Republicans Filibuster Goodwin Liu

Because, in the Republican playbook, judicial filibusters are unspeakably anti-American, unless of course it’s a Democratic nominee they’re blocking:

President Barack Obama lost his first vote on a judicial nominee Thursday, as Senate Republicans derailed the nomination of a liberal professor who leveled acerbic attacks against two conservative Supreme Court nominees — both now justices.
__
Democrats fell short of the 60 votes they need to end a filibuster and give Goodwin Liu an up-or-down vote on his nomination to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Liu, a 40-year-old legal scholar at the University of California’s Berkeley law school, could someday be a dream Supreme Court nominee for liberals…
__
To most Democrats and liberal backers, Liu is the type of nominee they want for a lifetime appointment on the federal bench. He supports liberal social issues such as gay marriage and affirmative action. He was given a top rating of unanimously well-qualified by the American Bar Association. He was a Rhodes Scholar and clerked for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He received numerous awards for academic and legal achievements, including the highest teaching award at his law school.
__
To most Republicans and conservative allies, he’s a judicial activist who made insulting remarks about the Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts, now the chief justice, and Samuel Alito.
__
Two senators favoring a continued filibuster were Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. Both were part of a group of 14 senators who previously pledged not to filibuster judicial nominees except under extraordinary circumstances.

‘Extraordinary circumstances’ such as ‘failing to be Republican’, that is. Adam Serwer at The Plum Line explains why this is more important than McCain’s ever-touchy dignity or Graham’s wounded feelings:

Liu’s confirmation battle is a symptom of a much larger problem — the GOP’s success in blocking Obama’s judicial nominations. There are 110 vacancies on the federal bench, a vacuum that leaves the judiciary ideologically skewed to the right.
__
The lack of Democratic appointees has allowed a more conservative federal bench to interpret the law in ways that drastically affect Americans’ daily lives. Only 133 of Obama’s nominees have been confirmed, far fewer than George W. Bush or even Bill Clinton. The administration itself has also failed to put forth enough nominees, and hasn’t fought very hard for those they have.
__
Despite their claims, social liberalism isn’t the big reason Republicans oppose his nomination. Liu is recognized by conservatives as uniquely bright, to the point of winning plaudits from conservative attorneys like torture memo author John Yoo and former Solicitor General Kenneth Starr.
__
The real reason Republicans are trying to block Liu is this: Because of his youth (he’s 39), intelligence and outlook, he’d be a tempting choice the next time a spot opens up on the Supreme Court. A Liu pick would delight Obama’s liberal base and — depending on who he replaced — potentially move a conservative dominated, corporate friendly court to the left for the first time in generations.
__
But Liu has to make it to the federal bench first.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit

82 replies
  1. 1
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    But Liu has to make it to the federal bench first.

    Actually, he doesn’t. But it would be easier if he was.

    ETA: Looking through the constituion, I don’t see anything that says he has to. I will now claim to not know if there are actual federal laws stating as such.

  2. 2
    Reality Check says:

    Damn straight, and we’ll keep doing it. Liu will NEVER be confirmed as a federal judge, and there’s nothing you can do about it.

  3. 3
    Punchy says:

    “liberal professor” is a bit redundant.

  4. 4
    Ija says:

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent):

    Yup, Kagan wasn’t on the Federal bench either, there’s no reason Obama or future Democratic President can’t nominate Liu for the Supreme Court.

    ETA: Of course, the problem is, if he can’t even pass through the Senate for Federal bench, there’s no reason to think that he would be more successful as a Supreme Court nominee, unless Democrats have 60 votes again.

  5. 5
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    @Reality Check: Anything to keep that Kenyan from having a functioning government around him, huh?

  6. 6
    MikeJ says:

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent): He doesn’t even have to be a lawyer to be appointed to the supremes.

  7. 7
    PeakVT says:

    The administration itself has also failed to put forth enough nominees

    Why on earth not? Are that many people failing the background check, or are they so put off by the whole confirmation circus that they refuse to be considered?

  8. 8
    Geeno says:

    @Reality Check: @Punchy:
    Up-or-down vote! Ah, but then consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, eh?
    Just never pretend to be anything other than partisan lickspittles, and you’ll be able to teach your children honesty. That is if you care to.

