SCOTUS Ah Um
If you’re like me, you’ve been pretty bored by post-HCR passage politics. Now that FreedomWorks isn’t bussing teatards to townhalls anymore, there’s just not much amusing going on.
That’s why I’m pretty jacked up about Stevens’ retirement. Here’s a rough chronology of what we can expect over the next few months:
- A Jeff Rosen piece slamming the first nominee the Obama White House floats. This will be based entirely on unnamed sources.
- Republicans find some routine case and trot it out as an example of how activist the nominee is.
- Charles Lane and other Kaplanistas write that, while the Republicans are taking it all too far, there are indeed legitimate problems with the nominee’s judicial philosophy.
- Rahm Emanuel spends three months trying to convince Olympia Snowe and Lindsey Graham to support the nominee.
- Olympia Snowe and Lindsey Graham do not support the nominee.
- There is a length filibuster.
- Brooks, Broder, and Gergen write about how sad it is that Democrats have destroyed the Senate’s comity and that Obama needs to renominate Robert Bork as a goodwill gesture.
Does that sound about right? Am I missing anything? I have a feeling that Democrats may end up provoking threats and violence by defying the will of the American people. But I am not sure how this will manifest itself.
Update. Per the comments, yes, I forgot about the part where the firebaggers portray the nominee as a Blue Dog style sell-out chosen by Rahm. This might necessitate the creation of a new PAC.
April 11, 2010 5:27 pm
Posted in: Good News For Conservatives
122 Comments
122 Responses
Linus - April 11, 2010 | 5:29 pm · Link
That sounds about right, except for the filibuster part. It really will depend on who Obama nominates, but I believe Greg Sargeant when he says it isn’t going to happen.
DougJ - April 11, 2010 | 5:32 pm · Link
@Linus:
I have to believe they’ll at least threaten to filibuster.
Anya - April 11, 2010 | 5:34 pm · Link
We could avoid all of this if Obama nominates Olympia Snowe. Since everyone is saying that Obama will appoint a moderate (Kagen), by appointing Snowe, at least we’ll be getting a senate seat out of this.
Mike E - April 11, 2010 | 5:34 pm · Link
Fight Club!
Ailuridae - April 11, 2010 | 5:34 pm · Link
Bussing not busying right?
Its difficult to see how the left can stop the fast rightward march of the Supreme Court. Incredibly disaying
SiubhanDuinne - April 11, 2010 | 5:36 pm · Link
You left out the months and months of concerned pundits being concerned that if the administration forces their SCOTUS nominee down the throats of the American people, the Dems can just kiss goodbye any electoral wins in 2010 or 2012.
General Egali Tarian Stuck - April 11, 2010 | 5:37 pm · Link
This could all be avoided if we just let Orin Hatch make the nomination. Though a female nom would make it real hard for Snow and Collins to join a filibuster, but the likely hood of getting a million tea bags delivered to your home could sway them to join the Lost Cause. [[[REBEL yell]]
Maude - April 11, 2010 | 5:37 pm · Link
Bobo. And the Moustash. They will have to chime in.
Stewart Taylor and Toobin. I think the list is almost endless.
MikeJ - April 11, 2010 | 5:37 pm · Link
You left out that Obama will throw the left under the bus and he’s worse than Hitler because he didn’t nominate Hugo Chavez.
Linda Featheringill - April 11, 2010 | 5:38 pm · Link
Your proposed time table sounds about right.
Are we doomed to have a right-wing Supreme Court? Is there no solution?
I don’t see why Obama could not nominate someone who is center-left. Of course, I have no idea who that might be.
HE Pennypacker, Wealthy Industrialist - April 11, 2010 | 5:39 pm · Link
Whoever the nominee is, s/he will be “rammed down our throats”.
El Cid - April 11, 2010 | 5:40 pm · Link
There’s only one possible consensus nominee: Bill Ayers.
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle - April 11, 2010 | 5:41 pm · Link
@Maude: Does the Mustache of Understanding even weigh in on Supreme Court stuff now? Wouldn’t it be more likely to have Peggy Noonan pontificating?
tc125231 - April 11, 2010 | 5:42 pm · Link
This is a pretty good timetable. Given that it’s all inevitable, why not nominate Hillary Clinton?
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle - April 11, 2010 | 5:43 pm · Link
@El Cid: I say Louis Farrakhan. Let the right eat on that one!!
General Egali Tarian Stuck - April 11, 2010 | 5:43 pm · Link
Well, at least Holy Joe anticipates a chance to make the court a little less liberal. So there ya go.
martha - April 11, 2010 | 5:44 pm · Link
I just wish he’d nominate either Amy Klobuchar or Sheldon Whitehouse—senate totals be damned. Either would neutralize some of the morons (at least within the senate—they only partially eat their own), they’re both liberal, and they’re both young.
