This makes no sense to me:
As Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens continues to weigh a possible retirement, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter said Sunday that he thinks President Obama’s choice of a successor could trigger a Republican filibuster in the Senate.
“I think the gridlock in the Senate might well produce a filibuster which would tie up the Senate about a Supreme Court nominee,” Specter, D-Pa., said on Fox News Sunday.
Specter, a former Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that if Stevens waited a year, there would be a greater chance for consensus among senators.
I can’t think of one single advantage to waiting a year for Stevens to retire. The chances for gridlock are even greater next year, because the Democrats are going to lose seats, and the Republicans are going to think the appropriate response to picking up seats is more obstruction. I have no idea what Specter is thinking.
bob h
Perhaps time to revisit the “consitutional option” on judicial filibusters?
Whoever is nominated, John Roberts will be the principal subject of the hearings.
RedKitten
Could?
Try this:
.
Chris
Arlen Spector – mis-solving problems since he authored the single bullet theory for the Warren Commission in 1964.
Also not solving the DMA he supported and then opposed, the warrantless wiretapping he objected to vocally and ineffectively, and all the other constitutional abuses of the Bush years.
He’s your go-to guy for empty words on the Senate Floor.
JGabriel
John Cole:
Frankly, I’m inclined to think the GOP’s prospects for the election are over-hyped and overrated. Sure they might gain a couple seats, but they might end up losing one or two instead, if they keep scaring people away and kicking out the impure.
So maybe, between the Tea Party and the Fox Party, Specter thinks the Republicans will continue to self-destruct and will lose seats in November.
That said, I’m inclined to agree with you on the strategy aspect. Even if we don’t know what next year’s Senate will
look like, we know that this year’s Senate has 59 Democrats, and the uncertainty about the future make-up means taking action this year is a better option.
Ultimately, though, I’m mostly inclined to leave it up to Stevens. As long as he’s alert, I’m not in a rush to kick him off the bench.
.
JGabriel
Chris:
Honestly, Arlen’s been much better about voting his rhetoric now that he’s a Dem.
.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
They are believing their own press clippings of taking back middle earth in Nov. Hitler’s pollster Raspamussan tells them so. It’s the old 4 corners offense to run out the clock till January 2011, when they will recapture congress and launch a proper investigation into where exactly Hussein O’bambi was born, and put an end to this namby namby do gooder shit.
Seems some of Obama’s former voters have just now discovered Barry is black, and they want their money back. Or maybe not, who the fuck knows what is going on in the pea brains of white bread murrica.
Woodbuster
Look, as soon as Spector is re-elected as a “liberal Democrat,” he is going to do a U-turn and become a “Conservadem” and make Ben Nelson look like a reasonable person. So, he is simply trying to create an opportunity to really stick it to us.
Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Allison W.
Come on, you should know the GOP by now. If this nomination happens during mid-terms, the GOP will shred the nominee, make up the most disgusting scariest lies you’ve heard this year in order to get their supporters to send them money and to get them to the polls all so they can stop a dirty-hippie from being appointed by another dirty hippie.
The GOP will use this as a distraction from the fact that they chickened out of voting for financial reform, health care reform and any other initiative that will help the American people. I don’t think we should brush off former Republican Arlen Specter.
Then again, the public was really turned off when the GOP showed their ass during Sonia’s Sotamayor’s nomination.
In any case, if Obama does get the chance this year, I hope he gives the GOP a big fat finger with his choice.
cleek
maybe Specter’s just trying to avoid having to defend a SCOTUS nominee as part of his upcoming election campaign.
Owens
I think specific senators (like Spector) are scared of a nomination fight, but overall, a Supreme Court brawl is the perfect fight to have just before the election. It’s a fight in which Republicans are often at their nuttiest, and yet, Obama’s nominee is almost certain to be appointed if he or she is well vetted, and if there’s a fillibuster, well, bust out the “nuclear option” talk.
chrome agnomen
bring back the reply arrow.
JGabriel
Woodbuster:
No, not likely. Specter has been pro-choice his entire career as a Republican, and he’s not going to turn anti-union in the heavily pro-union Pennsylvania – just to name two issues where Specter will never join the Conservadems. He’ll be a mainstream Democrat.
.
The Grand Panjandrum
This year, or next, my greatest hope is that President McCain will ride to the rescue and save us from those dastardly beasts in the Senate.
Kirk Spencer
I suspect Specter’s fear is in regard to the elections in November.
It’s pretty obvious to most observers that passing the health insurance reform bill has improved numbers for the Democrats. The most likely reason is that Democrats actually got something done, and simultaneously showed the Republicans up as ineffectual even in being the party of “No.”
A successful filibuster through the elections — and the supreme court nomination risks that — neuters the message. By waiting to next year the filibuster doesn’t cause that particular problem, even though it likely be stronger.
Me, I think a Republican filibuster would of a Supreme Court justice would be good for Democrats running for office — so long as they supported him or her. I recall how fired up the left was about Sotomayor, and think that blindingly obvious partisan constipation of the process would repeat that. It gives dozens of challengers the opportunity to put up “said then/says now” ads on “up or down.”