  9. 9
    Corner Stone says:

    “Now more than ever, we need access to the crucial authorities in the Patriot Act,” Attorney General Eric Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
    AP sources: Hill leaders agree on Patriot Act

  10. 10
    Reality Check says:

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent):

    Whatsa matter? Pissed we’re treating ‘Bam just as badly as you treated President Bush? Is the widdle wiberal awwwlll maaaad?

  11. 11
    Reality Check says:

    But hey, the Senate is Democrat-controlled, so why not use the nuclear option?

    Don’t have the sack to man up and do it?

  12. 12
    Captain Goto says:

    “…and you’ll be able to teach your children honesty. ”

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

    If this asshole shill ever got his head out of Rush Limbaugh’s ass long enough to *SEE* honesty, he’d curl up and die.

    Fuck off, troll.

  13. 13
    Steve says:

    I am not a hater, but Obama simply hasn’t been that aggressive about stacking the federal bench. He’s left a bunch of vacancies unaddressed, it doesn’t seem like he pushed particularly hard to get his nominees through the process when the Dems had a big majority (not that the timing is primarily within his control, but he undeniably has some clout), and he’s nominated quite a bunch of moderates to go with the liberals. None of this makes him evil or anything, but the bottom line is that if transforming the judiciary isn’t a top priority of yours, the other side isn’t going to just hand it over to you.

    Bush, by contrast, was wildly successful at getting his type of judges on the bench. One of the most underreported aspects of the Bush agenda (because it’s hard to measure with statistics, I think), is just how uniformly conservative his nominees tend to be, up and down the ranks. These are mostly very smart, very competent people, but ideologically they are a bunch of little clones from the Federalist Society. When this is your strategy, even if the other side blocks a few of your superstars then you still get a lot of them through.

    Judges are a bigger deal to the Republican base than to the Democratic base. I think that’s just an empirical fact. A lot of Democrats still don’t understand that it’s about more than just the Supreme Court. Obama surely understands this, but a politician’s urgency is a factor of his supporters’ urgency, and if this isn’t the #1 priority for most of the Democratic base then I don’t see how anyone can expect it would be Obama’s #1 priority.

  14. 14
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    @Reality Check:
    From the second article:

    Only 133 of Obama’s nominees have been confirmed, far fewer than George W. Bush or even Bill Clinton.

    BTW, try the Google before you start talking.

  15. 15
    Kobie says:

    @Reality Check: Wow, so not only are you wrong, you’re also a dick.

  16. 16
    Geeno says:

    @Reality Check: Um.. for some calling themselves “Reality Check” you sure are divorced from Reality.

    BTW: Why do winger trolls always call themselves things like “Reality Check” or “Voice of Truth” or stuff like that?

    I propose that anyone joining under such a blatant troll pseudonym, be banned without review. Regardless of what they say. I can provide a regular expression for matching if the site desires.

  17. 17
    Corner Stone says:

    @Steve:

    Obama surely understands this, but a politician’s urgency is a factor of his supporters’ urgency, and if this isn’t the #1 priority for most of the Democratic base then I don’t see how anyone can expect it would be Obama’s #1 priority.

    But he’s a former ConLaw Prof. So wouldn’t his realization make this a significant priority for him?

  18. 18
    Reality Check says:

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent):

    Good! The American people spoke last fall and they don’t want more liberalism.

    Elections have consequences.

    BTW, is Harry Reid too much of a little pussy to use the nuclear option if this is such a horrible, horrible injustice? I guess he’s got no balls.

  19. 19
    fasteddie9318 says:

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent):

    BTW, try the Google eating shit and dying before you start talking.

    Fixed

  20. 20
    Reality Check says:

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent):

    Good! The American people spoke last fall and they don’t want more liberalism.

    Elections have consequences.

    BTW, you could always use the nuclear option if this is the Greatest Injustice in the Universe Ever…but that would require Dingy Harry Reid to have some manhood, wouldn’t it? Nevermind,then. You should be at least as mad at him as you are at us.

  21. 21
    The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

    @Geeno:

    BTW: Why do winger trolls always call themselves things like “Reality Check” or “Voice of Truth” or stuff like that?

    Why did the Soviets call their paper ‘Pravda’?

  22. 22
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    @fasteddie9318: Thanks. I lost some perspective in my urge to make him understand. You’re right, it’s not worth the effort.

  23. 23
    Church Lady says:

    Liu sealed his fate with his testimony during the confirmation hearings for Sam Alito. Payback’s a bitch.

