From time to time, the Editorial Page presents "Other Voices," commentaries from a variety of sources on important issues. These comments are drawn from remarks Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., made Tuesday during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings in which he announced his support for Solicitor General Elena Kagan's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.
There's plenty of reasons for a conservative to vote "no"— I mean, very good reasons. But I think there's a good reason for a conservative to vote "yes." And that's provided in the Constitution....
I'm going to read to you ... Federalist Number 76, Alexander Hamilton. He indicated that the Senate 'should have a special and strong reason for the denial of confirmation."
Hamilton continued, "To what purpose then require the cooperation of the Senate? I answer that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though in general a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the president, would tend generally to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from family connection, from personal attachment, and from a view to popularity.
Seventy-three of the 126 Supreme Court nominations that I've been informed by my staff — and I hope they're right — were done without roll call votes. Something's changing when it comes to the "Advice and Consent" clause.
All of us abhor judicial activism because it's a threat to society in general when an unelected judge takes on a role outside of their sphere. The question I have for the body: Are we living in an age of legislative activism, where the words haven't changed in the last 200 years, but certainly the voting patterns are?
No one spent more time trying to beat President Obama than I did, except maybe Senator McCain.... But I understood we lost, President Obama won, and I've got a lot of opportunity to disagree with him. But the Constitution in my view puts a requirement on me as a senator to not replace my judgment for his....
It puts upon me a standard that stood the test of time: Is the person qualified? Is it a person of good character? Are they someone that understands the difference between being a judge and a politician? And, quite frankly, I think she's passed all those tests....
Are we taking the language of the Constitution that stood the test of time and basically putting a political standard in the place of a constitutional standard?
... I view my role as a United States senator in part protecting the independence of the judiciary and making sure that hard-fought elections have meaning in terms of their results within our Constitution....
At the end of the day, after the hearing, it was not a hard decision for me to make. I thought she did a very good job and she will serve this nation honorably. It would not have been someone I would have chosen, but the person who did choose, President Obama, I think chose wisely.