A girl can dream.
Chyron HR - April 11, 2010 | 5:44 pm · Link
Well, duh. Teabaggers are Strict Constitutionalists who follow the Will of the Founding Fathers; of course they will want a Supreme Court Justice chosen by The People.
(Not YOU people. THE People.)
Ecks - April 11, 2010 | 5:46 pm · Link
Assuming he picks a woman, you’re missing the undercurrent of reverse-discrimination chants as pundits mutter darkly that these days a man might as well just not apply, and what would a young [insert-name-of-preferred-old-timer-judge] have to think if he were facing such bleak prospects for life-time cushiest-job-in-the-land appointments?
But not a huge oversight, as this will simmer more at the edges most apt to lift their arguments from the Rush/Drudge puke funnel.
Bob K - April 11, 2010 | 5:46 pm · Link
I predict that President Obama will nominate and the
G(NO)P will approve Ronald Reagan’s re-animated corpse.
http://www.theonion.com/video/.....gop,14385/
middlewest - April 11, 2010 | 5:46 pm · Link
You left out the part where a bunch of online progressives operating under the delusion that they are Obama’s “base” will demand that he nominate an activist liberal because they are owed a victory after he betrayed them by passing the most progressive health care reform in history. Oh wait, that already happened.
srv - April 11, 2010 | 5:46 pm · Link
Already started. Somebody stole my car. Not sure what a Teahadi would do with a 95 Accord…
General Egali Tarian Stuck - April 11, 2010 | 5:47 pm · Link
Or Al Sharpton. He’s been arrested a few times. So he has some legal experience.
Maude - April 11, 2010 | 5:49 pm · Link
@Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle:
I don’t know if he does, but he has expanded his area of expertizio.
Oh, I forgot Levin. He’ll be good for twelves hours of rant. Too bad he doesn’t have a better voice.
Noonan of course will be a font of knowledge.
Depending on the pick, one group or another will have placards at the ready.
Joe Buck - April 11, 2010 | 5:49 pm · Link
It will only play like this if the Democrats are complete idiots. There are many, many Republican senators on the record as saying that filibustering a Supreme Court nominee is unconstitutional, under any circumstances. Any one of those people should be strongly challenged should he/she make any noises about a filibuster. Of course any senator can vote no, but they all swore that the nominee must have an up or down vote. Democrats could then mention that the Republicans also described a procedure that they called the “constitutional option” to be used if some senators try to “defy the constitution”, but assure everyone that it will be unnecessary to use it because Republicans will, of course, honor their word.
It would be a complete political failure if Republicans were allowed to sweep their behavior from 2005 into the memory hole.
El Cid - April 11, 2010 | 5:50 pm · Link
Supreme Court Justice Assata Shakur, appearing in the Supreme Court via televised feed from Cuba.
Mark S. - April 11, 2010 | 5:50 pm · Link
@General Egali Tarian Stuck:
God I hate Lieberman. The reason Stevens became the “leader” of the left wing is because the Court shifted so far to the right. Stevens was a freaking Republican and used to be about the fourth or fifth most liberal person on the Court.
FlipYrWhig - April 11, 2010 | 5:52 pm · Link
@MikeJ:
Yeah, I’m looking forward to that too: thousands of people who like myself know fuck-all about the merits of various possible selections suddenly coalescing around one particular random name to the exclusion of all others, because they all read the same pundits’ opinions and take their agreement with one another as corroboration, and then moaning in anguish when it isn’t that person who gets picked, as though they have been personally spited, and then rushing to the usual outposts to share their tales of woe and disillusionment.
DrProcter - April 11, 2010 | 5:52 pm · Link
• Rush, Sean and Billo will bloviate about the ‘radical left turn’ the court is taking with this ‘activist judge’
• RedState will find someone who claims to have overheard something the nominee said in a supermarket checkout line. Every Republican Senator will then be “greatly troubled” by this statement, and ask the nominee about it repeatedly. (“I just want to get back to your statement—that is, the statement attributed to you—about Clarence Thomas being the ultimate Affirmative Action hire…”)
• Glenn Beck will devote 3 weeks of shows to proving the nominee is the illegitimate son/daughter of Josef Stalin and Helen Gahagan Douglas (Nixon’s ‘Pink Lady’). (Beck will also sequester himself for 5 hours to “write” a book about it.)
• No matter who it is, the MSM will instantly refer to the nominee as “controversial” and the nomination as “troubled.” NPR will interview Tom Coburn, who will call the choice “needlessly divisive.”
