The President . . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law. . . .
And, The Heritage Foundation presents a compelling analysis of the plain-text rationale connoted by this verbiage:
The principal concern of the Framers regarding the Appointments Clause, as in many of the other separation of powers provisions of the Constitution, was to ensure accountability while avoiding tyranny. Hence, following the suggestion of Nathaniel Gorham of New Hampshire and the example of the Massachusetts Constitution drafted by John Adams, the Framers gave the power of nomination to the President so that the initiative of choice would be a single individual's responsibility but provided the check of advice and consent to forestall the possibility of abuse of this power. Gouverneur Morris described the advantages of this multistage process: 'As the President was to nominate, there would be responsibility, and as the Senate was to concur, there would be security.'
Furthermore, the Federalist Papers further illustrates some of these tenents by highlighting the original intent of the individuals responsible for the constitution's drafting,
'[I]t is easy to show that every advantage to be expected from such an arrangement would, in substance, be derived from the power of nomination which is proposed to be conferred upon him; while several disadvantages which might attend the absolute power of appointment in the hands of that officer would be avoided. In the act of nomination, his judgment alone would be exercised; and as it would be his sole duty to point out the man who, with the approbation of the Senate, should fill an office, his responsibility would be as complete as if he were to make the final appointment.'
-The Federalist No. 76.
With such conclusions to be drawn by the Heritage Foundation and the individuals responsible for such fundamental elements of our constitution; should the statements of Senator Hillary Clinton and Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg be construed as anything less than dangerous?
Senator Hillary Clinton, in her statement announcing she will vote "NO" for the confirmation of Judge Roberts stated:
[B]ecause I think he is far more likely to vote the views he expressed in his legal writings, I cannot give my consent to his confirmation and will, therefore, vote against his confirmation. My desire to maintain the already fragile Supreme Court majority for civil rights, voting rights and women's rights outweigh the respect I have for Judge Roberts's intellect, character, and legal skills."
The 'non-partisan,' 'non-political,' 'neutral' Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg opined yesterday at a speech to the New York Bar Association:
"[S]ome women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women's rights..."
"I have a list of highly qualified women, but the president has not consulted me," she added during a brief interview Wednesday night.
Thus, based upon these statements, that represent but a microcosm of what those on the left emanate daily in how they approach ourfundamentall rights. Is it not easily to construe why those on the left promulgate their beliefs through the courts and not through our established democratic processes? Can these statements even be closely reconciled in any form with what out Constitution states plainly?