Why do we have to keep pretending that the lack of bipartisanship is the fault of Obama and the Democrats, when the Republicans are threatening the filibuster of a SCOTUS nominee who has NOT YET BEEN NAMED?
Reader Interactions
124Comments
Comments are closed.
El Cid
If Obama would just nominate the person that the Republicans prefer, they wouldn’t have to filibuster. He’s driving them to it by probably ramming his choice down their throats.
Comrade Jake
Particularly when you consider the likelihood that Obama will appoint someone more conservative than Stevens. Not that the media will ever point this out, mind you.
Hal
They are only threatening to filibuster someone who is idealogical, in other words, if they don’t believe Obama is a half-breed muslin Anti-christ with marxist, communist, socialist leanings, then it’s a no go. Perfectly understandable.
Uloborus
Because we were promised a Magic Negro, John. It is obviously *within* Obama’s power to enforce martial law leading to a brutal dictatorship, completely overthrow capitalism in favor of communism, transform our current insurance system into a single-payer government health care model, end both wars instantly with no consequences, have every detainee of the Bush administration immediately tried in civilian court with a fair and just outcome, and make all of congress happily agree to all of this.
If he’s not doing it, he must be unwilling.
EDIT: Honestly, I feel like that’s the reason. People want Obama to do their personal X. If he doesn’t, it’s not that it’s an unreasonable expectation. It must be deliberate on his part.
C Nelson Reilly
I hear Bork’s available
Comrade Jake
The funny part to me is that Republicans are still talking about Miguel fucking Estrada, brother to Eric.
Llelldorin
Given that they’re going to filibuster regardless, he should just nominate Franken, because the hearings would be hilarious.
Alex S.
Finally…. we have freed ourselves from reality, we are reality-free.
SiubhanDuinne
Too bad SCOTUS justices fall outside the recess appointment parameters. ‘Cos it would be way fun for Obama to just wait until, say, the Columbus Day District Work Period, appoint whomever he damn well pleases, and then watch all the splodinheads.
Citizen Alan
Look, we all know that America will never experience true bipartisanship until Obama does the right thing, gets Biden to resign, appoints Sarah Palin as his new VP, and then resigns himself so that the new God-Queen of the GOP can ascend to her rightful place on the throne. If the Republicans cannot rule our world, they will burn it down, and all us pitiful Demoncrat mud-people should just be thankful that our Republican overlords have not, as of yet, herded us into a Gitmo-like death camp as we obviously deserve.
Davis X. Machina
Prediction: Obama — against his better judgment — chooses a candidate primarily as an exercise in identity politics in an attempt to close the enthusiasm gap going into the fall, a gap that the party base claims the nomination of another straight white man would re-open after the passing of ACA.
The nomination scrapes through the SJC, the GOP-promised filibuster is defeated by a one-vote margin, but the nomination itself is killed on the floor by the usual (nominally) Democratic Senate suspects, led by Blanche Lincoln in a revenge vote against the left wing of the party, and Joe Lieberman — who is with us on everything but the war, if I recall.
Media trumpet first floor defeat since Bork of an SC nominee, caused by a failure of bipartisanship, and the Obama administration is (again) declared a failure. All the old intra-Democratic fissures left from the ACA fight open up just in time for a rout in the November elections.
If there’s a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, Democrats will find it — the discipline shown on the HCR vote is notable because it was a fluke.
tc125231
Well, actually, I never did feel the need to pretend that Democrats were the source of intense partisianship based upon a drive for intense ideological purity without reference to reality.
It’s you “hippy punchers” that have been big on that.
To anyone who, to paraphrase Moynihan, has not been under the impression that people are entitled to their own facts, the basic source of American governance problems has been obvious for over a decade.
Glad you’re catching up. Did you have to take a remedial course?
SiubhanDuinne
@Llelldorin: I would pay good money to watch those hearings!
robertdsc
Teh Greenwald is the only logical choice.
mr. whipple
I can hear it now: “Obama didn’t fight hard enough. It’s like he wants to fail.”
Brian J
Isn’t this a reason to nominate the biggest leftist he can find? Short of cloning Scalia and nominating that guy to the bench, they appear to be willing to oppose any person he picks. And even then, they’d probably find a reason to go against him.
