Ashcroft (McConnell??) Nomination

[Sanford Levinson]

I'm wondering how the Republicans' treatment of Ted Sorenson (nominated to
head the CIA) and Lani Guinier fits Keith's theory.  It's true that the
Republicans didn't go after any of Clinton's cabinet picks, but perhaps
that's because they were both fully qualified and (relatively) centrist.
The only person vaguely on the left in the first cabinet was Robert Reich,
and I think it's fair to say that Democrats are "entitled" to name someone
quite liberal to be Secretary of Labor, just as Republicans are similarly
entitled to name someone quite pro-management to that position.   And, of
course, the Republican refusal to confirm many, many judges (including,
notoriously, Ronnie White) is a political scandal (though Keith concedes
that our "conventions" on judicial appointees may be less deferential to
presidents).

In any event, there's no reason to view these conventions as normative
unless one presents a behavior-independent theory to justify them.  (The
now-conventional filibuster practices in the Senate are thoroughly
indefensible, normatively, though I hope the Democrats take full advantage
of them rather than engage in "unilateral disarmament.  My position may not
be all that easy to defend.)


sandy