The old-timer is just plain anti-women….
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) suggested to reporters on Friday that it was difficult to recruit Republican women to his panel because it requires a lot of work.
“It’s a lot of work ― maybe they don’t want to do it,” Grassley said, according to The Wall Street Journal. “My chief of staff of 33 years tells me we’ve tried to recruit women and we couldn’t get the job done.”
Grassley later returned to the reporters to clarify his remarks, adding that it was also hard to recruit male senators….
There are only six women in the Senate Republican caucus:
Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Susan Collins (Maine), Deb Fischer (Nebraska), Joni Ernst (Iowa), Shelley Moore Caputo and Cindy Hyde-Smith (Mississippi).
Two of them are the daughters of governors of (respectively) Alaska & West Virginia. Nancy Landon Kassebaum of Kansas was the daughter of former Gov. Alf Landon (also the 1936 GOP nominee for President). Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina was the wife of former Sen. Robert Dole of Kansas (the 1976 GOP nominee for Vice President & 1996 nominee for President).
I don’t know how many of them are lawyers, but on the other hand both the Senate and House Judiciary Committees deliberately include a few members who haven’t been lawyers.
It sure didn’t look good NOT having a single Republican WOMAN on the judiciary committee….
As an attorney myself,I have no problem with non attorneys serving on the Judiciary Committee.Too often lawyers get bogged down in hair splitting legal arguments that ,while interesting to some, have little to do with anything.
I’d agree with ya Jack on non-lawyers sometimes having to be in the room to give a human touch to things….
Another change I would like to see is that of Supreme Court appointments .
Over the past fifty years or so,almost all the appointments have gone to judges.Presently, Elena Kagan is the only Supreme Court Justice who never served as a judge prior to her appointment(Kagan was nominated but never confirmed for a federal judgeship).
GW Bush nominated Harriet Miers but withdrew her name due to an uproar among fellow Republicans.Willam Rehnquist never served as a judge prior to his initial appointment by Nixon in the early seventies,nor had Lewis Powell.
JFK appointed two non judges,Byron White and Arthur Goldberg
Earl Warren was a politician.
My point is ,I think we sometimes would benefit from the perspective of a politician(Warren),a distinguished attorney (Powell),Justice Department experience(Rehnquist and Kagan)or just practicing attorneys(White, Goldberg and maybe even the ill fated Miers).
This modern view that Supreme Court Justices must have prior judicial experience seems to me short sighted.
He, he, he….
Well Jack?
Some might say you getting a twofer inn Brett…..Politican/Lawyer….
Correct me if I’m wrong but ya don’t even have to be a lawyer to be appointed to the court?
After John Roberts’ Supreme Court Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, which shredded not only the Corrupt Practices Acts of 1907-10 and the campaign reforms following Teapot Dome and Watergate, but also the painfully-crafted reforms and compromises in the bipartisan, twin-chamber McCain-Feingold-Meehan-Shays campaign finance reform law — in apparent blithe, blissful ignorance of the realities of seeking office today — John McCain said in frustration that he wished at least one of the Justices then serving had at some time run for an office as humble as sheriff.
At that time none of the justices had sought or served in elective office (I looked it up, biography by biography; David Souter had once been Atty-Gen. of N.H., but apparently that office is appointive not elective).
Sandra Day O’Connor, by then retired, has served not only in elective judicial offices in Arizona , but also as a member and majority leader of the Arizona Senate.
Another contemporary complaint about Justices’ experience was that even within the realm of the Law, almost all of their prior work had been in academia or on the appellate bench, and with the possible exception of David Souter (ex-A.G, of N.H.) and Clarence Thomas (who’d served in the Mo. A.G.’s office), none of them had prosecuted, defended or judged a case at the trial level, where witnesses are heard, juries are guided and physical evidence is admitted or excluded.
So, even to a layman with a little paralegal training like me, some of the Court’s decisions on suspects’ rights and criminal procedure seemed based on other-worldly expectations about the behaviour of and limitations upon police, suspects, juries, trial counsel and trial judges.
[I wouldn’t be surprised if those looking at their decisions from the point of view of police and trial-level prosecutors felt that demands on street-level cops were also unworldly or unreasonable given the real-world situations they must deal with. Jack, who I understand has served on both sides, can elaborate more.]
The appointment to the Court of at least one former metropolitan D.A., Sonia Sotomayor, might remedy some of this deficiency.
I have worked as both a Prosecutor and defense counsel(although I haven’t done much of the latter in a number of years).
I concur with what you have said above.
I would never disparage academic accomplishments, nor appellate experience.I do believe, however ,that the viewpoint of trial lawyers and ,yes, politicians,should be represented on the court.
Ronald Reagan apparently considered appointing Orrin Hatch back in the eighties, but was deterred from doing so over the fact that Hatch had voted as a Senator to raise Supreme Court justices salary and there was concern that his appointment might be questioned due to some law at the time which prohibited such.
Bill Clinton supposedly offered to appoint then Education Secretary Dick Riley, aformer Governor Of South Carolina in the Nineties.Riley has confirmed that he begged off by noting,”Mr. President ,I was a mediocre country lawyer.This isn’t my thing.”
I just think that a person who has had to seek public office and thus deal with a large variety of people would bring a different perspective to the Court,as McCain implied above, and that would be useful on the Court.
Further, it seems self evident to me that an experienced trial lawyer would certainly be able to enlighten his brethren who,as has been pointed out either never or only slightly engaged in trial practice ,as to the everyday issues confronted in such and that would be beneficial on the court as well.
I have always liked Dick Riley.
Two of my good friends worked on his personal staff when he was in the Cabinet, in fact they recently had a reunion in South Carolina.
My favorite memory of him is how kind he was to my mother when she met him at a White House event. He is a kind man and would have made a great Justice.
Yeah Dick Riley is a real gentleman.
I supported him in both his races.You rarely hear anyone in S.C. ,even Republicans, say much against him.
Always rather humble, it’s no surprise that he would decline even such a prestigious an appointment as the Supreme Court ,recognizing his own limitations.
Too bad more people don’t follow his lead.
A majority of Iowa voters surveyed in a new poll said they do not wish to see Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) run for reelection again.
The Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll found only 28 percent of respondents said they hope Grassley decides to run again, and 55 percent hope he does not. Another 17 percent indicated they are undecided.
Grassley, who has represented the Hawkeye State in the Senate since 1980, would be 95 at the end of his next term if he were to run for reelection in 2022 and win….
More…