Icould not agree with this sentiment less:
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said he urged President George W. Bush today to delay nominating a replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said he talked to Justice O’Connor about staying on the high court. “She’s prepared to do that” through the court’s term ending in June, Specter said. The president “was noncommittal,” Specter said. “The body language was not very positive,” Specter said.
Specter said the delay would give Congress and the rest of America more time to know John Roberts as chief justice. “When we know a little more about Judge Roberts it’s going to be easier with the next” nomination, Specter said.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said he urged Bush to submit a name to the Senate promptly. “I feel we should proceed with the nomination as anticipated,” Frist said. If so, the confirmation process could be completed “around Thanksgiving.”
Nominate someone, give them a few months for opposition research, and then have the hearings. No delays.
Biff
A quick second nomination would be right in line with the whole scheme of getting right-wing judges onto the court without letting the public know their actual views. Because if people knew what Roberts (and the inevitable wingnut to come) actually stood for, they might (gasp!) disagree with the choice. They could even (horrors!) criticize it! Perhaps even the unthinkable, they could vote against Republicans in the next election because of it! And all of that would be very uncivil.
Mark
It may be true that O’Connor said she is willing to serve, but take the politics out of it for a minute and ask yourself is it fair to ask her to serve for potentially another term – especially since her husband has Alzheimers and she would clearly prefer to be with him right now.
slide
I think its a great idea. If Bush is going to nominate stealth candidates that will not reveal anything about how they may rule on the important issues of the day, then we should be given a little time to evaluate said stealth candidate in action. And if his nice and soothing answers are contrasted with ideological rulings on the court then we can assume the worst when the next “stealth” candidate refuses to answer any questions of the Judicial Committee.
Why is this a bad idea? The only way its a bad idea is if you want to pack the court before anyone gets a chance to see what the ramifications are of Bush’s nominees.
Steve S
I’m hoping for John’s sake, that this time around the President goes to the Democratic leadership and asks for some names who would be acceptable.
Otherwise they may be forced to vote against the nominee, and that will make John sad.
bains
Specter is an embarrasment…
Shygetz
John’s got this one right.
If he’s goijng to put up another stealth candidate that will breeze through confirmation, then by all means, do it as fast as possible. That way, we will know something about the nominee/justice before the next presidential election, and can punish or award the Republican party appropriately.
If he’s going to put forth a confirmed wingnut, then now is as good a time as any. So, let’s get on with it.
Slides undernourished conscience
I agree with John. Hurry it up and get it done so they can quickly overturn Roe. Of course, I just want that because as a ‘wingnut’ I want to suppress women as much as humanly possible. The moonbats are correct, it has nothing to do with the unborn because the positions are ‘inconsistant’ when it comes to life in the form of capital punishment or war (the only no nuance issue).
After that a quick ‘finding of rights’ that declares homosexuality unconstitutional, followed by another examination of the penumbras that declares the poor have no right to personal property or, hell, even freedom.
Then for the final blow to atheistic liberalism, the court will declare that there is a G-d and all must agree or be shipped to Mexico (after the completion of the wall of course).
It’s going to be glorious.
Krista
Sadly, I agree. Even if there was a delay, and even if during the delay, it was discovered that he echoes “Slide’s undernourished conscience” (yikes), do we honestly think that the dems have a hope in hell of blocking the nomination? They just don’t have the numbers (or, right now, the gonads). His youth does scare the living hell out of me, ’cause if he is a wingnut, he could be affecting policy for a very, very long time.
jobiuspublius
Is it fair to extend someone’s enlistment by 25 years and send them to fight a futile war?
KC
Well, Spector was obviously not as confident about Roberts not turning over precedent as he made out to be a few days ago. Bush will do whatever he wants.
slide aka Joe Albanese
Krista said,
Well, yes actully they do. They have retained the right to the filibuster. The Republican moderates could always threaten to change the rules on the filibuster, but as Bush weakens almost daily, I think the prospect for that is dwindling. With hurrican Katrina, the American people are getting a good look at some of Bush’s appointees (i.e. Brown and the other incompetents at FEMA, Meyers appointment to Immigration, and the guy that just got arrested, etc. etc). I dont’ know under such circumstances that the American public would look too kindly on the Republican majority taking away the Dem’s ability to block some of the Bush Clowns.
slide aka Joe Albanese
Yes. Very fair. Patriotism means more than wearing a flag pin in one’s lapel. If it is in the best interest of the country then yes, it is fair to ask her to do what she already said she would be willing to do, and that is serve out one more year.
Defense Guy
Nevermind that she asked to retire. That is now irrelevant because some don’t want Bush to appoint someone now, so far away from the 2006 elections.
It isn’t about political advantage. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
slide aka Joe Albanese
Defense Guy:
The article only mentions ONE person that doesnt’ want Bush to appoint someone now. A REPUBLICAN. Are you suggesting Sen Specter is secrety trying to help the Dems in the 2006 elections? A mole? Interesting thought process there DefenseBoy.
To some, EVERYTHING is a cynical partisan sham. Again, very revealing.
Defense Guy
Ah, you piker, you assume too much. Who said anything about which party was thinking advantage.
Not one word about party in my post. So, my self avowed stalker, who is the partisan?
And you assume he isn’t doing it for Republican advantage, knowing that appointing a staunch conservative closer to the election will HELP his party. If you can see things from the advantage of both sides, you will be a far better political thinker.
