Which of the current Supreme Court Justices would have voted to confirm?

[nclib]

I'd have confirmed all except Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas.

[Emsworth]

I would confirm all of them, with the exceptions of John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

[A18]

Rehnquist is dead. You might as well have just said Roberts, since he's all but chief justice.

[Frodo]

Everyone but Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. 

[nclib]

Rehnquist is dead.

I know. I included him just because he was the last person to hold that seat.

[A18]

What's funny is that Ted Kennedy voted to confirm Scalia.

[nclib]

Wasn't Scalia confirmed by 96-4 or something like that?

[Ebowed]

Wasn't Scalia confirmed by 96-4 or something like that?

98-2, I believe.

[A18]

Nope; 98-0. One of the two missing was Barry Goldwater, and I forget the other guy.

[Schmitz in 1972]

Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist. All others no

[Democratic Hawk]

Probably all of them bar Scalia and Thomas

Dave

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Not Ginsberg, not Thomas. Not sure about the others... but probably

[DanielX]

Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia, maybe Kennedy or O'Connor.

[J. J.]

All.  I would have to have a very solid reason to second guess a President's judgment on a court appointment.  A nominee that said, "The Court should always protect the 'little guy' over the 'big guy,' no matter what the Constitution says," would probably not get my vote.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

All except Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas unless I was  psychic and would know about Bush v. Gore in which case I would not vote for O'Connor or Kennedy either.

[nini2287]

All except Thomas.

[A18]

What is everyone's problem with Thomas? He's easily the best justice on that court.

[nini2287]

What is everyone's problem with Thomas? He's easily the best justice on that court.

He's an ideologue and Scalia's hand puppet.  Scalia is by far a better justice.

[A18]

Your second-hand opinions aren't very impressive.

[nini2287]

Your second-hand opinions aren't very impressive.

The lack of defense in your posts isn't very impressive

[WalterMitty]

What is everyone's problem with Thomas? He's easily the best justice on that court.

i agree.

i would have voted to confirm all.  they are all qualified.  the only one that is really horrible is ginsburg.

[Emsworth]

On the whole, Thomas' opinions are generally more correct (from my point of view, at least) than any other Justice's. The most important exceptions are establishment clause cases (he feels that the clause does not apply to the states) and cases involving the powers of the President to detain "enemy combatants" (he gives carte blanche to the executive).

Scalia is, I think, wrong on a lot of cases, especially a few commerce clause cases. However, he seems to be much more intelligent than Thomas, whose opinions come across as shallow, and not particularly bright (although more often than not, technically correct).

[Ben.]

How would I have voted for those SC nominees, hmm...

I would argue that the decision to vote to confirm a supreme court nominee or not is not down simply to your liking or disliking of a candidate’s particular ideological leanings, what is more I think that by and large you need a good reason to second guess the president of the united states, but finally it also must be born in mind that it is the purpose of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution not the legislate from the bench through precedent.

So in short, while a candidate’s ideology is unimportant, should there be even a slight suggestion that their ideology where to interfere with their ability to fairly and clearly interpret the constitution then they should be denied confirmation… at least that would be the basis I would like to approach such a decision on, where I given the chance.


John Paul Stevens :: Vote to Confirm

While he’s become a little more erratic these days, I disagree with him on a number of issues, however that simply isn’t the point when it comes to SC nominees, he’s fair in his interpretation of the constitution and from the evidence available back in 75, at the time of his hearing I’d vote to confirm.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg :: Vote Not to Confirm

She has espoused positions which I have found deeply objectionable, and this has been reflected in her time on the supreme court. Her past activities would suggest to me that while she may have a keen and incisive legal mind, the unvarnished interpretation of the constitution would take a back seat to her own personal philosophical out look, her failure to ansewaer questions relating to her philosophical approach simply leave more reason for concern, and that’s why I would vote not to confirm.   

