Blech... more good reason to fear this guy getting on the courts.
From what I've heard, it's unlikely that anything will actually stop the appointment from going through, is that correct?
I wouldn't trust anything Senator Kennedy has to say on appointment of officials or candidates. The old windbag has become the mouth piece of the Democrat Party, and it's gotten to the point where you can predict whatever he's gonna say.
The Supreme Court's power is simply to interpret the laws of the nation, and make sure they are in accordance with the US Constitution. To do otherwise is to legislate from the bench, as Bush puts it. Of course, the justices have also become watchdogs, too, but they are unable to strike down any laws passed unless they find a Constitutional issue with them. And only then after they have been presented with a case addressing a Constitutional issue, and after the Court agrees to hear the case.
Part of the Executive's job has been to enforce the laws passed by the Legislature, but he also is within his powers to request revisions of certain statutes before they are passed through Congress. For the most part, the Legislature has done this along with the Executive, and few of the original statutes proposed in the original bill are actually accepted once it becomes a signed law.
Kennedy has long been known for his ability to exaggerate, so i wouldn't trust this or any other interview in an article published in a newspaper. He has become extremely radical in recent years, and does not represent the majority of the Democrats in Congress. Besides, this interview does not cite any past decisions of Alito's which they feel are questionable, so why should we believe it?
I don't think we should adhere to any one particular Senator's opinion before deciding on something. That's what the Committees are for.
In my experience in reading the legal documents in law classes and listening to audio tapes of Supreme Court arguments, i can tell you that the law is always difficult to interprete, and in some cases the judges take months to decided on a single issue. One cannot simply read a petitioner's legal brief and decide on an issue; one must read the actual law, and not uphold to any single opinion.
I find it interesting, however, how Kennedy only refers to past judges such as Marshall, Connor, and Berger. In short, he only refers to decisions made by the more liberal judges of office, not others.
He does not cite Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, Fred Vinson, William Taft, George Sutherland, Benjamin Cardozo, Thurgood Marshall, or Melville Fuller. These are some of the most famous justices in US history, yet Kennedy does not utilize their interpretations of the law in his interview. Very interesting.
Now, on to your question Ferrette.
The Judicial Committee is responsible for voting for his appointment. Once the committee has voted, the justice will take office. But other than that, i am not sure how the process goes after the candidate has been interviewed.
Once a judge is in office, the only way s/he can be taken out is by impeachment, and this requires a good number of the members of Congress, some 70% i believe. This impeachment process also extends to Congressional members as well as the elected officials of the Executive dept.
But impeachment is only a trial, not a removal decision in itself. Absolute proof for criminal activity must be presented to remove an elected candidate from office.
To my knowledge, few occasions for impeachment have arisen in US history. A judge was impeached in the 1790's i believe, and taken out of office. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were the only Presidents to ever be impeached. Nixon would have been if he had not resigned.
The Constitution is very vague on the Judicial branch, but does provide for Judicial powers; the power to try federal cases and interpret the laws of the nation; the powers to declare any law or executive act unconstitutional.
So in this case, Kennedy is correct whe he says the Court limits the powers of the Exeuctive, but only when the Court has Constitutional grounds to, not simply when they don't like a particular President's actions.
For most of its recorded history, the Supreme Court has met with little blocks to its power, ever since John Marshall. The Court acts as a check on both the Executive and Legislative branches.
I remember reading about an incident in the 1830's where Andrew Jackson refused to follow the Court order to prevent the confiscation of Indian land in Georgia. Besides this, i can't think of any other Court orders that the Executive branch has refused to follow.
So the Court does practive nearly unlimited power, but only as far interpretation of the Constitution goes. The judges are there for life, or whenever they decide to retire.
Anyways, Kennedy and the other liberal Democrats are definitely within their rights and repsonsibilites to attack Alito, Roberts, or any other candidate to the Supreme Court bench. The stakes are very high; once in office, a Justice can have an impact on legal interpretations for decades at least.
However, i think that after the interviewing process is complete, the Senators will confirm Alito. Just like they did with Roberts. Their credentials are too good, and i think the Senators realize that, so they're not going to confirm an idiot to the bench.