I doubt anyone remembers this, but back when Sotomayor was nominated, I said that while she was certainly, as far as any of us could tell, perfectly qualified to sit on the Court, she wasn’t the most liberal choice he could have made. There were others, probably ladies like Pamela Karlan, Diane Wood, and Kathleen Sullivan, who would be more thrilling to the base, but that he wouldn’t nominate one of them first because he wanted to ensure that his first pick went through smoothly and to expose the Republicans for the childish idiots they are. After all, Stevens and Ginsburg aren’t young, so the chances that one of them would be replaced were extremely high, and the chances that both of them would go before the first term weren’t exactly low. I think they certainly lived up to what we all expected of them, and while I don’t doubt they will be given false equivalency by some in the media, I also don’t doubt that they will really up the crazy. In other words, they will, once again, make it easy for him to nominate whomever he wants. The attitude on display by Kyl illustrates that pretty well, I think.
arguingwithsignposts
Ideally, Obama nominates a LBGT. The wingnut explosion would decimate the reserves of the liberal popcorn industry.
Alex S.
The Supreme Court vacancy is not imminent. Depending on Obama’s reelection chances Stevens and Ginsberg might delay their retirement beyond 2012. I guess that Elena Kagan will be the replacement for Ginsberg. Not sure about Stevens’ successor. Cass Sunstein is said to be a moderate and would be a possible choice in the near term. In the long term, Obama needs to try to replace Stevens with a classic liberal. That will be extremely difficult. But the Supreme Court balance is the last line of defense that cannot be crossed by bipartisanship or compromise.
Davis X. Machina
@mr. whipple:
The beauty of this argument is that it’s unfalsifiable. If the nominee loses, Obama didn’t fight hard enough, if the nominee wins, any help from Obama was not dispositive, because the nominee was going to be confirmed anyways.
burnspbesq
OK, Kyl’s a poopy-head.
Tell me something I don’t know.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
random question to anyone who might have an informed guess: Would Olympia Snowe and her shadow senator filibuster a SC nominee? especially a woman? I’m taking it as a given that the nominee, whatever gender or ethnicity, will be at best a center-leftist
Brachiator
Justice Stevens has been preparing the ground for his retirement for some time now and has even in some of his recent opinions, hinted at the kind of judicial philosophy that he would like to see on the bench, and which would be an antidote to the originalist posturings of Scalia and Company.
The Obama Administration has been given ample opportunity to line up their strategy, and the GOP has tipped its hand, so everyone knows what the opposition looks like.
My bet is on Obama.
By the way, in a recent New Yorker piece, Jeff Toobin speculated that Solicitor General Elena Kagan would be the Supreme Court pick. She’s already been vetted and the Republicans would have to come up with twisted logic BS to oppose her. Which they obviously would do.
Release the Kraken!
Jim, Foolish Literalist
and, if the presumably center-left nominee is confirmed, if Obama had had the guts/had really wanted to pick a Real Progressive….
burnspbesq
@robertdsc:
Dude, you forgot the snark and /snark tags.
Justices who get what they want are consensus-builders. That doesn’t seem to be a strength of Greenwald’s.
burnspbesq
So, John, what symphonic music are you listening to these days? Have you gotten past Beethoven?
jwb
@arguingwithsignposts“Ideally, Obama nominates a LBGT. The wingnut explosion would decimate the reserves of the liberal popcorn industry.”
I’ve wondered about a truly liberal Mormon, because then you’d get the added fun of seeing the Mormon church come apart at the seams.
Joey Maloney
Yeah, but I would pay money to read a Greenwald dissent to a Scalia opinion, or vice-versa, and I bet so would plenty of others. You could put SCOTUS on PAYGO basis.
El Cid
Clearly Sarah Palin is the only one who can both bring us all together and make Clarence Thomas look like a brilliant, independent-minded jurist.
demo woman
The big question is will the Repubs make the spouse cry cuz the news media loves when that happens? If the nominee does not have a spouse, maybe a parent can shed some tears.
Back to cooking have a good day all.
Anya
@Uloborus: Funny you said that, it’s similar to what “a friend” said in an email to Frank Rich (by claiming a friend said the left were hoping Obama would go gangsta on the Republicans’ asses, I am guessing Rich wants to avoid GG sending him nasty emails and taking over his comments section).
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/opinion/04rich.html
Ash
Ehrm…..the people who expected him to a “Republicans-be-damned!!!!” type of person instead of the measured, deliberate person he is, did so only because they had their heads up their own asses, not cause he’s blackity black black.
Justin
Am I the only one who thinks reporters asking politicians for pledges is a really bullshit way to manufacture a story? “Senator Kyl, will you pledge right now not to filibuster a nominee who hasn’t been named for a vacancy that doesn’t exist?”
I’m no fan of Kyl, but I would be if he said “why the fuck would I do that?”
Macha Maguire
Oh please, please… just for the hand-wringing, tea-down-the-nose joy of it. Puhleeeeze?
