Reframing Advise and Consent

I bumped into this comment at DailyKos, an excellent thought on reframing the Senate's role in the confirmation of Court nominees.

It Seems Important To Remember... (4.00 / 5)

... that the onus is on Roberts and the Adminstration to prove him worthy of appointment to the highest court. The idea that the President should just get whatever he wants and its up to the opposition to derail a nomination if they can is just yet another bullshit GOP frame.

As long as the prerequisite for that shining Paradise is ignorance, bigotry, and hate... I say the Hell with it. --Inherit the Wind

by kingubu on Wed Aug 24th, 2005 at 09:42:42 PDT

Excellent frame, the President and the nominee must prove to the Senate that the nominee is worthy of confirmation. This sets the stage for us to make the point that we've been trying to make on many nominees. That the Republican majority in the Senate has been a rubber stamp for extremist Bush nominees. When we start talking about them failing to show us why Roberts is worthy of the highest Court in the land, combined with the ammunition provided us by the Administration for failing to release necessary documents, the GOP is framed as the party of the rubber stamp for Bush. Instead of putting the burden of proof on Democrats as to whether he really believes the things we have attacked him for putting in briefs, this frame would change that burden to the other side. Instead of Democrats needing to prove that Roberts is an extremist those who support him must prove that he's not, otherwise the Senate, Democrats and Republicans together should reject him without the Administration proving he is worthy of the Supreme Court.