David Souter :: Vote to Confirm

A very clever but rather dull addition to the Supreme Court if you ask me, but the latter really doesn’t matter, there was no suggestion prior to his confirmation that he would ever fail, through ideological dalliances, to independently and faithfully interpret the constitution and this has largely been born out since his confirmation, though he has veered leftwards since his initial entry onto the court, as a result I can’t see any reason why he shouldn’t be confirmed. 

Stephen Breyer :: Vote Not to Confirm

Has show a pragmatic and noncommittal attitude towards the constitution, often arguing that the court take into account international law for example, that IMHO undermines the entire purpose of the court to interpret the constitution. While he is not an ideological radical, his relativist attitude towards the United States, while academically valid, is not to my mind compatible with the role of a justice of the supreme court so I would vote against him.

 Anthony Kennedy :: Vote to Confirm

An impressive personal history, as would be expected in a nominee to the nations highest court, and on top of this Kennedy brought a keen legal mind, however at times he has shown an all too relativist approach to the constitution, which is troubling to my mind, but it is not generally the case nor would it seem to have interfered with his own rulings and opinions from the bench. So while I’d have some reservations I would vote to confirm him.

 Sandra Day O'Connor :: Vote to Confirm

A Federalist with a clear case by case approach that had, and has since lead to a refreshing and fair independent approach to cases before the court which have also helped to prevent and discourage “legislation by precedent”, this in combination with her obvious intelligence and civility must make her one of the most unobjectionable candidate that could ever be put up for the supreme court. 

William Rehnquist :: Vote Not to Confirm

Much in Rehnquist’s past would give anyone pause for thought, but while his defence and open support for segregationist laws was distasteful to say the least, it can’t be said to somehow disbar him from consideration for confirmation to the supreme cour by itself. His positions were frequently well framed within the precedents of the constitution, however, like candidate Ginsburg, while the keenness of his legal mind is not in doubt I cannot be sure that his personal beliefs do not come before his interpretation of the constitution and as a result I would vote to reject him as a candidate for the Supreme Court.

 Antonin Scalia :: Vote to Confirm

A very articulate and clever presence on the Supreme Court, when he was up for confirmation he was already a scholarly advocate for the originalist school of constitutional thought. Such an advocate for the definitive nature of the constitution, which a keen mind and impressive record to boot is to my mind ideally suited to sit on the Supreme Court and so I would enthusiastically vote to confirm.   

 Clarence Thomas :: Vote to Confirm

Thomas, can at times appear a tad ‘cookie’ but that is more an issue of presentation than suggestive of anything deeper or more troublesome, indeed it’s a common trait amongst those with the kind of very academic disposition that Thomas certainly has. The false allegations, circulated at the time of his confirmation where hateful and baseless and as a result shouldn’t be weighed at all when considering his fitness to sit on the bench. He has, like Justice Scalia, a firmly originalist approach to the constitution and that suggests a maturity of perception that makes him well qualified to distinguish between that which is constitutional and that which is his personal philosophical view, separate from the constitution.       


…phew, that was fun

[Ben.]

What is everyone's problem with Thomas? He's easily the best justice on that court.

i agree.

i would have voted to confirm all.  they are all qualified.  the only one that is really horrible is ginsburg.

Its true, this perception of Thomas as an extremist is largely unfounded IMHO, I can’t help thinking that its partly to do with the fact that the attempt to smear him as some kind of misogynistic, latter day ‘uncle tom’ totally backfired during his confirmation… and some simply don’t want to face up to that failure.

In the end its often the originalist who come up with the least ideological responses to cases which come before the court…   

[AuH2O]

Breyer is an idiot but I would have voted to confirm him in deference to the President. Ginsburg I would vote against... she's plenty smart but is way, way out there. I'd have listened to her but at most I'd vote present. Stevens was confirmed so long ago that I know very little about how he was viewed at the time, but probably I would have voted to confirm.

So Ginsburg would be my only 'no' vote, if even her.

Thomas is indeed a superb justice, by the way. He's very active during deliberations and applies the law very accurately and consistently. Scalia is probably a tad overrated but he's still the 2nd best justice without question.