Ruth Bader Ginsburg Hopes For Senate 'Return To Collegial Bipartisan Spirit'

SAN FRANCISCO — Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told the country's largest lawyers' group Monday that she hopes Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominees can become more collegial.

Ginsburg, 77, recounted her own uncontroversial confirmation during an address at the American Bar Association's annual meeting in San Francisco. Her nomination by Democratic President Bill Clinton was approved 96-3.

Votes on the last four nominees have been much closer and acrimonious, a departure from the long-standing tradition of giving the president wide deference on appointees.

"May the U.S. Senate someday return to the collegial bipartisan spirit that Justice Breyer and I had the good fortune to experience," Ginsburg said, referring to Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, the next nominee to follow her to the bench.

The justice spoke after receiving the ABA Medal, the association's most prestigious award. Ginsburg said she had delayed her trip to the ABA's meeting to attend the Saturday afternoon swearing-in of Elena Kagan as the fourth woman ever on the Supreme Court. Ginsburg was the second.

Ginsburg did not elaborate on her comment about the Senate or take questions following her speech.

Comments

[powhatan1]

04:41 PM on 08/11/2010

TERM LIMITS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bobbybo]

11:31 AM on 08/11/2010

My fear is that our system has played itself out. The only way that I see out of our current idealogical stalemate is a Constitutional Convention that results in term limits for all elected postions.
The system is now a process of getting elected and re-eleted - it is not about governing.

[valleygent]

12:48 AM on 08/11/2010

What... in some alternate UNIVERSE???

[lthuedk 1]

11:03 PM on 08/10/2010

With all respect, Justice Bader, how civilized and logical can Scalia be on a good day? Scalia is an extremist ideologue and -can't- turn *it* off. That's why they're called extremists and activists.

[UpNorthGuyWI]

07:41 AM on 08/11/2010

Ms. ACLU is as much an activist/extremist as Scalia.

[powhatan1]

04:42 PM on 08/11/2010

you have completed your socialist indoctrination I see

[Cougar28]

10:48 PM on 08/10/2010

Didn't Ginsburg suggest the Tal mud as a source for laws????

[UpNorthGuyWI]

10:45 PM on 08/10/2010

I wonder why she was silent during the 8 years of Bush? Ms. ACLU forgets this all started with the Bork hearings.

[bobbybo]

11:27 AM on 08/11/2010

Are you forgetting that Robert Bork was outed during the confirmation hearings as having belonged to several "whites only" organizations?
Bork was the reason why there are confirmation hearings. Bork is an idealog who made it clear during the confirmation hearings that HIS interpretation of ther Constitution was the only correct one.

[MarcGA]

01:32 PM on 08/18/2010

As in "Black Congressional Caucus"?

[johnjam101]

10:04 PM on 08/10/2010

the art of compromise is missing these days.
So we will swing back and forth.
Each side demonizing the other.
I do it.

[Word Watcher]

07:40 PM on 08/10/2010

To Justice Ginsburg: please stay healthy. We need you to protect our rights. One more Alioto, Thomas, Scalia, or Roberts, and all the progress of recent decades will be undone.

[MDhome]

08:59 PM on 08/10/2010

YES. So true.

[powhatan1]

04:43 PM on 08/11/2010

what rights have those judges taken from you?

[MDhome]

09:42 PM on 08/11/2010

The right for a fair election! for the most recent

[GERTRUDE GERTIE SCHOLL]

06:56 PM on 08/10/2010

Lists of United States Supreme Court cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases

“Presidents come and go, but the Supreme Court goes on forever.”

~ William Howard Taft

[legalclubs]

06:45 PM on 08/10/2010

A history lesson might be important as many liberals appear to be naware of where the partisanship regarding judges nominations arose.

The modern political rejection of a nominee first occurred with the Democrats rejecting Judge Bork along party lines with a final Senate vote in the Senate of 58 to 42.

To look at it another way, here are the nominations starting with G.H.W. Bush's nominations:

Clarence Thomas, nominated by George H.W. Bush, squeaked through, 52-48.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, nominated by Bill Clinton, were confirmed easily, 96-3 and 87-9 respectively. Notice that the Republicans didn't "pay back" the Senate Democrats after their vote on Bork or Thomas.

The chief justice and Samuel Alito, nominated by George W. Bush, drew substantial opposition and were confirmed 78-22 and 58-42. Again, notice the pattern. The Democrats voted in large numbers to block a Rublican nomination purely on partisan gounds even though ruled qualified by the American Bar Association, then the administration changes and the Republicans turn the other cheek and vote in mass in favor of the Democrats nomination, then when the Dems have a chance to return the favor they again vote in mass against George W. Bush's nominees.

Obama even voted against Alito saying that Alito was qualified, he just didn't like him politcally. You can't really blame the Republicans for finally catching on and doing what the Dems have done for the last 30 years. They are just following the Obama doctrine.