Zam - April 11, 2010 | 5:53 pm · Link
You left out the part where if it is not a white male we have to talk about how racist Obama is.
demkat620 - April 11, 2010 | 5:54 pm · Link
You forgot the 95 appearances by Tony Perkins of the FRC to tell us how we need a judge who will respect the rights of the unborn.
Ash Can - April 11, 2010 | 5:55 pm · Link
The Republicans won’t even need to dig up a case as “evidence” of the nominee’s “activism,” they’ll just need to find a quote to take out of context, or an appearance before some special-interest group. And it won’t matter how many similar remarks Republicans will have made themselves, or how many times Republicans have appeared before the same group. They’ll cite it as a source of concern, and the Villagers will all frown thoughtfully and nod in agreement.
In addition, no matter what the ethnic, religious, professional, and/or social background of the nominee, it will be seen as a cause of concern regarding the nominee’s inherent bias. The nominee could be black like Clarence Thomas, Italian like Antonin Scalia, or Catholic like half the SCOTUS already, and it will be a problem because he’ll be the wrong kind of black, Italian, or Catholic. And if he’s a she, well, that’s a problem in and of itself, now, isn’t it?
cat48 - April 11, 2010 | 5:55 pm · Link
Sounds about right, but (also,too) I predict the teatards will return for the hearings and try to intimidate anyone and everyone w/o a “tread on me flag” or some type of racist or derogatory homemade, misspelled sign.
Little Dreamer - April 11, 2010 | 5:58 pm · Link
Uh, no – I’m not bored at all. First, we still have Sarahdipity and Michelle Bachmann trying to rouse the crazies into a frothing civil war (FreedomWorks may not be bussing teatards into townhalls, but the Tea Party Express is bussing these people into other places where they can scream and display their psychosis), and there are also plenty of other reasons to be concerned about the low depth that education is sinking to in our society.
Are you saying you LIKE this high level of alertness that is our current political atmosphere? Perhaps you need to go talk to a psychiatrist, because it’s getting my blood pressure up a bit, even now, and I think anyone who is “jacked up” about conducting another political fight with these crazy people might have a screw loose.
Tim P. - April 11, 2010 | 6:00 pm · Link
You forgot Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin using the nominee as evidence of Obama’s creeping soshialism and love of oligarhy. But I guess that goes without saying.
burnspbesq - April 11, 2010 | 6:01 pm · Link
Better git it in your soul to start calling and emailing your senators as soon as there is a nomination.
Oh, and you forgot the endless fund-raising appeals from DSCC, ACLU, ACS, et al.
I want Monk next time.
dmsilev - April 11, 2010 | 6:03 pm · Link
Do we get bonus points if some Senator makes the nominee’s spouse cry, or is that only for appointees of Republican administrations?
dms
Wile E. Quixote - April 11, 2010 | 6:04 pm · Link
@tc125231:
God, that would be awesome. I’d love to see him do that just to piss off the baggers and birthers and the PUMAs. Of course we’d lose Clinton at State and she seems to be doing a pretty good job there.
tom - April 11, 2010 | 6:06 pm · Link
Good to know DougJ is a Mingus fan.
dmsilev - April 11, 2010 | 6:06 pm · Link
@Tim P.: No, everything Obama does is taken by that crew as evidence for creeping soshalism. Obama goes to see his daughter play soccer: proof that he wants to make us more like Europe. Obama has lunch somewhere is proof that he wants to liquidate America’s farmers just like Stalin did to the Kulaks. Etc.
JenJen - April 11, 2010 | 6:06 pm · Link
You forgot the part where Rahm forces Obama to ZOMG HE SOLD US OUT
TenguPhule - April 11, 2010 | 6:06 pm · Link
There’s a final solution.
Also, if someone could see that Roberts, Alito and Thomas get a high-fat, high-cholestrol diet for the rest of their hopefully very short lives….
MikeJ - April 11, 2010 | 6:07 pm · Link
@Wile E. Quixote: And when he nominated Hillary we’d get to hear about how he was kicking her out of the administration and stopping her from ever running for president.
Linus - April 11, 2010 | 6:07 pm · Link
Of course, how could I have forgotten. We’ll have tools like Halperin say that “white men need not apply.”
TenguPhule - April 11, 2010 | 6:08 pm · Link
You must be new here.
LuciaMia - April 11, 2010 | 6:08 pm · Link
This might be a bit too 90’s, but if the nominee has any offspring, a feverish search for some kind of ‘Nanny-Gate.’
kth - April 11, 2010 | 6:09 pm · Link
Actually the Charles Lane take would be to take, say, the Lawrence v Texas decision (rendering sodomy laws unconstitutional) and compare it to the Dred Scott decision, “not on the merits, but the passions they inflamed”. In fact I’d be surprised if he hasn’t already made that comparison.
