Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Republicans' early, hypocritical shot at Supreme Court pick

There isn’t even a vacancy on the Supreme Court and yet the absurdities have already begun.

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), the minority whip, essentially warned President Obama that sterling qualifications won’t be enough for his next high court pick to be confirmed. “I think the president will nominate a qualified person,” Kyl said. “I hope, however, he does not nominate an overly ideological person. That will be the test.”

Oh, really? So now this is “the test” -- ideology, not qualifications? But weren’t Republicans the ones arguing during the hearings for Bush nominees John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito that qualifications trumped everything? Weren’t they the ones who argued that elections have consequences and that presidents should be given deference in choosing nominees that reflected their philosophy about how judges should approach the law? I agreed with them then, and believe that the same standards -- not new ones -- should apply to Obama nominees.

I’ve been in this town long enough to have experienced this pathetic and pathetically transparent brand of hypocrisy. But it still makes me sick -- whether these arguments are being made by Republicans or Democrats. It was dishonest, petty and opportunistic when some Democrats -- including then-Sen. Barack Obama -- and liberal activists argued that Roberts and Alito should be voted down because of “extreme ideologies.” (Oh, please!) And it is dishonest, petty and opportunistic for some Republicans to make these same arguments now.

By Eva Rodriguez  | April 5, 2010; 1:34 PM ET
Categories:  Rodriguez  | Tags:  Eva Rodriguez  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: No, the Tea Party isn't just like the rest of America
Next: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly from Tiger Woods's news conference

Comments

Since Obama's last SC pick was a left-wing activist, just to be fair, the next pick should be a person who is right-of-center.

That would demonstrate that Obama is not a left-wing partisan and that he cares about more than his leftist base.

Don't hold your breath over this one, though.

Posted by: battleground51 | April 5, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

to battleground51:

Anything on Glenn Beck's immediate left, or Sarah Palin's, would be considered a left-wing activist. You might consider looking in the mirror to see how far right YOU are.

In 20 years, whites will no longer be the majority in the United States. There might be 3 Sottomayors on the SCOTUS. Get used to it.

Posted by: jimsillan | April 5, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Now let me add this up. Bush selected two right-wing activists for the Supreme Court. Now, if Bush had cared more about demonstrating he was not a right-wing partisan and cared about more than his righty base, he would have picked at least one left-of-center SC. Obama has selected one (so-called) left-wing activist. By my calculations, he still has one more to appoint to match Shrub's partisan record!

Posted by: lddoyle2002 | April 5, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Gotta love the repig double standard. It's ok that Bush nominated 2 ideological wing nuts, but Obama isn't allowed to nominate someone who shares his values?

Because Obama nominated "a left wing activist" now he needs to nominate a person right of center, but it was perfectly ok for Bush to nominate back to back ideologues.

The GOP is like a bad case of herpes.

Posted by: dcp26851 | April 5, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Up or down vote! Up or down vote!

It's something only valid when a repig is in the White House.

Hopefully Ginsburg and Kennedy will be next. Or Scalia. It's be great to watch Obama fill that seat with someone like Stevens.

Posted by: dcp26851 | April 5, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

To be clear, Obama did NOT pick a left-wing activist in Sonia Sotomayor. He picked a sitting judge on the United States Court of Appeals that has been in that role since 1998 and graduated from Princeton Law. She was an ADA she appointed to the bench by George H.W. Bush in 1992 with with the unanimous consent of the Senate. Is she Democrat, yes, but certainly not an idealogue. she is a centrist that many more liberal democrats had concerns about. A study of her 226 majority opinions since 2001 finds that 38% of her opinions could be clearly defined as liberal in nature with 49% of them falling clearly on the conservative end of the spectrum. She tends to be more conservative in criminal cases and tends to be more liberal in her dissenting opinions according to studies. Get your facts straight.

Posted by: cadam72 | April 5, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

The GOP is a joke.

Posted by: jckdoors | April 5, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Here's some more GOP hypocrisy for you:

From a Cato Institute panel discussion moderated by Grover Norquist last week:

Norquist then asked Rohrabacher to provide a “guesstimate percentage of Republicans in Congress who would share that view — not that they opposed the President at the time, but today looking back.”

Rohrabacher replied that “everybody I know thinks it was a mistake to go in now”:

ROHRABACHER: Well, now that we know that it cost a trillion dollars and all of these years and all of these lives and all of this blood, uh, I don’t know many...

NORQUIST: Looking for a number. Two-thirds? One-third?

ROHRABACHER: I, I can’t. All I can say is the people, everybody I know thinks it was a mistake to go in now.