  24. 24
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    @Church Lady: Yeah, I know, correctly predicting the future does have it’s consequences.

  25. 25
    The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

    @Fantasy Check:

    Elections have consequences.

    Offer not valid for 2006 and 2008 elections, or the 2012 election at the rate things are going.

  26. 26
    fasteddie9318 says:

    Goddamn, what is this, Troll Night? 25 cent drafts if you’re a douchebag fuckwit?

  27. 27
    Church Lady says:

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent):

    Liu is the first Obama judicial nominee to get rejected. Given that the Democrats didn’t approve one Federal Appeals Court nominee put forth by Bush for a two year period, which resulted in the Gang of 14, Obama’s actually doing pretty well so far in the confirmation department. If he’s only had 133 approved so far, and Liu is the first one rejected, it sounds like he might be a little slow on nominating people.

  28. 28
    JR says:

    I just re-read Liu’s testimony from Alito’s hearings, and other than predicting that he’d be well outside the Court’s mainstream on Fourth Amendment issues (instead, only Ginsburg disagreed with him on the big 4th Am. opinion he just wrote), everything he said has been spot-on, and almost all of it was simply a recitation of Alito’s past votes.

    http://judiciary.senate.gov/he.....it_id=4902

    So let’s not accept the frame that he did anything to hurt the GOP’s fee-fees. He gave accurate information to the Judiciary Committee, and they can’t stand when people do that. That’s all.

  29. 29
    Reality Check says:

    2012? Nope. ‘Bam is on the way out. He’s George H.W. Bush, at best.

  30. 30
    Frank says:

    I’d say, wait until after Presidential election, make a list of Presidential nominations for Judgeships and a second more liberal list. Then say there is such a backlog, that if that list gets filibustered again, then he will make temporary appointments of the more liberal list to get rid of the backlog and give more experience to the judges. This would only be temporary. Yes, it would cause outrage, but the excuse is the Senate is not doing it’s job. And it would get rid of a huge backlog of cases.

  31. 31
    srv says:

    I have a relative who is a federal judge, and he is so old he knew Lincoln. ‘Retired’ over a decade ago and is still working because of this bullshit.

  32. 32
    Kobie says:

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent): Intellectual honesty is not exactly the forte of the right. It’s much easier to puke up meaningless platitudes than to actually think for once.

  33. 33
    General Stuck says:

    Looks like we got us a new wingnut troll, or a spoof. Time will tell.

  34. 34
    Kobie says:

    @Bug Dumb Asshole: Care to tell us who exactly is going to beat him?

  35. 35
    Steve says:

    @Church Lady: I bet you can’t name the start and end dates of this two-year period when Bush didn’t get a single appeals court nominee confirmed, because it never happened.

  36. 36
    Reality Check says:

    @Kobie:

    The GOP nominee, of course. It doesn’t matter much who runs, the economy is so bad the election goes GOP by deafult.

    Who is going to vote for the incumbent when real unemployment is at 20% and gas is at $5/gallon? The young people won’t be back at the polls voting for ‘Bam, since all they have to show for 2008 is a useless liberal arts degree in a horrible economy that got them a job at Starbucks and room in their parent’s basement. And ACORN can’t bus in illegals or pay the homeless to vote with cigarettes anymore, so I don’t see ‘Bam winning.

  37. 37
    Uncle Clarence Thomas says:

    .
    .
    It is truly unfortunate that the Democrats in Congress refused to abolish the filibuster in spite of President Obama’s fierce day-and-night oratory exhorting them to do so at their earliest opportunity.
    .
    .

  38. 38
    The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

    @Kobie: The leading contenders are Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and Jesus after he descends from the heavens on Saturday.

  39. 39
    Hal says:

    @Reality Check

    2012? Nope. ‘Bam is on the way out. He’s George H.W. Bush, at best.

    Yawn. Hon, you wouldn’t be here of all places, if you you actually believed that.

  40. 40
    MobiusKlein says:

    Hmm, I’m not up on winger-sprache – what’s the derivation of “‘Bam” ? Seems a silly way to save 1 character.

  41. 41
    The Fat Kate Middleton (aka Jim, Once) says:

    Look .. as long as I’m in moderation for who knows how long, thanks to changing my name … can we please shut off that little turd Reality Check? He’s really staining and distracting all the discussions here.