Cue some self referential rant about how you feeeeel or its about the mooooooorals or some such twat that is feel good and not grounded in the reality of politics.
slide aka Joe Albanese
defenseBoy:
Yes, I assume that. Senator Specter is one of the more decent men in government (Anita Hill idiocy aside) and I think he truly cares that we have the right people on the Supreme Court. He is not a right wing fire breathing, evolution denying, Roe bashing nutjob like many in the GOP. He is the one that came to the hearing with a poster of all the past precedents for Rove vs Wade decisions. Some politicians, (an ever diminishing group) actully want to do things based on whats right for the country. Your failure to understand that, is once again very revealing. Its all about the battle for you. Win at all costs. That approach is the very epitome of what is wrong with our system presently.
Now onto this constant nonsense of yours about me be a partisan, which implies that I take the side of the Democratic party. Nothing could be further from the truth. I despise most Democrats. I find them feckless, cowardly, and nearly (not quite, but nearly) as beholden to special interests and corporate dollars. I do not carry any water for the Dems. That being said, we do have a two party system and since I think Bush is very very damaging to our country I generally tend to support Dems as they are the only other game in town.
I don’t have a “hate” for Bush because I am a partisan DefenseBoy, I have a hate for what Bush has done to this country. How he has weakened us in almost every single area. I love this great country of ours and I hate how it has been hijacked by people that could give a shit less about anybody other than their very narrow constituancy.
And you know what DefenseBoy, a lot of TRUE conservatives are coming to that same conclusion. I read the right wing blogs as I imagine you do. They have beeen pretty scathing on the Bubble Boy. Hey, even head right wing skank, Ann Coulter, is attacking the boy president:
.
Slides fattened ego
Once again you cover your ignorance by assuming things. It is apparently the most fatal flaw for you, Joe, to ever admit that you are every wrong. You continue to assume that what I say is ‘revealing’, as if you even have the first clue about anything related to politics. Your partisanship is obvious, as you constantly lay into the host’s ass whenever you feel he is leaning too far right.
On top of that you are a hack in the school of political thought, relying on cheap emotional ploys to pull you through. The problem is, it is not how the world works, and until you figure that out you will just be a shallow thinker flailing about claiming how uuuuuuunfair everything is and how mean the old republicans are. In short, you will be ineffective in getting the change you so desperately want.
Change comes from within, and so far, you are waaaaay outside. But hey, continue to twist my words and assume I am just pitching for the current administration. Continue to prescribe for me what MY words mean, even when they are at odds with my intent. Continue to be the person cannot get beyond the politics of the personal.
It’s no skin off my ass, but know as long as you do, the only thing you will get from me is exactly what you deserve, mocking. Wanker.
And I think Hatch would sell his mother’s soul if it helped him politically. I think they all would.
slide aka Joe Albanese
DefenseBoy:
So, I got you wrong when I said the following?
and to counter my misrepresentation of your intent you say this?
Very subtle distinction DefenseBoy, very fuckin subtle. Lol.
My favorite DefenseBoy defense:
Hey, don’t blame me if your words are at odds with your intent. Perhaps if you weren’t such a moron you could write a little bit more clearly oh wise and sage one.
Slides fattened ego
You made an assumption. I corrected you. All the rest is just you trying to compensate for your inability to think outside your narrow political range. Either that or your dick is laughably small and the compensation is due to that.
I’m betting it’s both.
I have never seen you admit error, even when it is clear as day that you got something wrong.
Defense Guy
While it is great fun to snipe back and forth in ever increasingly personal attacks as I have done before with others on this site, at the end of the day it gets nobody anywhere. I’ll admit it, I’m an asshole, and this kind of stupid bickering I have done with you, Joe, and with ppGaz does nothing but bring down the level of discourse. I’m frankly embarrassed at my stupid personal attacks on people I don’t even know.
This site has the potential to be much better than that, so you may both make attacks on me in the future if you wish and I will take them in stride. You both have my apologies for acting in such a childish manner.
I hope like hell that I can live up to this.
slide aka Joe Albanese
DefenseBoy, let me give you a little help ok? Because you certainly seem like you need it. If you are going to get into a pissing contest with someone (like me) you really have to rebut what the person says with logic and argument. Intellectually engaging him so that the other readers can see your superiority. You don’t seem to do that very much DefenseBoy. This is what you do a lot of:
You see DefenseBoy, none of the above are actually arguments refuting something I said. They demonstrate no logic. No intelligence. No witty engagement. Just throwing insults with nothing to back them up. Now why would any objective reader put much stock in what you say? Just because you say it? Really, try and debate me on any of the issues. I would be more than willing to take you on if that is your wish. But, alas, it seems you have not the stomach or intellectual capacity to do so, so you result to your juvenile insults and name calling. Rather pathetic.
Now go away, some of us would like to actually discuss the issues without the childish temper tantrums you only seem capable of.
slide aka Joe Albanese
Defense Guy:
If you are being sincere, apology accepted.
Defense Guy
I am, and thanks.
Far North
I’m all for delaying the nomination, being that I feel that anybody Bush nominates will be a hopless idealouge bent on overturning Roe v Wade.
I’m hoping that during the delay, Bush will get too close to Hurricane Rita, what with him trying to show that now he really cares once he realized the political fallout of Katrina. Rita would pick him up and deposit him off the coast of Africa. Cheney would realize that not only is the big Kahuna in reality like he’s always been, he’s the big Kahuna on the org chart now. That will teter him over with a coronary and then we’d have, what? Oh fuck, speaker of the House, Dennis Hassert……….now President Hassert.
Never mind. It didn’t think that through.