President Bush pledged Friday to name a quick successor to retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. But don’t expect much else to go quickly. Those on the ideological edges have much invested in this appointment, so the confirmation process likely will be all-out war. And that means that much of the important work in Washington, D.C. — such as curbing spending and reforming Social Security — could become casualties of the fighting. That’s not what we needed right now.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Chrisfrommactown on Let immigrants run
- BlueJay on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Too many exemptions
- JWink on Too many exemptions
- LonnythePlumber on Jail consultants straining patience
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
26 Comments
Well, that about wraps it up for Roe vs. Wade.
The Wingnuts (Dobson, Perkins) will settle for nothing less than full payback for having been shafted again and again by Bushco. It all comes down to this, the mother of all battles in American politics. And the first thing to go, even before abortion rights, the environment, and privacy rights, will be the filibuster.
Still, Bush is politically weakened, Bill Frist is as dumb as a bag of hammers, and Harry Reid actually has a spine.
As for Sandra Day O’Conner, between throwing the 2000 election to Bush and now this, I wouldn’t want her legacy. Can you say, ‘political hack?’
Stranger and stranger, he is. Starts an attack without an adversary. Hmm. Best move on to saner waters, captain.
Yawn. Y’all are boring.
Well, OT, the news is coming out that Karl Rove is the one who leaked the name of Valerie Plame to Robert Novak. I’ll be interested to hear y’all’s Right-Wing spin that exposing covert CIA operatives for political purposes isn’t a jailable offense.
Why does Karl Rove hate America?
Probably because you’re in it.
So you agree that Karl Rove hates America. That’s more than most Wingnuts would concede.
Janice Rogers Brown
That is who needs to replace O’Conner. It will be fun to see how the Democrats handle a black woman.
Indeed. That’s why the Repugs nominated her in the first place. Nothing makes Republicans feel strong and powerful like having a black person on their side when playing racial wedge politics. Plus, there’s her demonstrated willingness to take the side of propertied interests agains the little guy or gal.
However, JRB comes with significant liabilities, like her judicial record on the CA court, which is slightly to the right of Attila the Hun. Could be a problem with GOP moderates. But considering that Chimpy is the ‘double or nothing’ President even when he has nothing, she’s a strong contender for the nomination.
Bush won the election. The libs lost. Bush is a conservative. He’ll pick a conservative judge. Scalia was approved 98-0, if Bush’s nominee isn’t approved by the same margin, it’s just politics.
Bush won the election. The libs lost. Bush is a conservative. He’ll pick a conservative judge. Scalia was approved 98-0, if Bush’s nominee isn’t approved by the same margin, it’s just politics.
Bush won the election. The libs lost. Bush is a conservative. He’ll pick a conservative judge. Scalia was approved 98-0, if Bush’s nominee isn’t approved by the same margin, it’s just politics.
Scalia was approved under a very different political climate. 98-0 isn’t going to happen for any nominee of Bush.
I would like to see Janice Rogers Brown nominated. Liberals want to talk about how unfair Republicans are to minorities until you show them people like Condi Rice and Jan Rogers. Then they’re not sure what to do…so they do the only thing they know and that’s attack. CF is a perfect example – first post of this discussion is an attack on the “wingnuts.” You can’t even have a decent discussion, just attacks for him.
Happy to push your buttons, James.
I know exactly what to do with someone like Janice Rogers-Brown: look at her judicial record. It is an unbroken series of decisions that favor vested interests, trash the environment, and strip individuals of legal protections.
Same rationale for opposing Condi. She’s an apologist for the status quo who will say anything to support her patrons. The color of her skin is really beside the point.
Oh, by the way, Breyer was approved 87-9, Ginsburg 96-3.
The notion of a loyal opposition with useful alternative ideas has degenerated under the democrats into angry left demagoguery and obstructionism, wildly supported by hordes of over-schooled political nihilists.
Thank you, CF, for showing us the baleful results of our educational tax dollars.