  42. 42
    Kobie says:

    @Reality Check: lol ACORN! Man, you’re doing ALL the greatest hits. I’m surprised you haven’t mentioned that Obama won’t be able to have the New Black Panther Party intimidate voters in 2012, either.

    And yeah, if you honestly believed the bullshit you were spewing, you wouldn’t be here. Piss off, troll.

  43. 43
    Uncle Clarence Thomas says:

    @Corner Stone:
    .
    .

    AP sources: Hill leaders agree on Patriot Act

    Sweat not, Corner Stone. Only an odious legal charlatan would ever sign this obviously unconstitutional re-assault on the Liberty and Freedom of The American People into “law.”
    .
    .

  44. 44
    Corner Stone says:

    @Uncle Clarence Thomas: Uncle Clarence Thomas, I have failed to understand something and I am forced to apologize.
    But how can the “fierce urgency of now” be sustained over a long and incremental timeline?

  45. 45
    Corner Stone says:

    @Uncle Clarence Thomas: Uncle Clarence Thomas I have to disagree. If the current AG believes we need those tools now more than ever to fight against Osama then it’s pretty fucking clear we should extend the Patriot Act.

  46. 46
    Church Lady says:

    @Steve:

    You may well be right. I read that somewhere today, and the Wikipedia article I’m linking to is a little vague. However, it certainly does show that the Democrats are also pretty damn good at blocking judicial nominees.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.....troversies

  47. 47
    The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

    I feel a Stealers Wheel song comin’ on.

  48. 48
    eemom says:

    @Church Lady:

    you are a profoundly ignorant moron.

  49. 49
    Sasha says:

    @ Reality Check:

    We suffer neither fools nor trolls here gladly. I suggest you walk away now while you still can.

  50. 50
    Joseph Nobles says:

    @Reality Check: “‘Bam is on the way out.”

    LOL! Obama is proposing the end of oil subsidies and restating American policies for almost two decades hacking off Israel just to make 2012 a fair fight. And the Republicans still keep pulling crap like making the Ryan “Kill Medicare” plan a litmus test. They are determined to lose 2012 for whatever reason.

  51. 51
    Mike in NC says:

    @Sasha:

    We suffer neither fools nor trolls here gladly. I suggest you walk away now while you still can.

    But I was really hoping to hear Reality Check gush about fondling Newt’s man-boobs.

  52. 52
    Uncle Clarence Thomas says:

    @Corner Stone:
    .
    .

    But how can the “fierce urgency of now” be sustained over a long and incremental timeline?

    Simple. As in the Bible, by never looking backwards.
    .
    .

  53. 53
    Elizabelle says:

    @General Stuck:

    Best to ignore “Reality Check” since he, she or it is trying to create his own reality.

    Troll filter in place.

  54. 54
    mr. whipple says:

    Great. New and old wingtards.

    Later.

  55. 55
    Uncle Clarence Thomas says:

    @Corner Stone:
    .
    .

    If the current AG believes we need those tools now more than ever to fight against Osama then it’s pretty fucking clear we should extend the Patriot Act.

    Now, now, Corner… That sentiment was expressed by former president Bush’s AG. We had a decisive refudiation of his policies, so there is no need whatsoever to imply that we are experiencing some sort of third Bush presidential term regarding policy…
    .
    .

  56. 56
    The Raven says:

    @Reality Check: We can’t treat Bush II as badly as he treated himself, or the USA. Some things are just impossible.

    The public wants decent jobs, housing, and health care. So far, the far-right conservative prescription is even less popular than the Democratic prescription.

    Got any better ideas?

  57. 57
    fasteddie9318 says:

    @Church Lady:

    You may well be right. I read that somewhere today

    …wh…

    @Church Lady:

    you are a profoundly ignorant moron.

    OK, eemom already said it.

  58. 58
    Chris says:

    @PeakVT:

    Eh, it’s just not that much of a priority for them.

    Of course, it helps that Republicans have announced they’ll filibuster anyone to the left of Donald Trump — and that’s persuaded Obama/Democrats that they might as well not try.

    Congratulations, Democrats (and Obama). It takes one party to attempt blackmail, but two to go along with it.

    If Obama wants to fill those judgeships, he can make it an issue. Make McConnell filibuster a hundred nominees. (Heck, can judges be recess-appointed?)