But I do understand Specter’s point.
JGabriel
Allison W.:
Associate Justice Wanda Sykes?
.
Lisa K.
He’s not thinking. He’s an idiot.
Proudhon
Specter might be anticipating a change in Senate rules making a filibuster more difficult.
SiubhanDuinne
@JGabriel: LOL, great thought to start the day!
Will
I’m as big a Specter skeptic as any other PA resident, but could this be a reference to the filibuster reform that we’ve been hearing rumblings about? Perhaps this is Specter’s underhanded way of acknowledging that the filibuster may not be as big a problem next year.
Of course, we also can’t rule out “selfish political reasons” or “idiot”.
mai naem
Well, we are talking about Arlen Specter, the not as bad as Joe Lieberman Joe Lieberman of the Republican party . Looking at it through that prism, it means Arlen thinks he can run as knowing how to deal with the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee being that he was one of them.
Scott
Apart for the impact of this year’s election, what Specter is advocating means holding confirmation hearings in the midst of the fight for the Republican presidential nomination. That’s a context when he thinks there’s likely to be more support among Republicans for a Democratic nominee? Really?
Owens
Honestly, if the Republicans try to filibuster a qualified nominee only three years after Sam “Nuclear Option” Alito, it could be the gift that keeps on giving. Remember, the nuclear option was something the GOP really hammered, to the point where they had a fully thought out rationale, a whole legal theory, and piles of talking points, spin and anecdotal persausiveness.
I mention this last part for two reasons. First, there’s obviously a lot of tape out there to illustrate the GOP’s hypocracy if they try to filibuster Obama’s nominee. But the second reason is actually quite complimentary towards Republicans. Which is: the GOP is so much better at tactical politics that I’d rather have Democrats steal the “nuclear option” – the theory, the talking points, all of it – then come up with their own critique of a Republican filibuster.
Seriously, if I were in charge, I would force Dems to study the Sunday talk shows from the Alito nomination and literally copy what they heard. It would be entertaining AND better than anything the Dems came up with themselves.
D-Chance.
chrome agnomen
bring back the reply arrow.
Try this:
@chrome agnomen: Your fingers will survive the ordeal.
RedKitten
I heartily approve.
kansi
Repeat after me: There is not, there never will be, any interest in bipartisanship from the GOP.
Saw John Kyl on Fox yesterday, bemoaning the move by the evil Chris Dodd to yank the financial reform proposal back from negotiating with Bob “too many consumer protections in here” Corker. Said they want to work with the Dems, but mean Chris Dodd won’t let them.
jrg
Republicans are going to be intransigent no matter what. It does not matter if it’s 2010, or 2011: If the nominee is white, it will be the most librul nominee evah… If the nominee is not white, it will be a racist _and_ the most librul nominee evah. So forget about the optics and do it while you can.
Kirk Spencer
@18 actually that’s a pretty good tactic, Scott. Having this fight while the Republican nominees are jockeying for position is one more issue they have to deal with. One more thing to balance between winning the baggers and not appearing so crazy the win drives away the now-independents (former “moderate” Republicans).
Now I’m pretty comfortable that enough issues exist already to do that, but to quote:
Funkhauser
Oh noes! We are absolutely powerless to change the rules of the motherf–king, piece-of-côco Senate! A filibuster is inevitable! Those overwhelming Republicans and their 41-59 majority!
Ash Can
@mai naem:
That makes sense, but I still have a hard time believing Specter wouldn’t know instinctively by now that he’d end up with precisely zero cooperation from his erstwhile colleagues. I suppose it’s possible that he could be that naive, but good grief.
SadOldVet
To appeal to the Bobo Brooks crowd for bipartisanship, Obama’s next selection for the Supreme Court should be made as follows:
– The Federalist Society will select the nominee
– Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, and President McCain will be allowed to veto the selection
For the full display of bipartisanship of this selection, Obama will receive (after a few months) 2 or 3 republican senators agreeing to end their filibuster.
To appeal to me, Obama needs to recognize that we have a conservative-right wing in the supreme court and we have a radical-right wing in the supreme court. Obama needs to recognize that there is NO liberal/progressive wing in the supreme court and he needs to start building one again with this selection.
As much as it will offend Senator Kyl if Obama selects a nomine ‘who cares for the little people’, we need at least one member of the supremes who is not in bed with corporate amerika.
Morbo
“WHO AM I?! WHY AM I HERE?!”
somethingblue
The only reason I can see it actually making a difference is if the Democrats were planning to get rid of the filibuster in January. But I really can’t imagine they’d actually do that. (World’s greatest deliberative body! Wouldn’t be bipartisan! What would David Broder say …?)
So I think Specter is just spouting the usual Very Serious Centrist talking points, viz. now is not the right time for any action about anything, except maybe tax cuts.
See also: Snowe, Olympia.
Svlad Jelly
He’s thinking that he is still a Republican.
dr. bloor
Well, it would give us an additional year of Justice Stevens.