[pmagellan]

07:54 PM on 08/10/2010

You poor little-minded Republicans -- such victims...

Now, you keep repeating the same non-sense to see if it sticks? Okay, I'll repeat my answer to another victim herein below:

I simply disagree with you. No radical-right judge lack of confirmation process could do what eight years of rabid republicans did. Specially when the country was under attack and the ignorance and lack of reason by republicans quickly translated into bigotry and accusations of unpatriotic behavior against democrats.

Enjoy.

[legalclubs]

01:03 PM on 08/11/2010

Interesting. Nothing in my post in "non-sense", it all factual. I also noticed that you didn't dispute any of my facts with your own, you seem resorted to calling names. That is just sad. What I've put forward are the simple facts which remain undisputed by any of the people who posted replies. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

So I'm not sure even what you mean when you say "I simply disagree with you". Please provide some specific facts where you compare the nomination process in who the opposing party operates when a Democrat is the President versus when a Rupublican is the President. Otherwise you don't make any sense as you are simply accusing one party of poor behavior and failing to mention that the other party is just as bad and actually worse under the same circumstances. You seem a bit blinded by hate. Enjoy.

[powhatan1]

04:44 PM on 08/11/2010

so socialist leftist revolutionary judge could protect one little iota of freedom in this country.....It is you who are the victim.

[MDhome]

09:01 PM on 08/10/2010

Maybe, just maybe IF Bush and Bush had not nominated such radical rightwingnuts, the votes would have been less lopsided

[legalclubs]

01:06 PM on 08/11/2010

One sides wingnuts are the other sides middle of the road centrist. There really isn't anyone on the right that the Senate Democrats wouldn't condemn and nominations of fairly center right nominations such as Alito are proof.

[Tom Sito]

06:10 PM on 08/10/2010

The process was collegial until The Bush/Cheney/Gingrich clique polticized the process, just like they polticized NASA, the Justice Dept and everything short of the Campfire Girls. Roberts in particular was a sham of a confirmation. He said nothing about his intentions, and now is performing exactly as he has been told. The Best Justice Money can buy.

[pmagellan]

06:44 PM on 08/10/2010

Indeed. Rather obvious to anyone who lived here for the past decade. Not to mention the right's intransigence and intolerance of "the other". The monsters and fears they created amongst people, the division they served and serve.

[powhatan1]

04:49 PM on 08/11/2010

DO you know anyone on the right that you have heard them say these things so you are a bonafied expert?

[comment from Ron]

06:08 PM on 08/10/2010

Republicans are always stating that Democrat appointed judges will rewrite the constitution. Actually, just the opposite is true. As long as Republicans only want judges who will make decisions based on republican party affiliation, there is no longer any chance of uncontroversial confirmations. Democrats are sometimes guilty of the same party affiliation thing, but I have been following this process for over 40 years, and it is clear to me that the Republican Party is far more guilty of this and always has been. This has been particularly true over the last 30 years, and the discrepancy is growing much worse.

Personally, I would like to see a law stating supreme court justices can not be nominated if they worked for and were paid by a political party (that would have excluded Roberts and Alito). Also, why don't we hear more about how much Justice Thomas' wife is paid by the Republican Party.

Anyway, politics always plays a part but I have never seen anything comparable to what the current Republican Party has become and how far to the right they have gone. Reasonable debates and compromises are no longer possible in our political process, and this is absolutely the result of what the Republican Party has become.

[powhatan1]

04:50 PM on 08/11/2010

Look...both sides play the political game...apparently there is no honor left in America

[comment from Ron]

12:10 PM on 08/12/2010

Sorry, but there is a difference. If I look hard enough, I can find fault with any politician and this obviously includes Democrats. But a far right Republican (which now includes almost every Republican) saying a Democrat is playing too many political games is like a snake saying they crawl too low. Over the last 30 years the Republican Party has gone so far to the the right that they would not even be recognized by the Republican Party that I grew up with.

[Stefan Dembowski]

06:06 PM on 08/10/2010

Sadly, it will never happen with the current GOP leadership.

[powhatan1]

04:50 PM on 08/11/2010

what GOP leadership...Dems are in full control

[Stefan Dembowski]

01:53 PM on 08/12/2010

O. Good point...
I mean the current GOP members of Congress,.

[at78rpm]

05:56 PM on 08/10/2010

Well, all fine and dandy if we let a Democrat name someone to the Court, but heaven forfend that another George Bush, George W. Bush, or Ronald Reagan ever has that opportunity. You can count on the Democrats to nominate a centrist, but count on the Repubs to nominate someone who just recently received certification as not foaming at the mouth.

[x2zero]

05:45 PM on 08/10/2010

Reading these comments you'd think there was only one party who was blocking nominees.
Let me ask you, which party started this current trend of trying to block nominations?