'Favoritism' is always a factor, and pressure always build for the appointment of friends of influential supporters of the President, or for the nominees of powerful Member of Congress from the incoming President's party.
Quotes about nominees (16 Quotes)
Senators can ask any questions they want, but these justice nominees really don't have to answer them,
What's changed It's not the quality of the nominees, it's the qualities of the process. I really do worry that we're going to take the Supreme Court nomination process and boil it down to abortion. That won't be good for the country.
To my fellow nominees, whoever they are - I'm not that familiar with their work - I just want to say, there's always next year - except, you know, for Ray Romano .
It is plain that, when it comes to inferior officers, Congress itself can pass a law sending these nominees to the President with him having the authority to put them on the bench without the advice and consent of the Senate.
I don't have a sense of entitlement or that I deserve this. You'd be surprised at the lack of competition between nominees - I think a lot of it's imposed from the outside. Can I have my champagne now?
No matter how badly senators want to know things, judicial nominees are limited in what they may discuss. That limitation is real, and it comes from the very nature of what judges do.
Not at all, said Leonard Leo, on leave from the conservative Federalist Society to promote the confirmation effort. What he said about privacy is, in substance, no different from what other recent nominees have said, . . . Justice Clarence Thomas in particular, ... was almost as though you were having a glimpse into the way a judge would sit in his chambers and do the analysis . . . Maybe there are times when a jolt in the legal system is acceptable.
We have dozens and dozens and dozens of judicial nominees up there waiting and we have a court system that's crying out for more judges.
When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce, and the Senate becomes incapable of either properly evaluating nominees or appropriately educating the public.
The White House promoted a number of nominees that we believe demonstrated hostility to civil rights, women's rights and to matters of concern to many Americans. We certainly hope the administration will use this opportunity surrounding the Lott controversy to rethink some of its nominees.
In general, any incoming administration must carefully examine ('vet') its nominees for high public office.
If there is a nuclear tactic being used here, I submit it is the use of that obstruction where a willful minority blocks a bipartisan majority from voting on the President's judicial nominees.
It certainly sounds as if he's getting pulled into Chuck Schumer's demands for unprecedented specificity in case law. To discuss recent cases and controversies and to have the Senate attempt to reject or confirm nominees based on a checklist of how they would rule on individual cases is clearly an attack on the judiciary's independence.
We don't tell the White House who they should consider, but our organization is close to the White House. Historically, we have been a source of strategic advice to the White House in defending it's nominees.
As parties began to develop around the turn of the 19th century, you had party nominees for President nominated in caucuses made up of party members in Congress.