Michelle Malkin Quotes

I'm disappointed, depressed, and demoralized. [...] It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that President Bush flinched from a fight on constitutional philosophy. Miers is undoubtedly a decent and competent person. But her selection will unavoidably be judged as reflecting a combination of cronyism and capitulation on the part of the president.

Here is a needle President Obama needs to thread if he chooses a ninth. The nominee would need to be so strongly qualified that he or she would be hard to reject. The person must also be willing to be nominated even though leading Senate Republicans have said they will not consider anyone the president names.

I am told that very early on in this transition process, to expect that [Donald] Trump will announce his nominee for the Supreme Court.

If Harriet Miers were not a crony of the president of the United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her.

I believe strongly that we should have nominees to the United States Supreme Court based on their qualifications rather than any litmus test.

[Donald Trump] said that he would likely have a decision and an announcement by the end of January [2017] and that'll obviously take a great deal of energy. It's enormously important in the life of the Court and the life of the nation.

The liberal groups spent months raising money so they could take down anyone President Bush nominated. But they have not been able to touch judge Roberts.

Call me a cockeyed pessimist, but I'm having trouble finding any good news in the trashing of Harriet Miers.

I think the Democrats are catering to them, but, you know, in the entire history of the United States of America, there has never been a judge who has been refused a vote when there was a majority of Senators willing to vote for his confirmation, never in history.

In 1987, I had my first opportunity to provide 'advice and consent' on a Supreme Court nominee. At that time, I stated that the qualifications essential for evaluating a nominee for the bench included 'integrity, character, legal competence and ability, experience, and philosophy and judicial temperament.' On that test, Elena Kagan fails.

It's been 80 years since the Senate has confirmed a Supreme Court nominee who was nominated during an election. And particularly when the court hangs in the balance, it makes no sense whatsoever to give Barack Obama the power to jam through a judge in the final election year.

If you look at the Constitution, the two clauses of the Constitution make it very clear the president shall nominate, and the Senate shall provide advice and consent. It's been since 1888 that a Senate of a different party than the president in the White House confirmed a Supreme Court nominee.

My mother used to say: 'It's not enough to be Hungarian. You still need a little talent, too.' To paraphrase her, its not enough to be conservative, you still need to have the brainpower to be a Supreme Court justice. And, if Harriet Miers is confirmed, she likely won't be in the same league with her colleagues in terms of gray matter.

[Nominee for the Supreme Court] will be something designed to very much please conservatives, even as they may get a little nervous on some of what he's talking about in terms of ObamaCare and infrastructure.

A President cannot call men from all parts of the country during the time between his nomination and his election, seek their advice, their counsel, their service, their cooperation in his personal behalf and in behalf of the party ... and also tell them in the same breath, to see the Secretary of War, the Attorney General and the Postmaster General about a presidential nomination.

Candidly, Justice Thomas, I do not believe that you were indeed the most competent person to be on the Supreme Court.

Many Supreme Court justices got their job precisely because they were friends with the President or other high officials.

Highly popular and unpopular Presidents do not engage in policy pandering.

There should be no ‘jobs for the boys’. We ought to be crucified if we … select our constables from the servants of our parliamentary friends.

I don't think there should be a litmus test on judges, no matter who the president is.

Mainstream America, in the long run, will always stand for highly qualified, impartial judges and for a fair process and for senators who do their jobs and vote - not who unfairly smear good men like Judge Alito.

Some of the most impressive judicial nominees are grossly mistreated.

Merrick Garland was the most qualified nominee, not just in our lifetimes but perhaps in the history of the United States Supreme Court. The chief judge of the D.C. Circuit for 20 years, the nation's second-highest court. Never once been overruled by the Court in his 20 years. He was extraordinary.

Filling a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court is a solemn process for our nation, and I hope Senate consideration of Judge Barrett will not descend into the dishonorable spectacle that Americans witnessed during the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

There are a lot of problems with democracy. We need to think about how to find the people most qualified for the job.