Citizen Alan
Actually, what would be the most awesome thing ever is if he nominated Hillary Clinton. No one on earth has been vetted more than her. She is extremely liberal on some issues, but moderate bordering on conservative on many others. The country club insider nature of the Senate would make it very difficult for all but the most retrograde Republicans to vote against her, which would cause the Fox-Teabagger nexus to explode. And it would end, once and for all, the entire basis for the PUMA movement, as Obama would have given Hillary the one job that has a greater opportunity for affecting the entire nation than the Presidency.
Calliope Jane
Yeah, I’d just like to apologize to everyone for Kyl. He’s just really, really awful. I have no idea why he got re-elected (people who voted against the ban gay marriage amendment–it failed the first time–had to vote for him. Crazy). I can only hope that his opponent next time highlights his treatment of J Sotomayor during her nomination hearings. Also, I hope that the Democrats retain control of the Senate in the meantime because I think Kyl really, really wants to be chair of the judiciary committee and that is a terrifying prospect.
Also, I read on the GOS that Supreme Court justices actually can be nominated by recess appointment but would have to be renominated for the next session (it isn’t an end-run around the lifetime appointment, but it does get the nominee on the Court to show everyone the nominee did not bring about the end times, or whatever). Apparently, both Justice Brennan and Justice Stewart (of “I know it when I see it” fame) were originally recess appointments.
Davis X. Machina
Waaaaay too many people left the polling booth in ’08 thinking ‘Now we’ve got our son-of-a-bitch. Our Bush. Dude better start breaking shit.’
‘Breaking shit’ being part of the problem, of course, not part of the solution. Probably the opposite of part of the solution, come to that.
Citizen Alan
Actually, my expectation was that he was a measured deliberate person but also that he was intelligent and pragmatic and that eventually all that bipartisan kumbaya shit would aground on the fundamental problem of a Republican minority which has declared itself the enemy of democracy itself, at which point he’d start playing hardball. There is some evidence that this is beginning to occur, although about six months to a year too late, IMO.
licensed to kill time
@Uloborus
I think there was a certain contingent that just wanted Obama to get all Bushieval on their Republican asses. Payback for the eight years in Purgatory.
Redshift
@demo woman: Nah, the media only cares when senators make the wife of a Republican nominee cry. IOKIYAR, just like everything else; move along, nothing to see…
SiubhanDuinne
@burnspbesq: LOLWUT? Right, because it really shouldn’t take more than three or four weeks to get past Beethoven.
Brian J
Damn our inability to easily link back to comments!
Anyway, to all of those who want a LBGT nominee: Obama has two very prominent, and supposedly very liberal choices, in Pamela Karlan and Kathleen Sullivan.
To all of those who want Franken or Greenwald to see wingnut heads explode: yes.
To all of those who think Elena Kagan is the choice: maybe. The biggest thing she has going for her is that she’s at least ten years younger than some of the other people being tossed around. I mean, she’s certainly qualified, but assuming there isn’t that much daylight between her and the other nominees, it’s a definite plus. She will simply be on the Court longer than the other possible picks.
To all of those who say he needs to pick a moderate: WHY WHY WHY? I think the Court needs one unashamed, flaming leftist, if only to provoke interesting arguments. We already have enough moderates on it, and we certainly have a strong conservative bench, so what possible reason is there for wanting more of the same? The chances of it making the Republicans sane during the confirmation process are about zero.
El Cid
Apart from boring discussions of what Obama personally tends to prefer to do or not do, my main reason for preferring he pick a jurist to strongly advocate against the current insane majority is not because I have a fetish for playing games about Obama having this or that style of political approach, but because the current majority on the Supreme Court is dangerous and we need to do what we can not just to moderate but reverse that trend.
Citizen Alan
Some shit really needs to be broken. The unitary executive theory. Rising income inequality. The military-industrial complex. Right-wing religious extremism.
Obama’s unwillingness to even attempt to break any of those things is why I fear that the next Republican President will cause us all to remember Bush II with both fondness and admiration for his restraint.
arguingwithsignposts
@jwb
A gay liberal Mormon? That would dial it up to 11.
demkat620
@Ash
Exactly. Two years ago when he got the nomination, I had a very well educated, right wing friend tell me that Obama was absolutely the most liberal person in the congress.
A self confessed Obot from the DNC convention in ’04, I looked him in the eye and said “If you think that guy is a liberal, you haven’t a clue about politics. He’s a moderate. Always has been. He only appears liberal to you because you listen to nothing but cracker headed conservatives all day long.”
So to the people who thought this was going to be a liberal freight train wreaking havoc allover the GOP, throwing haymakers and red meat and fire and brimstone speeches day in and day out, you voted for the wrong guy.
Obama is not that guy.
bondwooley
Of course Steven’s potential replacement will face a filibuster – and to really understand how stupid this procedure is, imagine a world where all of us could get away with it.