SiubhanDuinne - April 11, 2010 | 6:11 pm · Link
@tc125231:
Not enough superdelegates.
birthmarker - April 11, 2010 | 6:11 pm · Link
DrProctor and Ash Can really know how to think like republicans.
I was going to say that a single word or short phrase developed by a republican “strategist” will suddenly spring fullblown to describe the nominee, and will be bantered and screamed about the airwaves ad nauseum by everyone from Senator Sessions on down. The phrase will manage to be offensive to a huge segment of the electorate, which the repubs seem primarily interested in permanently offending for all time. (See Sotomayor, Racist.)
mr. whipple - April 11, 2010 | 6:14 pm · Link
“This might necessitate the creation of a new PAC.”
LOL. Yes, and because a director can cost so much, we’ll save a LOT of money of appointing myself as the director and all my friends to the board.
As far as the left being sold out, the whining started within minutes of the announcement.
LuciaMia - April 11, 2010 | 6:15 pm · Link
Thomas, oy, what a waste of space. Literally. My nephew, a law student, got to sit in on a Supreme Court session recently. Saw first hand Thomas bored and napping during the proceedings.
If the guy is so apathetic, just retire. Oh, right. Obama, again.
mr. whipple - April 11, 2010 | 6:16 pm · Link
@MikeJ:
Yes, this would be a clear slap in the face to HRC and all women.
Anya - April 11, 2010 | 6:17 pm · Link
@TenguPhule: I was thinking that I was a horrible person for hoping some health of scandal forces out either of the three you mentioned, or Thomas. I wouldn’t mind if the grim reaper visited any one of them.
Wasn’t there some noise few years ago, about Clarence Thomas retiring?
PanAmerican - April 11, 2010 | 6:19 pm · Link
@middlewest:
Digby has her SC nomination Eeyore post up.
The Big Dog’s perpetual state of political victim-hood, while a disaster so often politically and policy-wise for the left, is what these folks want.
TenguPhule - April 11, 2010 | 6:21 pm · Link
Not really. When he dies, I fully expect the GOP to use his zombie corpse on the bench. Of course, he’s also the #1 Conservative fucknut I’d bet could get thrown out of the court from a serious scandal if there was enough digging done.
John Cole - April 11, 2010 | 6:22 pm · Link
Personally, I’m with the firebaggers on this one. I want someone to the left of Chomsky- I’m sick of the corporate whoredom and the pro-government authoritarianism on the Supreme Court. Is William Kunstler available?
SiubhanDuinne - April 11, 2010 | 6:23 pm · Link
We all need to bookmark this thread and refer to it often in the weeks and months ahead. There’s the makings of a splendid drinking game here and we don’t want to waste time between the announcement and the Senate Judiciary hearings trying to remember just where we saw a particular buzzword or a given scenario unfold.
mr. whipple - April 11, 2010 | 6:25 pm · Link
Maybe this is the payoff for Kucinich’s HCR vote. Dennis! on Scotus.
TenguPhule - April 11, 2010 | 6:26 pm · Link
Why bother with a game, it just gets in the way of the drinking. And before its all over, we’ll all be drinking heavy.
Ash Can - April 11, 2010 | 6:27 pm · Link
Especially after what LuciaMia said, how can we be sure they aren’t already doing this?
SiubhanDuinne - April 11, 2010 | 6:27 pm · Link
Has Anita Hill been mentioned? That would be all kinds of awesome.
Linda Featheringill - April 11, 2010 | 6:27 pm · Link
@John Cole: Why not nominate Noam? He is only 81 years old. Old Socialists tend to live a long time. He probably has several years left in him.
Linda Featheringill - April 11, 2010 | 6:28 pm · Link
I am so sorry. I was walking down the road and fell into a hole because I spelled so-shul-ist correctly. Excuuuuuuuuse me!
Ash Can - April 11, 2010 | 6:31 pm · Link
@SiubhanDuinne: I was just thinking the same thing. I’d be willing to bet that this thread turns out to be a comprehensive checklist of all the horseshit that happens.
ETA: Re Anita Hill—good thing I didn’t have a mouthful of tea just now…
Bob K - April 11, 2010 | 6:31 pm · Link
Can we like, nominate Lieberman, but only if we can have him lobotomized and wired for remote control before? No, I suppose not. Ok – I have this can of sardines I’d like to nominate. If you’re a total vegetarian there are some fine zuccini that would do.