[quote-CF:Oh, by the way, Breyer was approved 87-9, Ginsburg 96-3. end-quote]
It goes to show that Republicans will do the up and down vote and vote on a person who is qualified regardless of ideology. But when it is the other way around, Thomas or who will replace O’Conner and Reinquist, the Dems will be fighting tooth and nail. Why?
Well CF, I’m sure you think you push my buttons but you don’t. After running for office, there isn’t anything you can post here that I haven’t heard before.
And thanks for the info about Breyer and Ginsburg. I guess since they didn’t get 98-0 votes they aren’t qualified either according to some posts above.
I will say that I disagree with Phillip Brownlee’s post at the very beginning. He’s right that other business will probably come to a halt, but anymore the courts have so much power over our lives that a nominee is extremely important. Our current state supreme court is a great example, now threatening to close the very schools they want so badly to save through wasted funding. So much is at stake, and both conservatives and liberals know that…that’s why this nomination is going to be an all out war.
Hogwash, Joe. The Republicans filibustered Abe Fortas in 1968 when Johnson nominated him for Chief Justice. That was the first use of the filibuster, in this context, to prevent an ‘up or down vote,’ a phrase Republicans seem addicted to like Jim Jones Kool-Aid.
And don’t try to use the Frist spin that it wasn’t a ‘true’ filibuster because it represented ‘the will of the majority’: the Congressional Record and the WaPo both indicate otherwise.
Here’s a quote from Norman Ornstein, hardly an ‘angry leftist’ as Barbie–sorry, Tricia–accuses me of being:
“The strongest evidence that anti-Fortas senators were not confident of commanding a majority is the fact that they fought so tenaciously to keep the confirmation from reaching a vote, says Norman J. Ornstein, a congressional scholar who has written extensively on the Fortas matter. Ornstein, of the American Enterprise Institute, said: “This was a filibuster. It was intended to keep the nomination from moving forward for the remainder of that term.”
As for why we fight, well, it’s obvious. We don’t want an activist right wing court. We’re worried about legal protections for our persons, for abortion rights, for the environment, among other things.
On culture war issues, the country is split right down the middle, and the composition of the existing court reflects that. In particular, the country is securely pro-choice on the issue of abortion rights. Look at the numbers.
O’Connor may be opportunistic, but by putting the swing vote in the middle, she allows both sides to get some of what they want. If her seat goes conservative, that ends. You effectively give 50% a say and 50% none whatever. And when folks, right or left, are denied a say in national matters for a protracted period of time, the kind of division this sows isn’t conducive to our ability to function as a nation.
When Rehnquist retires, I don’t expect the fight to be nasty. He’s a conservative, after all, and most Democrats figure it’s not unreasonable for another conservative to replace him. But with O’Connor retiring, what we liberals see is the prospect of a 5-4 right-wing court, that is dying to overturn 200+ years of precedent, on the basis of a judicial philosophy that claims to be constructionist but is really activist.
That’s what is at stake, Joe. That’s why we’ll be fighting tooth and nail.
James, sounds like the fence looks pretty much the same from both sides.
What office did you run for?
With a majority of the republican right controlling the courts, the poll tax will be reinstituted, only married people will be allowed to engage in physical relationships, and only the missionary position will be allowed. If you are rich, none of the above applies.
In the 2000 campaign, Bush pledged to be a uniter, not a devider. Can anyone truthfully say he’s done that? In my view, he’s been the most devisive president in my lifetime, and that goes back a ways. Bush blew his chance to be a uniter after 9/11. He has another opportunity now. He’s an ultra-conservative president and as such, he has the right to nominate who he wants for the Supreme Court, and I expect his nomination to be a conservative (of course). There are a lot of qualified conservatives he could pick that would be acceptable to both sides. I fully expect him to slap Democrats in the face with the most arch-conservative he can find. So much for being a uniter. Personally, I’d much prefer an Alberto Gonzales to a JRB, but I expect he’ll do what he’s always done…pick a fight that will further poison the political discourse and devide our country. Conservative and Liberal, we all need to back away from the “brink” in our politics. Political discourse has been poisoned enough in my opinion and both sides share in the fault. Liberals need to accept that the next Supreme Court judge will be a conservative. Conservatives need to make sure the next justice is a true jurist, and not a political hack. We ALL need to take a deep breath, back up, and respect the opinions of the other side. “Gotcha” politics doesn’t serve anybody’s needs.