Link to short political satire video, Filibuster Fever
http://bit.ly/9iegrc
Nellcote
He could nominate Dawn Johnson since she didn’t get a recess appointment.
demkat620
@ Brian J
The other advantage with Kagan is she has already been through confirmation.
WereBear
I expected him to govern the way he campaigned, and that is pretty much what we got.
I think it would be awesome to have Hilary on the Supremes, but she’s no quitter. And she’s never been a judge. So, nuguhappen.
Mumphrey
I wonder what would happen if Obama chose Orrin Hatch. I bet anything Hatch himself would lead the filibuster to keep himself off the Court. I’d give anything to see them try to make that pick an insulting, ideological slap in the face, and I’m sure they’d pull it off somehow: “President Obama has chosen to try to force down the Senate’s throat an appallingly unqualified, dangerously radical judicial activist who would legislate from the bench, viz. me.”
And David Broder would wonder why Obama had the bad grace to nominate somebody as unacceptable to republicans as Orrin hatch at all, rather than let the seat go empty, which is all the Republicans would go for, I guess.
Brian J
@demkat:
I was speaking purely as a matter of influence, but yes, that is also true.
As far as Dawn Johnsen is concerned, I am not sure why she isn’t brought up more often.
And as for finding a gay liberal Mormon, that wouldn’t dial it up to 11. That would dial it up to eleventy billion.
PeakVT
Ideally, Obama nominates a Muslim LBGT.
Improved.
flyerhawk
The filibustering of Supreme Court nominees is pure bluff. It was a bluff by the Democrats in 2005. It’s a bluff today.
It would be political suicide. While the Senate is unable to get to a vote, the nominees and the White House would be stating their case. The nominee would do interviews and become a household name while the Republicans would truly look like nothing but obstructionists. They would get egged on by the tea baggers and put themselves into a very unpleasant situation, particularly for people like Brown, Snowe, and Collins.
The fact that most of the current Republican leadership said that filibustering is not acceptable just 4 years ago, they simply won’t have a leg to stand on.
The filibuster is fine when it comes to lesser courts or contentious laws. But it’s near impossible to defend filibuster when it is a SCOTUS nominee.
They know all this, of course. That’s why they will throw the bluff out there now because they won’t be able to do anything about it once the pick has been made.
SiubhanDuinne
@WereBear: I don’t think experience as a judge (or even as a lawyer or holding a law degree) is a requirement to serve on the SC. I suspect Hilary would have a better chance actually than a lot of other possibilities who’ve served on the bench.
Redshift
@El Cid: Yes, exactly. And I was (forgive me) an Edwards supporter because sincerely or not, he was running as the candidate who would bring the fight to the Republicans. I wanted that not because I wanted “revenge” for Bush, but because a constant diet of Republicans running as hard as possible to the right and Democrats going for bipartisanship and consensus has meant that the “consensus” moves steadily to the right.
While I didn’t expect Obama to do the same based on his rhetoric, I did expect him to be smart enough to understand that dynamic and not be taken in by it. I think he has been successful in reversing it in some areas, and perhaps will be proven right in the long run that a head-on fight was not the best strategy. Perhaps an out-and-out fight mentality will always benefit the party whose primary tools are anger and fear.
This is why I’m in favor of constantly pushing as strongly as possible for the DFH priorities, but not being hugely disappointed or making accusations of betrayal when we don’t get them, or when they watered down.
LosGatosCA
In the eleventyth dimensional chess model. Stevens will resign the day after the fall election so as to not become an election issue. The Democrats retain control of the Senate and with Evan Bye Bayh gone there is no Gang of 14 and the Democrats go nuclear (option).
Obama gets his confirmation and the filibuster on judicial nominations goes belly up. Before January 1.
On January 1, the Senate votes in the Harkin filibuster reform. And the Senate passes the rest of Obama’s agenda in 2011/12.
Plus I win the lottery and I get a pony, too.
ChrisZ
@arguingwithsignposts
Although we may not be too far from being able to legitimately nominate an LGB person, I feat that we are still very, very far from seeing a T nominee.
WereBear
@SiubhanDuinne
Heck, I’ve no doubt that in a few months, Hilary would have a better grasp of the issues than Scalia or Thomas. I’m not impressed with either of them. But that lack of experience would be a legit opening for the opposition
Davis X. Machina
.
Not so. Lifetime appointment. No recall short of impeachment. Not like legislation that can be amended or overturned.
The groundwork for GOP use of the argument has already been laid.
paradox
Head-up-ass punched hippie here, beware.
What I saw was an opportunist politician deflecting berserk Republican national security policy by endorsing war in the campaign. Pre-emptive war is berserk, in case anyone forgot.