    But if Obama wants to let Republicans impose their wishes on him, he can keep doing what he’s doing: not nominating enough judges, not making their nominations a priority in the Senate, not finding deals to cut with the necessary people (what, like Lindsay Graham can’t be bought?), not challenging an obstructionist minority, and not making it an issue with the public.

  59. 59
    Calouste says:

    @Geeno:

    Why do winger trolls always call themselves things like “Reality Check” or “Voice of Truth” or stuff like that?

    It’s an homage to their favorite how-to manual, 1984.

  60. 60
    SFAW says:

    Who is going to vote for the incumbent when real unemployment is at 20% and gas is at $5/gallon?

    Even assuming that the U3 unemployment rate is above 10% by this time next year, which it won’t be (unless the Rethugs manage to destroy the economy even more than they already have):

    The people who will vote for him are the same people who are now telling the Rethugs to go fuck themselves, for having lied repeatedly about Medicare. Thanks to your latest love object, Intellectual Midget Paulie Ryan, seniors are finally realizing that Rethugs want to destroy Medicare. And pretty soon, they’ll take the next logical step (well, if they’re not imbeciles like you, that is), which will get them closer to the idea that you and your kind want to destroy not just Medicare, but anything resembling the semi-civilized society that existed before Newtie got started.

    And they’ll realize that you and your Rethug buddies are doing it, not because you think the country will better off with guys like the Kochs and Blankenship running the country (not that they don’t already), but only because you and your Rethug masters can’t stand the idea of having a nigger in the White House.

    So, Clown-a/Reality Chick, you and your sock puppet alter egos can keep whistling past your graveyard, and you can keep hoping that the SCARY BLACK MAN (Boogity boogity ! BOOO! !) at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will lose in 2012. But unless Donald Trump’s ace investigators find evidence of Obama’s being the a great-grandson of Lev Bronstein, or perhaps the love child of S. Ann Dunham and Malcolm Little (paging Pammy “I’m even more nuts than Micky Bachmann” Geller), you’re going to be SOL. And I, for one, will have a fine old time laughing at you and your Rethug masters, you moron.

  61. 61
    SFAW says:

    I feel a Stealers Wheel song comin’ on.

    OK, but please put away the blade, first.

  62. 62
    Baron Jrod of Keeblershire says:

    @Church Lady: Bofe sydes dooit!

  63. 63
    Triassic Sands says:

    In his quest to become the worst Democratic senator ever, Ben Nelson joined the Republicans in filibustering Liu.

    This gives Nelson enough of a boost to put him in first place ahead of fellow cretin Joe Manchin (D*, WVA). In the coming months, as the next election approaches, the battle between Manchin and Nelson promises to be a rough and tumble affair. There is probably nothing either one won’t do to beat the other in their quest for infamy.

    Sadly, with the election approaching there are a few other Democrats — darkhorses to be sure — who may make a bid as well. Claire McCaskill, who tossed her hat in with the incredibly stupid McCaskill-Corker proposal, is one possible contender. The closer the election, the more some Democrats feel the need to try to convince their constituents that they really are Wingnuts, and that Wingnuttiness is not limited to Republicans.

    Manchin has, in his brief time in the Senate, shown himself to be spectacularly, horrendously bad, but Nelson has years of douchebaggery under his belt, and probably has to be considered the slight favorite for the title. So far, there is no word from Manchin as to why he let Nelson have this advantage or why he didn’t nullify Nelson’s move by joining Ben and the Republicans. After all, a guy like Manchin, unburdened by intelligence or integrity, is free to vote any way he wants to.

    *Douchebag

  64. 64
    Baron Jrod of Keeblershire says:

    @Triassic Sands: I don’t care if he does have an (I) after his name. Joe Lieberman will always be the worst Democrat to me.

  65. 65
    asiangrrlMN says:

    LET MY PEOPLE GO!

    Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

  66. 66
    Steve says:

    @Triassic Sands: Anyone who thinks Ben Nelson is even close to being the worst Democratic senator ever must not know much history.

  67. 67
    Spaghetti Lee says:

    @Triassic Sands:

    I saw once that Nelson votes with the Democrats 70% of the time. Now, usually he doesn’t vote with them on stuff that matters, but compare it to any Republican from Nebraska who’d vote with the dems approximately 0% of the time. Same with Manchin, McCaskill, et al.

    And worst Dem senator ever? Are you talking post-dixiecrat? Cause if not, I think Pitchfork Tillman gets that title by default.

