not confirmed and two more were approved with the most votes cast against them in the history of the United States of America.

We have seen how, Mr. President, in my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a Justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.

Should a Justice resign this summer and the President move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the President, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

Mr. President, where the Nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not--and not--name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

The Senate, too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.

I sadly predict, Mr. President, that this is going to be one of the bitterest, dirtiest, Presidential campaigns we will have seen in modern times.

I am sure, Mr. President, after having uttered these words some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save the seat on the Court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course to choose in the Senate to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me, Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution.

Others may fret that this approach would leave the Court with only eight members for some time, but as I see it, Mr. President, the cost of such a result, the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the Justices four to four are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the President, the Senate, and the Nation wouldhave to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President, if that nomination were to take place in the next several weeks.
In the end, this may be the only course of action that historical practice and practical realism can sustain.

Similarly, if Governor Clinton should win this fall, then my views on the need for philosophic compromise between the branches would not be softened, but rather the prospects for such compromise would be naturally enhanced. With this in mind, let me start with the nomination process and how that process might be changed in the next administration, whether it is a Democrat or a Republican.

It seems clear to me that within the Bush administration, the process of selecting Supreme Court nominees has become dominated by the right intent on using the Court to implement an ultraconservative social agenda that the Congress and the public have rejected. In this way, all the participants in the process can be clear well in advance of how I intend to approach any future nominations.

Walter Schaub Jr., the director of Office of Government Ethics (OGE) is currently speaking at the Brookings Institution following the press conference held earlier today by President-elect Donald Trump in which he announced his conflict-of-interest plan. Schaub is not buying it.

In a series of tweets, Eric Lipton of The New York Times details Schaub’s take on Trump’s current plan

Although several experts have noted that Trump’s business interests may create substantial conflict-of-interest issues for the President-elect and violate Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, Trump’s legal team has stated that he is going to voluntarily donate all profits from foreign government payments made to his hotels to the United States Treasury and thus put to bed any concerns over this issue.

As Schaub noted, liquidating some of his assets may not be too high a price in order to constitutionally accept his position as President.

Schuab, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, is serving a five-year term which expires in 2018. The Office of Government Ethics is an agency tasked with directing policies on how to prevent conflicts of interest in the executive branch.