What I earnestly and realistically hoped that once the campaign was over Obama would go before the country and say look, even what we thought was the worst case scenario domestically has exploded right before us, we need the peace to get our own country back.
I had no choice, none. Obama had to be elected, no matter what he said.
We…are…lost, morally and economically progress is forever forbidden as long as we delude ourselves with that filthy war. Obama refuses to see this, even with the oath of office responsibility on his shoulders.
I would have a simple request for any possible response: take a ride in an Afghan POV with children in the back, then watch their parents get shot in front of you by some trigger-happy American. Then please report back on all the progress this process has delivered to yourself and the country.
I could give a fuck about any element of the situation without that background, frankly. It’s the way America wired me.
me
UPPER DOWN VOTE!!!!1!!! UPPERDOWNVOTE!!ONE1!!ELEVENTYONE!!!
morzer
Well, if you want to enrage all sides of the divide, nominate Mitt Romney. He’s a godless Mormon Commie Fascist flipflopping Massachusetts teabagging liberal. Of course, he’s flagrantly unqualified, but that’s actually a pre-qualification in wingnut land, so it’s all good. Anyway, he can always get someone else to actually like write his opinions. It works for Sarah Palin, so refusing to follow her example would just be the arrogant liberal elitist thing to do, and we all know that Mitt isn’t an arrogant liberal elitist -don’t we?
Anya
@Brian J: According to GG, Elena Kagan “has a record that is almost as bad as Sunstein’s when it comes to executive power abuses, civil liberties, and “War on Terror” radicalism.” He actually pretty well documents why Sunstein would be a really bad choice to replace Justice Stevens. I am not very convinced of his case against Kagan though.
The Main Gauche of Mild Reason
@morzer
Isn’t that what Thomas does already?
jwb
@Davis X. Machina“The groundwork for GOP use of the argument has already been laid.”
Yes, anyone who thinks the Goopers won’t do exactly what they say and try to filibuster this hasn’t been paying attention; and I would add that I imagine that they would be very pleased if the Dems went nuclear and got rid of the filibuster for them—they’ve wanted to do it for years and I can imagine that the long-gamers among the Goopers are salivating at the prospect that the Dems would do it for them. What I don’t know is whether the Goopers will be able to hold their caucus together. And a lot of that depends on how Obama decides to play the politics of the appointment.
gbear
Wouldn’t a “measured deliberate person” also be a “republicans be damned” just by default? You’re either reasonable or you’re not.
Also, keep your hands off Franken. He’s my senator and I don’t want to give him to the rest of the country yet. Go find your own hero. ;)
Anya
jwb: Obama needs to find a liberal woman from Main who has the appropriate qualification. Let’s see Snow and Collins filibustering her nomination. I don’t know why, but I think Snow would not filibuster a woman nominee.
Brian J
@Anya:
I’ve heard about her opinions on executive power, but I didn’t mention it because I don’t really know anything about the issue.
Dannie22
I think President Obama has already proven that he will make an excellent choice for the supreme court based on his first one.
I don’t follow the scotus often, but of what I’ve seen of Sotomayor, she’s more than capable. She questions the attorneys bringing cases before her and has a thorough understanding of the issues and cases in front of her.
I’m sure that Obamas next nominee will be more of the same.
Obama will probably at some point want to nominate an Asian for the court. His sister is Asian and I’m sure Obama would like to see them represented on the court.
Personally, I’d like to see the first African-American female on the court, since I am one and have never been represented there. I don’t know any. Someone else who is better versed in the picks could offer up some names.
I don’t think there should be any worry about who President Obama should choose.
morzer
That might have been true under the “old rules”, but the latest version of Snowe and Collins seems to be functionally identical to generic wingnut jihad obstructionism. I don’t recall them breaking with their party over anything significant in the Obama administration, and I don’t see any reason why they would, since Maine voters seem disinclined to punish them – at least so far.
morzer
@Dannie22
If there is an Asian nominee, it might be Harold Hongju Koh, although the Republicans did spend some time cooking up a story about how he intends to sell us all out to the UN and force us to live under the tyranny of international law, which might limit his chances. That said, I think he would be a good nominee in many ways.
ds
They’re not going to mount a successful filibuster. JPS is the most liberal justice, so there’s just no point. If anything, Obama’s appointee will shift the court slightly to the right.
They’re going to save their fire for when Scalia retires.
arguingwithsignposts
@ds
Scalia will never retire. Satan will just shape-shift into a new justice.