SiubhanDuinne - April 11, 2010 | 6:38 pm · Link
@Linda Featheringill:
You spelled it “sociaIist,” didn’t you? You can’t write “sociaIist” or “speciaIist” because those words have “ciaIis” embedded, and we know that “ciaIis” is filtered out.
/because I can
Quackosaur - April 11, 2010 | 6:40 pm · Link
Obama should just stack the court by adding 4 more justices. That way we’d have 13, which would reflect the original 13 states that fought against Tyranny. It’s obviously what the Founders intended, so there’s no way that the Teabaggers would oppose it.
But seriously, the size of the court hasn’t changed since the 1860s. Does anyone think it would be possible to enlarge the court (ever?), or did FDR poison the well?
TenguPhule - April 11, 2010 | 6:49 pm · Link
Can we like, nominate Lieberman, but only if we can have him lobotomized and wired for remote control before?
Wasn’t this the problem originally? Obviously the warranty ran out on the controls.
Terry - April 11, 2010 | 6:56 pm · Link
Greenwald has already stolen a march on Rosen and put a hit piece on Kagan to go with his Sunstein one.
SiubhanDuinne - April 11, 2010 | 7:03 pm · Link
@Quackosaur #67: I thought FDR did expand the court from 7 to 9 justices. Don’t think the Constitution specifies a number.
Jay - April 11, 2010 | 7:03 pm · Link
@Quackosaur:
Yeah, Than Man In The White House kinda had the well poisoned for him by the reaction to his court-expansion scheme: for all its drawbacks, the nine-judge SCOTUS is pretty much set in the public and political mind: I guess we’ll just have to live with it.
Besides, beware the Law Of Unintended Consequences: if the SC was expanded, what would stop the next Republican President from filling all those vacancies with forty-something Regent/Liberty/Federalist Society firebrands who will still be on the Court and trying to roll back any remotely progressive legislation as the Tricentennial looms?
FlipYrWhig - April 11, 2010 | 7:05 pm · Link
Has constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley weighed in? I have to think that he’s already quite concerned. And I have to think that he’d be quite concerned even if the nominee were Jonathan Turley, because that’s just how he (concern t)rolls.
Who would be the right’s absolute nightmare? Catharine MacKinnon?
Moses2317 - April 11, 2010 | 7:08 pm · Link
I think this prediction is right on, except that it leaves out the role that we can have in shaping this debate. In particular, we should start organizing now to push our President to nominate a good progressive, and to be prepared to fight any decent candidate that Obama ends up nominating.
My preference would be someone like Elizabeth Warren, who is a true friend of working people on a wide array of economic issues and can help shift the Supreme Court nominee fight away from social issues and more towards issues of corporate power and financial regulation that are so critical right now. There are a long list of nominees, however, that I would be happy or at least content with, and politically we need to be ready to fight for the nominee so that we do not let the teabaggers, Republicans, and the media turn this into another drawn out blood bath like the health care battle was.
eemom - April 11, 2010 | 7:09 pm · Link
@Terry:
oh fuck Greenwald. He is SO full of shit with his tripe about Kagan.
Greenie himself has lectured in the past that no one has a right to criticize a lawyer for representing his client zealously within the bounds of the law—no matter who or what his client is— because for all kinds of very good and important reasons, even the lowest scum of the earth deserves proper representation.
Yet now he’s pissing on Kagan because as Solicitor General she argued positions of HER client, the United States government, that Greenwald finds distasteful.
I repeat, fuck him.
FlipYrWhig - April 11, 2010 | 7:09 pm · Link
@Terry:
I can totally picture Glenn Greenwald fulminating against the nomination of Glenn Greenwald, a careerist media figure and defender of the Citizens United ruling, with a questionable temperament, and whose financial relationships have been widely criticized.
eemom - April 11, 2010 | 7:13 pm · Link
@FlipYrWhig:
......and, contrary to popular belief, is about as qualified to serve as Justice as Harriet Miers was.
Davis X. Machina - April 11, 2010 | 7:13 pm · Link
@tom: Or a Latin scholar….
Elisabeth - April 11, 2010 | 7:19 pm · Link
@FlipYrWhig:
FWIW, Turley wanted Harold Koh the last time.
mr. steven crane - April 11, 2010 | 7:27 pm · Link
referencing charles mingus in the post title?
A+++.
Ray Radlein - April 11, 2010 | 7:28 pm · Link
I think this is, indeed, The Shape of Things to Come. We may take some Time Out thinking about the possibilities now, but we’ll still be Kind f Blue by the time it’s all over.
Sorry. I’ve run out of other classic jazz masterpieces from 1959 to reference right now. Ah, um.
