Taking a stand proves to be risky business in nomination hearings

Prior to the announcement of a nominee for Supreme Court Justice, Americans found themselves sitting on the sidelines, watching as the nation's leaders and interest groups battled for their agendas.

I'm not surprised.

Still, it seems more time was spent pointing fingers at potential nominees and speculating who Bush might nominate rather than giving serious thought to what is morally right, how we set an example as a nation and influence others around us.

But see, therein lies two problems: One is that everyone has their own version of what constitutes "morally right" and "morally wrong" and secondly, any Supreme Court nominee who makes his or her perspective known is going to have a pretty tough time making it through the nomination process.

Doesn't it seem backward to nominate a justice based on who can conceal their opinions the best on hot issues like abortion and same-sex marriage and then hope for the best once they get appointed?

In 1991, Bush Sr. nominated David Souter and Clarence Thomas whose ideological tendencies had been well hidden from the Senate and public view.

Both justices turned out very different.

Souter has come to be known as a strong supporter of the right to privacy and due process of law while in contrast, Thomas has been described as a reactionary alleged to have claimed that the Constitution permits states to establish their own religion, like that of Mormonism in Utah.

Even when nominees have been public about their political tendencies, the strategy has not always worked well either.

Take for instance Robert Bork, nominated by President Reagan.

Bork was known to have been a hard-line conservative and his nomination did not receive majority approval in the Senate.

With the vacancy of at least one Supreme Court Justice and possibly another coming down the pike, the battle to fill those positions could become even more entangled.

While Democrats are pushing to thoroughly question any nominee on specific issues like same-sex marriage, Republicans like Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions in a July 4 New York Times article, said such a demand by Democrats would derail nominees on the basis of not disclosing information.

I know there are political careers at stake, but I still disagree with a nomination process, which calls for nominees to keep their lips tight about where they stand on issues that affect our nation.

I'm not saying that I think justices should rule on the basis of personal belief, but on the basis of upholding the constitution and we should know what their thoughts are on that.

As the appointment of a replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor comes closer, we should consider the ramifications of not only who we appoint but the thought process behind making that decision.

Do we want leaders who appoint justices who will uphold the constitution or meet the demands of one political party over another?

Do we want justices that interpret the law or advance causes?

Aimee Hornberger is the health and education reporter for The Columbia Basin Herald.