Uloborus
…Paradox, are you then, oh, going to ignore the Afghanis living in terror of Taliban extremists who are quite happy to murder and torture their daughters for going to school? Afghanistan was not a ‘preemptive war’. We were, in fact, attacked first by a group based in Afghanistan that the Afghanistan government supported and protected so that they could do just that. The Afghanistani people hate the Taliban really bad.
Bush screwed it up. Bush screwed it up really bad. He may have screwed it up irrecoverably. It may not be possible to fix the situation, and it may never have been – but neither is what Obama’s doing unreasonable or doomed to failure. The current strategy seems to be to refight the war, except this time actually stop and build infrastructure and security each time they take an area and try and give the locals the ability to keep the Taliban out. You know, the stuff Bush was too busy trying to get us into Iraq to do.
Iraq was a preemptive war. Obama is getting us out of it. Slowly, the way he always said he was going to because it was the safest, sanest way. At this point, it’s clear he really is doing it.
…and ‘economically progress is impossible’? Uh… beg pardon? Wars are expensive, but that’s more than a little hyperbolic. As for morally, I kinda think trying to make things right in a mess we created is no worse than dropping it because we screwed the pooch really badly the first time.
Do you seriously think if we just pull out now Afghanistan won’t become a Hellhole? Like… it was before we moved in, but worse because there’s no no stability, either?
Uloborus
Oh, and gbear:
Yes, he would be. But he might not want to say it out loud, because it would alienate more than just the actual GOP buttheads who won’t cooperate ever anyway. Smile and nod and never show the knife.
Brachiator
Hillary Clinton failed the DC bar. That she would make a competent jurist is a polite fantasy.
Besides, I think she still wants to be the first woman president. She would never accept an appointment to the Court.
Bob K
I’d rather have a freakin’ turnip sitting on the supreme court than ANYONE the republicans would approve of.
Bipartisanship for a rethuglican means doing exactly what they want when they want it. Pretty much like a spoiled 5 year old that needs a time out. If you don’t do what they want YOU are clearly being an obstructionist and they will whine on Faux Nooz that all the country’s problems are clearly the fault of the Democrats.
PaulW
Obama could nominate ME seeing as I’m unemployed at the moment and need the job.
What do you mean, I need a law degree?!
cleter
They’re not going to save their fire for when Scalia retires, because they NEVER “save their fire.” They will react as apocalyptically to Obama’s next nomination as they do to everything else. Doesn’t matter who the nominee is. Obama could nominate Judge Centro McCenterton from Centerville, Ohio, and the GOP will act like he’s nominated a slavering hydra with venomous Hitler, Stalin, and Jimmy Carter heads.
morzer
Actually, there is a substantial overlap between the two sets, if not quite a total identity.
Brachiator
There is no constitutional requirement that a Supreme Court justice be a lawyer or have a law degree.
Just for grins and giggles, Obama should appoint Sarah Palin. I would love to see the Republicans deal with that one.
CalD
Whaddaya mean “we?” You got a mouse in your pocket?
NR
Whether the filibuster threat is a bluff or not doesn’t matter. Obama will give away the farm before the debate even begins. This is what he does.
Obama’s next Supreme Court justice will not be as insane as Alito or Scalia, but he or she will be well to the right of Stevens. And all of you here will be cheering the appointment and saying “You have to bow to the political realities; this is the best we could do with an 18 vote majority in the Senate.”
arguingwithsignposts
While Stevens is considered the “liberal” of the court, it’s worth remembering that he was appointed by Gerald Ford and was widely considered a “moderate” at the time. In the past, justices seemed to “drift” from the ideology of those who appointed them. You haven’t seen that so often lately.
ricky
Why has every liberal blog which posted this story failed to note that the question of replacing Stevens was first asked
of Arlen Specter, who suggested Stevens not retire for a year because the Senate is too divided and his replacement
might be filibustered.
ricky
Clarence Thomas was approved without a Republican vote
against him, as I recall.
burnspbesq
@Anya:
There is no one confirmable that Greenwald would approve of, so let’s just agree that he’s made himself irrelevant in this conversation, ‘K?
General Egali Tarian Stuck
NR
Spanky the Concern Troll strikes again. :-)
Svensker
I don’t wanna think of David Broder. It makes me feel all icky.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
Paradox can correct me if wrong. But it sounds like he/she is a true pacifist and I never fault those. They are needed in the debate always imo, and I am glad we have them. Though I don’t always agree with their pacifism in certain cases, someone needs to consistently say that war is wrong in principle.
ruemara
Look, Obama could appoint a ham sandwich with a slice of apple pie to supreme court and republicans would go batshit insane. I’m not sure of any of the candidates and wasn’t sure about Sotomayor until she brought up the issue about questioning whether corporate entities should even be granted personhood rights. I just think the fact that Republicans can sit down and whine in advance over a nomination that hasn’t even happened yet, but no one in the media will call them out on it is the big damn story.