[Heh. Looks like the poster before me also got the title reference]
MikeJ - April 11, 2010 | 7:31 pm · Link
@Ray Radlein: If you can’t think of any more, just Take Five. It’ll come to you.
FlipYrWhig - April 11, 2010 | 7:44 pm · Link
@Elisabeth: Interesting re: Koh. I like the idea of an Asian-American justice but don’t know anything about his career or ideology.
(Re: the Turley poke, Turley is kind of an inside joke to me and my friends, because every time I see him on TV I know he’ll be expressing concern and disappointment.)
mr. whipple - April 11, 2010 | 7:51 pm · Link
@FlipYrWhig:
I find your Turley pokes ‘troubling’. (said with my head tilted to one side, live on MSNBC, for the 14,324th time.)
russell - April 11, 2010 | 7:58 pm · Link
Just want to chime in to say me gusta Mingus references.
Elisabeth - April 11, 2010 | 8:05 pm · Link
@FlipYrWhig:
I find Turley a bit “pure” for lack of a better term. Rightly or wrongly, there are political considerations Prof. Turley seems to miss when rendering his pronouncements, a characteristic I think both he and Krugman share.
Although, someone needs to remind certain Dems, I’m looking at you Sen. Feingold, that they didn’t have a problem with Bush nominees so they need to STFU about Obama’s.
JMY - April 11, 2010 | 8:12 pm · Link
Why can’t some people be happy with a competent justice nominee? All I’ve heard is “well Kagan isn’t liberal.” Bullshit. Then in the same sentence they say how much of a liberal Stevens was when Stevens would disagree with that. The reason that Kagan or Woods are not looked at as liberal to GG, FDL, Kos, etc., is because of the simple fact that others may be more liberal on certain issues, in the same way that Stevens is considered liberal by the simple fact that conservatives currently on the bench have progressively shifted further to the right. It may not be the fact that she isn’t totally liberal, but that they pick at one issue and say that she isn’t. This is to me why people such as GG, and the GOS, FDL, etc. are irrelevant, because not matter what, they are disappointed. They make it seem as if everything is about them.
kay - April 11, 2010 | 8:22 pm · Link
@Elisabeth:
I actually agree with Feingold. I wouldn’t have opposed Roberts or Alito. They were qualified, and they don’t appear to be crooks or mentally ill. I think when you win the Presidential election you get to pick the judges, barring some real indication that the person is actually unfit to serve.
Clarence Thomas is an example of a situation where real questions were raised, as to his fitness to sit on that court, ideology aside. Once the Senate determines there’s nothing in the nominees past that goes to the essential ability to act as a judge, I think the losers of the Presidential election have to suck it up and confirm.
cleek - April 11, 2010 | 8:26 pm · Link
here’s what i wrote, last Friday:
and if we’re really lucky, the nominee will have once made an ambiguous statement at a speech somewhere, 18 years ago, which, when taken out of context and viewed by discerning eyes, will appear to signal insufficiently strong support for the right to choose. this will, in turn, lead the vocally pro-choice faction to turn purple-faced with rage as they embark on a three-week quest to destroy the nomination. this will further weaken the already-tepid support from one or two key Senate Dems, and will lead to much eye-rolling among those who don’t see the statement in the same way. or maybe it won’t be a pro-choice thing. maybe it could be a perceived slight to unions, or to Hispanics – just to mix things up a bit.
good times ahead!
Mike Kay - April 11, 2010 | 8:29 pm · Link
@kay: But Foolsgold is a phoney.
He yelled and screamed at Obama because HCR didn’t included a public option, but then he refused to sign the senate petition to include a public option in reconciliation.
El Cid - April 11, 2010 | 8:31 pm · Link
William Kunstler is not available.
kay - April 11, 2010 | 8:36 pm · Link
@Mike Kay:
I didn’t follow him during the health care debate. I had trouble following all of them, and I knew he was an eventual lock.
I am going to take a wild guess. He objects to reconciliation as a process for public option, right? He seeks to keep that process pure and unsullied by pedestrian concerns?
Everyone knows the stakes in a Presidential election. The make-up of the Court should be a huge consideration. If you lose, you lose the chance to appoint judges. Better luck next time, for both sides. Obama, of course, cannot make this argument :)
He’s vulnerable here, which is probably why we won’t be hearing a lot of complaints from him.
kvenlander - April 11, 2010 | 8:40 pm · Link
Nice work on the title, now can we have “Shoes of the Fisherman’s Wife Are Some Jive Ass Slippers” for the in-evita-ble next S. Palin post?
