Meanwhile, judicial nominees’ credentials have been as woefully inadequate, if not more so, than those of Cabinet picks. Nominees have refused to say whether Brown v. Board of Education was rightly decided (Wendy Vitter and Andrew Oldham), misled senators about a cruel voter-suppression scheme undertaken by Jesse Helms’s 1990 Senate campaign (Thomas Farr) and dismissed the idea that a glass ceiling exists for working women (Don Willett).
Anyone who took a hard look at the judicial nominees this White House is choosing would conclude that more time for study and debate, not less, is needed before individuals get seats on the federal bench. Thirty hours’ debate is the blink of an eye compared with a federal judgeship, which lasts for life.
Nan Aron, Washington
The writer is president of Alliance for Justice.
How could the editorial “Contempt of government” have brought up the Republicans’ record of intransigence toward President Barack Obama’s nominees without noticing the — um — elephant in the room: their outright refusal — for nearly a year — even to consider Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court?
Hubert Beckwith, Fairfax