Anya
burnspbesq: Maybe GG would only be satisfied with a Ramsey Clark clone, but that does not invalidate his objection to Cass Sunstein.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
The so called liberals on the court are hardly that, at least all the time. They often are as a counter balance to a profound right wing court, as far as the midpoint of it goes. Stevens, and indeed the rest of the four liberals have often sided with right wingers over the years on things like cases involving police actions and generally giving wide berth to crime fighting, as well as some other issues where the courts Overton Window became something like Rehniquist’s kitchen window. I think Sotomayor will show herself to be a staunch liberal lion over time, now that she has reached the pinnacle and need not survive any more confirmation hearings.
Stevens was appointed by a republican, and though he has migrated to the left over the years, for the purpose of being a buffer to extremes of the court’s right wingers who hold sway. A moderate repub that these days seems like a left wing ideologue. obama has a lot of leeway, and will appoint another Sotomayor, I suspect, that had judged in a way that senate wingnuts were thwarted in painting as a real liberal, that I believe she will be over time.
Obama has this.
Anya
My fantasy is that one of the four wingnut SCOTUS is forced to retire for personal reasons or to spend time with family during Obama’s term. That would truly drive wingnuts everyone over the edge.
asiangrrlMN
I guess it’s time for me to dust off my shoes and start running again. Last time Obama had to make the decision, I threw my hat into the ring. I’m going to do it again. I’m still agnostic, bi, Taiwanese-American, and a female–only this time, I got two gay fake hubbies instead of just one, a third fake hubby, and a fake wife to boot. I’m intelligent, pretty leftwing, and I work hard when I have the right motivation. What say you, President Obama?
P.S. I actually wouldn’t mind a thorough vetting by the Republicans if I thought they weren’t batshitcrazy because it’s a lifetime appointment. Sadly, the Republicans are batshitcrazy and stupid to boot, so screw them.
P.P.S. I am with gbear–you no can haz MY senator for SCOTUS nominee, thankyewverymuch. Harumph.
arguingwithsignposts
@AsianGrrlMN:
Now this is a campaign we can all get behind. Imagine the prune face McConnell will put on?
asiangrrlMN
arguing, yeah! And Kyl and the rest of them. Heh heh. It would be so much fun. Too bad I don’t know very much about law, but I can learn!
Seriously, though, no more Catholics. The SCOTUS has its quota.
arguingwithsignposts
@Asian:
I imagine they will have to vette your Rusty Garden Implements ™.
And I expect rulings from the bench on the frequency of Tunch photos and a return of the Reply To: button.
licensed to kill time
@arguingwsp Do you think John realizes the problem w/the reply button was tied to the post title that day? Or was it really a problem with the popup reply thingy?
And is he ever going to fix it? Inquiring minds want to know!
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
Davis X. Machina:
I don’t think anyone wanted Obama to be breaking shit like Dubya did. I think what people wanted was for someone to take on the Republicans. Bring the fight to their house, so to speak. Do the kind of things that Grayson does(Like: “Rush was more lucid when he was on OxyCotin”). You can’t play nice with the GOP. It doesn’t work that way.
asiangrrlMN
arguing, oh, yeah, baby. I will bring the original rusty pitchfork with me to work to keep Scalia and Thomas at bay. All Tunchie all the time, and hell yeah with the reply to button.
licensed to kill, Cole said it was the newfangled flashy-blinky reply to arrow that boinked the blog, so he took it away. Why he couldn’t bring back the old static one, I do not know.
arguingwithsignposts
@L2KT:
I think there were two separate issues going on: the post title *and* the new pop-up reply button.
But yeah, I return to status quo ante would be nice.
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
burnspbesq @ 87:
Are you so sure about that? Why don’t you email him and ask. I’d be willing to bet that Jonathan Turley would be okay by him. Maybe Lawrence Lessig, too. Are there any strong civil libertarian types out there besides those?
Chuck Butcher
asiangrrlMN
If there are any pictures you’d better be sure they all have pillows properly placed…
licensed to kill time
@asiangrrlMN
The thing is, it was working fine (if annoying) until the chartroolette (sic) post. It was the wheel of chance word in the reply link that borked everyone’s replies and sent them into moderation. Numerous people pointed that out, including AWSP. I wonder if it would work ok minus that complication, since it did before…
I just want a reply arrow, any reply arrow! Cut and paste reply to links too tedious, John you fix!
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
Scalia will never retire when a Democrat is President. He’ll be a drooling old fool before he lets a Democrat replace him and even then, he’ll have someone wheel him into the Court. He’ll have to die in office for a Democrat to replace him.
asiangrrlMN
Chuck Butcher, pillows? No one told me I had to have pillows while getting my groove on! Damn.
