WaxWorks
|
Thursday, February 13, 2003
I've maintained for a long time that the whole politization of judicial confirmations did not begin, as Republicans claim, with the Robert Bork nomination, but rather with the Abe Fortas nomination for Chief Justice in 1968. Now that Estrada is the other judicial nominee to be filibusted after Fortas, it's worth noting some similarities in these cases. Thanks to the WyethWire for revealing this tidbit from when Strom Thurmond was questioning Fortas during his confirmation hearing in 1968:
When the subject changed to the record of the Warren Court, Thurmond grilled him for two hours with all the subtlety of an attack dog. He focused on criminal cases and voting rights.
Thurmond repeatedly asked (some fifty times) - and Fortas repeatedly declined to answer - questions about specific cases. Each time, Thurmond concluded, "And you refuse to answer that?"
And Fortas answered each time, "Yes."
An irritated Thurmond said he could not understand, nor would the people, why Fortas could write and lecture about legal issues, but couldn't answer his questions."
Ol' Strom, by Jack Bass pp 212-213
So, writes Wyeth, "Thurmond and others filibustered Fortas, in part because of the nominee's refusal to answer questions about ideology and judicial decisions."
Hmm. Seems, as law-talking people like Estrada would say, like we've got a precedent here.
Comments:
Post a Comment
