|
|
"A comprehensive, collaborative elections resource."
|
[For Akaka and Case,] Criteria differ on judging justices
|
|---|
| Parent(s) |
Race
|
| Contributor | J.R. |
| Last Edited | J.R. Aug 06, 2006 09:46am |
| Logged |
0
|
| Category | News |
| Media | Newspaper - Honolulu Advertiser |
| News Date | Sunday, August 6, 2006 03:45:00 PM UTC0:0 |
| Description | .S. Sen. Daniel K. Akaka and his challenger in the Democratic primary, U.S. Rep. Ed Case, would have split over President Bush's nominees to the Supreme Court, indicating important differences in how they approach one of the Senate's most distinctive responsibilities.
With the court likely to take up abortion, affirmative action, civil rights and privacy cases over the next several years, how Akaka and Case view the court and the Senate's role in evaluating nominees could be instructive to voters.
Akaka voted against confirming John Roberts as chief justice last September and against Samuel Alito as associate justice last January, joining other Senate liberals who thought Bush's choices were too far to the political right. Case, a moderate, said had he been in the Senate, he would have voted for Roberts but against Alito because he believes Alito's conservatism might change the court's balance.
Akaka and Case agree that legal ability and judicial temperament are critical when considering nominees for the lifelong appointment. But they differ over how much a nominee's personal opinions should match their own. |
| Share |
|
|
2¢
|
|
| Article | Read Full Article |
|
| Date |
Category |
Headline |
Article |
Contributor |
|
|