  68. 68
    joel hanes says:

    @Reality Check:

    If Obama loses to the Republican nominee in 2012,
    I will pay you one hundred US dollars.

    If Obama wins, you owe me one doughnut of your own choosing.

  69. 69
    Sly says:

    @Steve:

    Anyone who thinks Ben Nelson is even close to being the worst Democratic senator ever must not know much history.

    No Democratic Senator will ever be as vile a cretin as John C. Calhoun. Ever.

  70. 70
    Xenos says:

    11 dimensional chess and all that, but this is the highest judicial appointment of an Asian since… ever? He has outstanding credentials, gets put out there for review and the GOP stomps him with a flourish.

    Anybody think the Asian community is going to forget this insult any time soon? It may be pretty cynical for Obama to send Liu out as a sacrificial lamb, but it could be effective.

  71. 71
    TenguPhule says:

    I say get the FBI to do a little digging on the GOP members of Congress, then start making them disappear for “Crimes against the State”

    If we’re going to imitate China, let’s not Pu$$yfoot around.

  72. 72
    TenguPhule says:

    However, it certainly does show that the Democrats are also pretty damn good at blocking judicial nominees.

    Alas, not good enough to keep all of the really Treasonous bastards off the bench. Like Alito, Thomas and Roberts.

  73. 73
    Yutsano says:

    @Xenos:

    It may be pretty cynical for Obama to send Liu out as a sacrificial lamb, but it could be effective.

    Possibly. The fact that Liu is damn qualified for the job couldn’t possibly be a consideration here could it?

    (And I know that’s not the argument you’re making. I’m just not convinced this is more than just picking the right person for the job.)

  74. 74
    Church Lady says:

    I’m thinking that Liu and Miguel Estrada should meet for a beer to compare notes on how unseemly partisan politics is in the judicial confirmation process.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Estrada

  75. 75
    JS says:

    So if Ginsburg leaves, just nominate him straight to the big show. He’s obviously no Harriet Myers, and Supreme Court nominations are a lot harder to sit on for a year.

    I’m a bit surprised that Miguel Estrada hasn’t come up as a reason the GOP is doing this. I’m not sure that this isn’t like the debt ceiling spin, in that anyone in the Senate long enough will have argued both sides of the issue, respective to when they were either in the majority or minority. And didn’t then Senator Obama himself pretty much say that judicial filibusters were not entirely beyond the pale?

  76. 76
    RadioOne says:

    @Church Lady: you know what, screw you. The Democrats helped confirm a ton of conservative judges during the Bush administration. And when I say a ton I mean a ton of conservative Federalist society douchbags that will influence the courts for generations to come. And yes, I know that you’re joking. You’re also not helping much.

  77. 77
    cat48 says:

    There would have been a 24/7 shitstorm if this had happened to a Republican Senate. NO ONE HAS BEEN ON TV TO COMPLAIN!!

    Obama may be failing, but the Dems in Congress have failed him and he has no fucking base or they would be on TV NOW! He cannot campaign 24/7. He’s actually very busy if you bother to look at his daily schedules. He’s preparing for Bibi’s hostile ass tomorrow and a trip next week to England/Ireland.

  78. 78
    Sly says:

    @JS:

    I’m a bit surprised that Miguel Estrada hasn’t come up as a reason the GOP is doing this.

    Probably because Estrada wrote a letter to the Judiciary Committee supporting the confirmation of Kagan, simultaneously telling Republicans to put their money where their mouth is in terms of judicial filibusters.

    I’d also like to add that Orrin Hatch, that impeccable coward, once again voted “present” on cloture.

  79. 79

    @Geeno: BTW: Why do winger trolls always call themselves things like “Reality Check” or “Voice of Truth” or stuff like that?

    newspeak is their native tongue

  80. 80
    Glen Tomkins says:

    Exercise the nuclear option, get rid of the filibuster, and get those 110 judges approved.

    If you’re not up for that, just forget about it. Anything less in response to this vote is worse than no response. Just sit back and admit that the US is a one-party state.

  81. 81
    gwangung says:

    @Church Lady: Not much of a thought, unfortunately.

  82. 82
    Jay in Oregon says:

    Was I really the only one who read that headline and saw “Republicans filibuster Godwin’s Law”?

    That would actually be up their alley, too…

Comments are closed.