L2KT, huh. Did not know that. FYWP! That always seems appropriate. I don’t cut and paste. I just reply because I’m damn lazy like that. However, since I’m in the running for SCOTUS, I suppose I should make the effort. Next time.
batgirl
Whether Obama nominates a moderate or classic liberal, I have no doubt that the Republicans will attempt to filibuster and attempt to paint Obama’s choice as the coming of the apocalypse. What will determine the outcome of this strategy is that “liberal” mainstream media and how they cover it.
Tonal Crow
@Llelldorin:
Even better, he should nominate Anthony Romero. Now there’s a package whose shoving I can believe in.
Tonal Crow
@SiubhanDuinne
Where does the Constitution say that a President can’t recess-appoint a Justice?
morzer
How about LL CoolJ? That way you get diversity, plus he’s been pre-interviewed by former half-term governor Sarah Palin. What’s not to love?
Mr. Wonderful
I hear Bork’s available
I wish! But a) she’s Icelandic, and b) too weird for the Supremes.
That is who you meant, isn’t it? Just misspelled?
arguingwithsignposts
Win.
Macha Maguire
Yep, it will. It’s the old argument of aikido vs a kalashnikov. Doesn’t matter that you train in Aikido for 17 years and get your black belt. The five year old with the machine gun is going to nail you. So if you’re bright, you just don’t go into the arena at all… And Obama is bright. Really.
SiubhanDuinne
@Tonal Crow:
Apparently, like Rick, I was misinformed.
Calliope Jane #35 informs us:
Tonal Crow
@SiubhanDuinne: All recess appointments are governed by Art.2 s.2 cl.3, which says:
By “their next Session”, it means the next session of the Senate, not the next session of the Court.
burnspbesq
@Anya:
YMMV, but I think Greenwald’s critique of Sunstein is overstated. As I said here last week, Sunstein would not be my first choice, but I could get pretty enthusiastic about him if I had to. There is a page on the Harvard Law School website with a pretty complete list of his writing. Take a taste and see whether you think Greenwald has gone off the deep end.
Gadflies and purity trolls have their uses, but their advice tends to ignore basic political reality.
burnspbesq
@ Calvin Jones:
I’m reasonably certain based on five years of reading his work.
Why should I subject myself to a bunch of his gratuitous abuse? Have you ever known him to be remotely civil to anyone who questions him in any way?
Did you miss the part where I said there is no one confirmable that Greenwald would like?
I’d actually not be terribly surprised to learn that Greenwald would approve of Erwin Chemerinsky. Alas, Erwin is no more confirmable than you or me.
Tonal Crow
@burnspbesq: What do you think makes a person confirmable to the Court?
ds
What history shows is that practically anyone is confirmable as long as they don’t have a record of saying controversial things. Then you can just refuse to answer anything during confirmation hearings and point to your academic credentials as proof that you’re qualified.
I don’t understand the commenters claiming that Obama will somehow fuck up the nomination. Whether he picks a liberal or a moderate, said justice is going to be voting with Ginsberg, Breyer, and Sotomayor 95% of the time either way.
The current swing justice on the court is Anthony Kennedy, who is a very very conservative justice appointed by Reagan. He’s just not quite as conservative as the Federalist Society loons.
Once there’s no longer a conservative majority on the court it might matter whether a particular judge is liberal or just a moderate, but for the foreseeable future that’s just an academic exercise.
mclaren
Because if Barak HUSSEIN Obama and the Demoncrats were sufficiently bipartisan, they would acquiesce to all the Republicans’ reasonable demands, like abolishing the IRS. Silly. That’s how politics works post-Reagan…didn’t you know that?
patroclus
All I know is that Clarence Thomas threatened to inflict all of us with 40 years of nonsensical bizarre opinions with which no one agrees and he only has 21 more years to completely fulfill that curse.
hypusine
Speaking of the bipartisanship fetish.
(OK I just had a notion and don’t know where else to post it.)
Can I just point out? A political progressive or liberal bases her political beliefs on the hope that life can improve when policy changes. Those hopes may be terribly wrong or misguided, but that is the emotional source. To be conservative is to base one’s initial perspective on a fear or caution regarding change. In some cases of course that’s well-founded and good policy. But that’s often the emotional source of the political stance: fear of what change will bring.
We really do need both forces in our politics to counteract bad decisions. But we also need both sides to respond to actual data rather than from whatever emotional bias led to the self-identification.
Or whatever.
brantl
We don’t need our supreme court justices to have any particular “emotional” component. We need them to have the brains to interpret the law in a way that is just. The rest of that is just chaff.