Jenn
@Proudhon
Yeah, that’s what I was thinking. With a change in the Senate rules, they can probably just go with a majority.
ricky
I generally find it equally amusing and offensive when authors, reporters, and even bloggers write as if they know what a person who is their subject must be thinking. Then I read this:
Somehow you have captured the essence of someone else’s thought process.
ricky
Svlad Jelly @ 33
Or he passed too close to Lieberman and they have been locked in mental orbit ever since.
jl
A Senator wants another chance to be part of the center of attention and expasperate people by being part of a craptcacular time wasting spectacle of Senatorial dithering that accomplishes nothing?
That is one of Specter’s most important TV show Very Serious Person Senatorial areas of expertise. His statement makes sense to me.
Glen Tomkins
He just wants to avoid a problem for his own re-election
However little you think of Specter, l don’t think that this stand of his represents anything but an absolutely unremarkable degree of the risk aversion that we have let become the hallmark of the behavior of our elected officials.
In doing his best to neutralize any and all policy and political differences, so that he can run on incumbency, constituent service, and the ability to raise campaign cash, Specter is just following the standard strategy of all incumbents in our system, as it currently operates. Of course the guy doesn’t want to be put in a position where he’ll have to be publically for or against any SC nominee, and to any particualr degree of strength of support or opposition. With more ideological challengers to both his Right and his Left, anything he does will lose him voters to one or the other of his opponents. He does better this election the less actual politics or policy is on the voters’ radar screens between now and November.
Of course what’s good for Arlen is bad for the party. No political or policy differences means that there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the parties, and that hurts the party that would be ahead on the issues, if only the issues counted. Few things would be as straightforwardly better for the Dems as a whole in November than to have a perfectly reasonable, utterly unremarkable midle-of-the-road nominee (not that Obama would want to nominate anyone more radical than that, and more to my liking, anyway), mindlessly opposed and denied an up-or-down vote by the Rs, leaving the SC one short of its full complement for months on end. I’m not claiming that this situation would be decisive for the election. That honor belongs to the economy. But the economy is not readily subject to control for political advantage, whereas, at least with Stevens’s cooperation, an SC nomination in time for the election is.
But this selfishness, signaling to Stevens and Obama that he would be more likely to vote for a Stevens replacement of their liking after the election, in order to get them to delay the nomination fight, when having the controversy before the election would be to the party’s advantage, is absolutely unremarkable. It’s why we have weak parties. Well, at least one weak party.
scav
If I ever hear of a RepSen complaining faintly about Sen Franken upsetting the delicate collegiality and good fellowship of the senate, I’m going to attempt a three-pointer with his head.
Woodrow L. Goode, IV
What Proudhon (18) and Jenn (35) said. The Republic Party’s use of holds and filibusters has been so excessive and disruptive in this session that even senators who aren’t activists are talking about changes to the rules of the Senate.
The best time to adopt them is at the start of a session– which would be next January.
Of course, Spector might just be playing the stall game– next January, he thinks it would be better to wait until Obama’s second term, etc… However, if I could pick the time when I wanted to vote on a liberal Supreme Court justice, it would be after rules changes, and the best time for those would be start of the next Senate.
Sentient Puddle
Meh, I’ll call it now and say that there will be no serious threat of a filibuster unless Obama nominates a Miers. He puts up someone qualified, and he’ll peel off at least Graham. All this talk about filibustering some unnamed nominee is pretty much just for show.
BruinKid
But remember, right now, we still have some backstabbers in the Democratic caucus. Now… next year, if we can successfully take out Blanche Lincoln and get Bill Halter in the Senate, that sends a message to all the other Democrats that there will be consequences to pay for backstabbing, and so we could get much better Democratic unity.
Also, as some others have said, if you combine what the teabaggers are doing to sanity, it may blow back on the GOP, hurting them in November. But we’ll see.
Fred Fnordf
Easy answer: a Supreme Court nomination fight will make the Senate look even more disfunctional and insane than it does, and make the anti-incumbant feelings even more pronounced. Spectre is afraid of losing his job.
-fred
morzer
Specter probably doesn’t want any more difficult votes/controversy before he has to take on Pat Toomey. He’s apparently faced down Sestak, so now he wants to be able to move nicely to the center, with a couple of moments of rightwards pandering if possible. Voting for a librul-commie babystrangler SCOTUS justice isn’t high on his to do list.
Nylund
The GOP will filibuster? That’s unpossible!
ds
I think Specter’s opinion should be disregarded when it comes to judicial nominations. He’s useless.
Remember his sternly worded letters to John Roberts about him lying about being an “umpire” and saying that Roe v. Wade was “settled law”?
jpoulos
Specter’s motives here are purely selfish. He’s always wanted to be considered for a spot on the Court. He wants the spot to open next year, in case he loses his reelection bid. He’s looking at it as a nice fallback. I know all politicians are primarily concerned with their own ambitions, but few are as transparent about it as Specter.
Lihtox
What do you mean, “might” trigger a filibuster? Isn’t every lost cloture vote a “filibuster”? Republicans filibuster every bill of any substance; of course they’re going to filibuster the judicial nominee.
Now that the filibuster is the status quo, the threat of a filibuster isn’t terribly frightening any more.