Editorial
Rehnquist puts Senate on principled notice

In the often ugly turf wars over partisan political appointments in Washington, one voice of consistent reason has been Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

As the Senate continues its petty game of playing politics with the appointments offered by an opposing party president, Rehnquist has steadily held out for the legitimate needs of the judiciary and the people it serves.

Rehnquist, a Republican, was one of the few voices from that side to complain when Senate Republicans were stalling President Clinton's nominees.

"Some current nominees have been waiting a considerable time for a Senate Judiciary Committee vote or a final floor vote," he wrote in 1997. "The Senate should act within a reasonable time to confirm or reject them."

So Rehnquist's current complaint about Democratic stalling has the moral high ground. He is correct and he is consistent.

The Washington Post, in an editorial on this topic, chided Rehnquist this time around for using the new war on terrorism as yet another reason why judicial appointments should be put on the fast track. As The Post points out, this argument is unnecessary: Clearly any legal action needed to pursue the battle against terrorism would get first-order attention in federal courts, no matter how short-handed.

What really matters today is what mattered before Sept. 11. Our court system and its needs should be above partisan politics.

If a nomination is made, it is the Senate's duty to perform its role of advise and consent in a timely and respectful manner.

Hawai'i is only one among many jurisdictions that has yet to see its share of presidential appointments make it through the confirmation process. This shortchanges both the justice system and the people it serves.

The Senate has every right to reject a nominee if he or she is unqualified. But let the process move forward, so the public can determine for itself if it is based on merit or politics.