Quote:Hogwash, Joe. The Republicans filibustered Abe Fortas in 1968:end qoute
The Senate Confirmed him in 1965 with ease to the Supreme Court. The filibuster you are talking about was for the Chief Justice. He was already on the court, not filibustered from getting on the court.
They had some reservations about his experience and wanted more debate on the matter. And by the way, the filibuster only lasted 4 DAYS, not three years like the democrats.
And at that time you had to have 67 Senators for cloture and had to TALK the filibuster.
Big big difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Many scholars didn’t even think this was a filibuster. But regardless, the actions are nothing compared to the Democrats.
Quote:Hogwash, Joe. The Republicans filibustered Abe Fortas in 1968:end qoute
The Senate Confirmed him in 1965 with ease to the Supreme Court. The filibuster you are talking about was for the Chief Justice. He was already on the court, not filibustered from getting on the court.
They had some reservations about his experience and wanted more debate on the matter. And by the way, the filibuster only lasted 4 DAYS, not three years like the democrats.
And at that time you had to have 67 Senators for cloture.
Big big difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Many scholars didn’t even think this was a filibuster. But regardless, the actions are nothing compared to the Democrats.
Tricia,Right on; but as you see, it’s best not to try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and tends to rile up the pig.
Tricia,Tell us how you REALLY feel, heh, heh.
Has anybody stopped to think that the government represents ALL the people and not just the hard-core of the GOP? Sure, Republicans can cram it down everybody else’s throat, but maybe we should consider the conciquences. As I said before, I think Bush will select a candidate that the Dems can’t live with. There’ll be a filibuster and the Republicans will trigger the “nuclear option”. Republicans will get their way, but keep in mind, Dems can pretty much shut down business in the Senate. If they have no say in the Senate, why not shut it down? You might say it doesn’t matter, but in practice, it does. Witness the fiasco with the Ethics commitee. The Republicans tried to gut the effectiveness of the committee, and the Democrats shut it down. Of course, that served the Republicans purpose to shield Delay, but it made the Republicans look bad. Why else would they cave like they did? They have a majority and can do as they please, but it looked bad to the folks back home, and the Republicans gave in.
Same with privatizing Social Security. Republicans hold the majority and could pass the president’s agenda any time they want, but they won’t because they can’t get any Democratic support. Without Democrats to point to and say, “See, they supported it too”, it becomes a totally Republican thing, and Republican lawmakers don’t want to face the voters after they screw up the most sucessful social program in America’s history. Believe it or not, Republicans can’t get re-elected with only the support of the Moral Majority and they know it. Loud as the evangelicals are, they don’t get people elected on their own.
My personal feeling is, this has gone too far and there will be a meltdown in the Senate…to all our detriment. Political debate has degenerated too far and we’ve all let our mouths back us into corners we’ll have a hard time getting out of. You have to look no further than these blogs to see that. The first comment on this blog was way over the top, and the rest aren’t any better. You’re not going to convince anybody to see your side if you’re shouting at them and belittling their beliefs.
CF – I ran for state senator this past ‘04. Now however I have to say I’m glad I lost my race. Not only am I avoiding what is happening right now, but after talking things through with my opponent, he changed his views quite drastically and I’m happy to say he’s doing a fine job in Topeka now. Obviously we don’t see eye to eye 100%, but I think he has realized that the moderate Republicans don’t always have the answers. And yet he still gets along with them and can listen to everyone…it’s a good position to be in.
James, good to hear. I agree that no one has a monopoly on truth or good ideas.
ha – you ought to read the Daily Oklahoman.