![judicial consent judicial consent](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BYmIzMTM1NzUtMmEzNS00ZDQ5LTk0ZTgtZTQwNjI4ODY2NWI5XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjU0NTI0Nw@@._V1_QL75_UY281_CR11,0,190,281_.jpg)
An example would be the rejected nomination of John Rutledge as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court in 1795, discussed infra notes 38–41 and accompanying text. with ideological considerations utilized in confirmation proceedings as far back as the country’s nascent years in the late 1700s. Neither Professor Weaver nor I think that was the case, despite the addition of the term “Borking” into the popular lexicon. For some commentators, Judge Bork’s seemingly politicized nomination proceeding was where the appointments process all started unraveling and where arguably major damage was done to the legitimacy of the Advice and Consent function. Professor Weaver’s historical review also emphasizes that Judge Robert Bork’s failed 1987 nomination to the United States Supreme Court was not a watershed moment in the Senate’s consideration of ideology in performing its advice and consent function. In fact, he observes that the Senate’s role in the confirmation process-likely included because of a basic distrust of government-sometimes has been “contentious and ideologically driven.”. Weaver, “Advice and Consent” in Historical Perspective, 64 Duke L.J. He eloquently argues that the Article II, Section 2 process that gives the Senate “advice and consent” power over the Executive’s nominations of judges, officers of the United States, and ambassadors “wasn’t supposed to be easy.”. Professor Weaver provides his perspective of the Appointments Clause filtered by the lens of history. 20 The Supreme Court of the United States: Hearings and Reports On Successful and Unsuccessful Nominations of Supreme Court Justices by the Senate Judiciary Committee, 1916–2005, at xix (Roy M. After Roberts was nominated, Chief Justice Rehnquist died, and President Bush withdrew his initial nomination and nominated Roberts for the vacant Chief Justice position. Chief Justice Roberts was originally nominated for the position being vacated by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Two years later, in 2005, he was nominated and confirmed as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. That time, Justice Roberts received a hearing, was reported out favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and received a positive vote by the Senate.
![judicial consent judicial consent](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/SlAoSxFtGSY/hqdefault.jpg)
His third nomination-to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, by President George W. Roberts was nominated a second time a decade later, and again, never received a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. which first reviews nominees before reporting them out to the Senate for a vote. Despite his nomination, he never received a hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Brad Snyder, The Judicial Genealogy (and Mythology) of John Roberts: Clerkships from Gray to Brandeis to Friendly to Roberts, 71 Ohio St. Bush first nominated Justice Roberts to the federal bench in 1992. The current Chief Justice, John Roberts, Jr., experienced a more peripatetic journey in his ascension to the high court. Taft was nominated for the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court-a position he openly admired-on June 30, 1921, and was confirmed by the Senate in a closed executive session the very same day. Taft is the only person to serve as both President and Supreme Court Justice. William Howard Taft, the twenty-seventh President, also later became the tenth Chief Justice of the United States. and William Howard Taft with the Article II, Section 2 appointments process illustrate that the long view of history is governed by perspective. The sharply contrasting experiences of John G.