MICHAEL GERHARDT

Most legislative bodies have rules about when and under what conditions a vote is taken. Amendments, procedures, committees all have procedures where votes may be taken that could defeat a nomination or a proposed law but if those defeats fail, there still is not necessarily a law passed or a nomination confirmed. That has to be a separate vote, often called an “up or down vote.” One parliamentary mechanism for opposing a bill or a nomination is to keep voting on amendments and procedures and never have an up or down vote. This is actually true with the vast majority of the laws proposed in both houses of the Congress. Most never do have an up or down vote. Why Gerhatdt and other ask should judicial nominations be different from any law, or any other presidential nomination? Also see {588517} for another factor.

From time to time, the assessment of a prospective Supreme Court justice has depended on an attempt to move the court in a particular direction or to prevent that. This is as opposed to the issue of the competence of the nominee. In most cases, such nominees may not have been the best qualified but they have been extremely competent. In a few cases, such as that of Justice Clarence Thomas, the justice was mediocre and inexperienced at best, but his virtues were his race and his total ideological consistency. Most attorneys can predict his vote in advance. He has never asked a question in oral arguments. See {623452} .

Most legislative bodies have rules about when and under what conditions a vote is taken. Amendments, procedures, committees all have procedures where votes may be taken that could defeat a nomination or a proposed law but if those defeats fail, there still is not necessarily a law passed or a nomination confirmed. That has to be a separate vote, often called an “up or down vote.” One parliamentary mechanism for opposing a bill or a nomination is to keep voting on amendments and procedures and never have an up or down vote. This is actually true with the vast majority of the laws proposed in both houses of the Congress. Most never do have an up or down vote. Why Gerhatdt and other ask should judicial nominations be different from any law, or any other presidential nomination? Also see {588517} for another factor.

From time to time, the assessment of a prospective Supreme Court justice has depended on an attempt to move the court in a particular direction or to prevent that. This is as opposed to the issue of the competence of the nominee. In most cases, such nominees may not have been the best qualified but they have been extremely competent. In a few cases, such as that of Justice Clarence Thomas, the justice was mediocre and inexperienced at best, but his virtues were his race and his total ideological consistency. Most attorneys can predict his vote in advance. He has never asked a question in oral arguments. See {623452} .