Mike Kay - April 11, 2010 | 8:44 pm · Link
@kay: actually, he refused to address the petition at all. Not only did he refuse to sign it, he refused to acknowledge it. He gave no statement at all for why he refused to sign, which made it all the more galling, considering his high profile criticism of Obama on the public option.
That’s why I call him a phoney. He was playing to the base on the public option, but when the base put him on the spot, he went underground.
Ecks - April 11, 2010 | 8:44 pm · Link
@Linda Featheringill: Noam at 81 years old will live just long enough to make it into the next Republican presidency. I say we find the smartest and most liberal 21 year old we can get our hands on.
Hm. Ezra Klein for POTUS?
Paris - April 11, 2010 | 8:47 pm · Link
I thought Rahm was dead?
http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2.....ama-obama/
frankdawg - April 11, 2010 | 8:51 pm · Link
I posited on Turley’s site a few days ago that Obama will nominate Bobby Bork in hopes of getting 2 or 3 Republican votes. Its the way his team has started all negotiations with Congress so far.
The Rs will of course label him the most radical liberal judge in the history of the known universe. This crap will be dutifully reported regularly.
But, in the end he will be confirmed 51-48 just before the 2012 election because the Rs know they won’t be able to a worse justice after the election.
Ecks - April 11, 2010 | 8:53 pm · Link
@Ecks: And when I say “POTUS” I totally mean “SCOTUS”. Too much damn OTUSing in this country. Redding was good enough, should have stopped there.
Brachiator - April 11, 2010 | 8:55 pm · Link
@mr. steven crane:
All the Things You Could Be By Now If Obama’s Next Supreme Court Pick Was Your Mother.
The inevitable whining by some liberals that Obama’s pick isn’t progressive enough, complete with pointless critiques of the liberal “failure” of the Obama Administration.
Brian J - April 11, 2010 | 10:08 pm · Link
The above is pretty much exactly why I want to see Obama nominate someone like Pamela Karlan or Dawn Johnsen. They are going to take the heat no matter what they do—hell, if they nominated Bork from the outset, they’d be accused of pandering—so why not see if they can get a progressive on the Court?
burnspbesq - April 11, 2010 | 10:17 pm · Link
@Ray Radlein:
Well, if he nominated Koh it would be a Giant Step forward, cause in no way is he Mr. P.C., and he turns Brilliant Corners in his legal reasoning.
Grace Nearing - April 11, 2010 | 10:18 pm · Link
@El Cid: Ron Kuby is available, however—plus he has a ponytail.
burnspbesq - April 11, 2010 | 10:21 pm · Link
Anyone who leaves Jane and Digby singing Someday My Prince Will Come should be ok by me. Jeralyn, too. Try to imagine that lot as the Andrews Sisters and see if you can keep a straight face. C’mon, I double-dog dare ya.
demimondian - April 11, 2010 | 10:30 pm · Link
@John Cole: Fuck Kunstler. Barry Hussein O’bama should let his inner MOOSLIM TERRAWRIST out and name his BFF Osama to the Court.
robertdsc - April 11, 2010 | 10:40 pm · Link
By recess appointment.
ronathan richardson - April 11, 2010 | 10:46 pm · Link
If Obama were truly bipartisan he would just pick a white male over the age of 65, because those are the only guys honorable and unbiased enough to hold power.
TenguPhule - April 11, 2010 | 11:13 pm · Link
They weren’t qualified and from the outset they lied to Congress without a qualm. They should never have been allowed in and subsequent events have shown just how crooked and corrupt they are.
Brian J - April 11, 2010 | 11:13 pm · Link
@kay:
I can agree with this, if for no other reason that it would help return a little sanity to the nominating process for both judges and other posts. But while I can’t be certain of when this animosity and childishness started, I am pretty skeptical that it would end if the Democrats were to make the first move. I’d love to be wrong, but I doubt it.
Brian J - April 11, 2010 | 11:19 pm · Link
@TenguPhule:
Would you mind elaborating on that?
Uloborus - April 11, 2010 | 11:22 pm · Link
I’m pretty sure that Obama won’t name someone who’s particularly liberal or conservative. He’ll name a lawyer. Someone like Sotomayor. I listened to her in the confirmation hearings, and she’s truly the judge’s judge. Every ruling they asked about, she explained not merely her reasoning, but the legal standards for what reasoning a judge can consider. Everything was by the book – law, not opinion.
I’m not 100% sure that this is the right thing to do when the conservatives have been stocking their side with flat-out partisans, but he did it once, it’s consistent with his temperament, and he’ll probably keep doing it.
apnea - April 11, 2010 | 11:40 pm · Link
Maybe the great and good of Balloon Juice should concern themselves with something else than factional team-playing in this very dark moment of the Obama administration :
http://www.chris-floyd.com/com.....rants.html
Uloborus - April 12, 2010 | 12:08 am · Link
@apnea:
Ah, people who know fuck all about history. Carry on.
