Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) walked a fine line in laying out his opinion on Democrats using the “nuclear option” to remove the threat of a filibuster from executive and judicial appointments before the Senate.
During a Christian Science Monitor breakfast on Friday Walker said that, in general, “deference should be given” to executives seeking to put people in their administration “be it a governor, be it a county executive or be it the president” as long as those nominees are “competent and ethical.”
But he also said that since the appointments in question last longer than one term, there should be more scrutiny and options to examine that nominee’s record.
“Where I understand why there’s a larger concern about judicial appointments is obviously because those are much more lasting,” Walker continued. “And so I think that does warrant a larger level of scrutiny just because at the federal bench you’re talking about a lifetime appointment those obviously have an impact far behind the next election cycle or next term.”
Walker refused to directly say though whether he opposed the rule change or not. He continued that he thought “it does make sense to have a higher standard and not blow that up expressly because it is the people on either side of the spectrum, because it’s their candidate in office.”