Marc - April 12, 2010 | 4:57 am · Link
Firebaggers remind me of this. Now we see the oppression of the system!
Will - April 12, 2010 | 11:42 am · Link
The obvious nominee: Jeremiah Wright.
Paula - April 12, 2010 | 1:09 pm · Link
Points for the unexpected Mingus ref.
Tim I - April 12, 2010 | 2:49 pm · Link
@Quackosaur:
I think Obama should declare the Court to morally bankrupt in light of the Citizens United ruling. Then he can use TARP funds for a Government take-over and appoint a new board.
Tim I - April 12, 2010 | 2:55 pm · Link
@mr. whipple:
Why don’t they just re-air that tape, his rap never changes.
kay - April 12, 2010 | 3:13 pm · Link
@TenguPhule:
Sure they were. They had the requisite qualifications to be judges. They evaded answering questions directly – I think Roberts shaded into “lying” because he insisted he was looking for consensus on the Court and I think his performance since proves that not to be true.
I don’t think the minority Party should be able to hold up a judge unless he or she is unfit. The Senate advises and consents, but in the area of appointments, I think they have a limited role. I don’t think they should be in the business of trying to ascertain ideology, and I apply that to both sides.
Obama has a weak hand if he objects to GOP Senators voting against his nominee, because he doesn’t agree with me. He thinks there’s a duty for a Senator to deny a judicial appointee a vote based on ideology. I don’t. I would have voted for Alito and Roberts, although I think they’re wrong. I ‘m sure he’s aware that he doesn’t really have grounds to complain a whole lot. He’s nothing if not a realist.
kay - April 12, 2010 | 3:25 pm · Link
@TenguPhule:
I’d speed it up further, actually. If they’re a sitting federal judge, and they’ve been confirmed in the past, I’d look only at what they’ve done since the last confirmation. I think this elaborate confirmation process is for political posturing and fund-raising from the base. Half the Senators don’t know what to ask anyway, and repeating the conservative bullshit about “activist judges” for three days, while the media bobbleheads repeat it like gospel, when it’s complete nonsense, does no one any good.
You lose control over the federal judicial appointments when you lose the Presidential race. I don’t know why either side wants to fight that battle over and over again. It’s dumb. Liberals particularly are stupid to pick that fight, because all conservatives do is cement the same bullshit they’ve been selling for 20 years in the public mind, and the liberal position on judicial interpretation (which I agree with) doesn’t lend itself to soundbites.
Jerry 101 - April 12, 2010 | 3:53 pm · Link
There are two other parts in which you have forgotten.
You need to insert:
1. The part where Robert Bork is floated as a potential nominee, and the Republicans angrily denounce him as a crazy so-shall-ist liberal who will vote to replace the Constitution with the Commune-ist Manifesto.
2. The part where Obama wields some killer Obama-Fu to make the republicans look like idiots for opposing his nominee. Who does not end up being Robert Bork, but is probably way to the right of Stevens, but still left of Kennedy.
brantl - April 12, 2010 | 3:57 pm · Link
@kay: Except that you’ve completely ignored their records on the bench. Alito said that it was OK for a cop to shoot a fleeing, unarmed purse snatcher in the head. Is that OK with you? I hope not. And Roberts is one of the “masterminds” of the idea of the unitary executive theories. Neither one of these sonsofbitches should EVER have been approved. Period.
kay - April 12, 2010 | 4:11 pm · Link
@brantl:
I’m not ignoring their record on the bench. I said I disagree with both Roberts and Alito on nearly every issue. I think I have agreed with Roberts once since he was confirmed, on a “notice” issue.
I think your attitude has come back to bite liberals in the ass, and as a tactic, it nearly always fails. On balance, I maintain it’s stupid and counterproductive.
Win the election, and then you don’t have to worry about ideologues, because they’ll be YOUR ideologues, and then you can write your own rules about “fleeing felons”.
You cannot logically object if bloviating Right wing Senators pick apart Obama’s nominees case by case if you expect liberal Senators to do the same every time you lose an election. The whole thing has become meaningless. If a President puts a real crook and/or moron up, no one will pay any attention to objections.
gerry - April 12, 2010 | 9:27 pm · Link
“Update. Per the comments, yes, I forgot about the part where the firebaggers portray the nominee as a Blue Dog style sell-out chosen by Rahm. This might necessitate the creation of a new PAC.”
Yeah
Obama would only nominate someone cooool.