NORQUIST: That’s 100 percent.

Norquist then turned to McClintock, asking “what percentage”:

NORQUIST: Of Republicans in Congress, who would agree with the general analysis here that it was a mistake and/or we should go in.

MCCLINTOCK: I think everyone would agree Iraq was a mistake.

NORQUIST: Two hundred percents. Ok, we’re going to average these.

MCCLINTOCK: And, you know, again, I think virtually everyone would agree going into Afghanistan the way we did was a mistake. How many share my, my cynicism over this idea of a resolution of force, which I can’t find anywhere in the Constitution. And how many believe that in those rare cases where we go in, we put all of our resources behind our soldiers, I would say certainly more than half of the Republican caucus probably believe that.
................

Nice. You will notice that these Republican jackals, who were sooooo dove-ish when Clinton was president, want a mulligan on Iraq.

At the time, they had their forged documents, their crazy informant “Curveball,” and their phony WMD’s, they even got George “Slam Dunk” Tenet and the CIA to lie to Congress, even though they really didn’t believe that the WMD’s were there. Privately.

And notice that nobody apologized or took responsibility. As usual, liberals were right on this, but we were called un-patriotic, or traitors.

Can we have our 4,700 killed in action, over 30,000 wounded in action, and our $1 trillion back?

Posted by: losthorizon10 | April 5, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

I saw that too losthorizon. They're jockeying to try to pin this war on Obama and his fault like the self serving scumbags they are.

Posted by: dcp26851 | April 5, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

"right-of-center". What is that but a right winger. You are either a centrist, a right winger or a left winger.

Oh but it is ok to tilt the court to the right as it is right now. I hope Obama finds another Sotomayor.

Posted by: bgreston | April 5, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

If only video could be presented at congressional hearings. Follow a speaker with a direct rebuttal of their arguments...using their own arguments.

Lol. Democrats and Republicans alike would be reeling.

It would spice up C-SPAN, and the transcripts would be hilarious to read.

Posted by: trident420 | April 5, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

A party whose ideas no longer fit our times and global economy has nothing left to do but try to tear down their opposition in the hopes that they too will be perceived as passe and ineffective - thereby leveling the sinking playing field.

Posted by: BennyFactor | April 5, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Ralph Nader for the Supreme court!

Posted by: atroncale1 | April 5, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Recall the hearing on Robert Bork. He was, by all measures, well qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. The left, however, lead by Ted Kennedy and People for the United Way, constructed a smear campaign against Bork (and, later against Clarence Thomas) for no other reason than his legal philosophy (i.e., his ideology).

Ms. Rodriguez is either ignorant of history, or should do her homework before publishing such inaccurate nonsense.

Posted by: BlueIguana | April 5, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

It was absolutely heroic that Bork was kept off the bench. He would have made Scalia look liberal!

Posted by: gfinley | April 5, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Not the point, gfinley. The point is Democrats disqualified someone based soley on ideology.

The hypocracy in this case belongs to Ms. Rodriguez.

Posted by: BlueIguana | April 5, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

The partisan game-playing in Washington is way beyond any rational assessment of someone's qualifications or even ideology. Republicans will trash anyone who Obama nominates, even if they would have nominated him themselves. Their goal is to hamstring and cripple the government, then offer themselves as the remedy to their own damage. This is all we've been seeing from them.

Posted by: DaveHarris | April 5, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Ms. Rodriguez for staying true to your principals and not swaying with the tide when it suits you. These politicians could learn a lot from your column. With that said, I believe these judges are all way too political. They act like they are not, but there are too many 5-4 decisions on this Supreme Court which tell us otherwise. I'm not sure if it was ever different (I'm not a judicial historian), but sure seems nowadays like ideology is ALL Senators care about when it comes to judicial picks. I like Sen. Feingold's approach to picks, which is pretty much to confirm anyone who passes the qualifications test (Republican and Democrat), that's the most fair for everyone.

Posted by: sachancp | April 5, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately the Supreme Court has shown its activism by the ridiculous intervention in the election of 2000 and the evidently biased decision to appoint George Bush president.

The court is political. Get over it. It is my hope that Obama gets to pick the next five justices, and put an end to the dead hand of right wing politics on the court.

Posted by: troisieme | April 5, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

SCOTUS needs term limits - these guys(gals) are just partisan hacks and should not have a this position for life. Not having them subject to political cycles was SUPPOSED to make thhem impartial to politics and only have loyalyty the the constitution - that obviously failed - need to find a new model. When the supreme Courts starts hand-picking our Presidents (like in 200) we need to get rid of them.

Posted by: sux123 | April 5, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Obama has to begin to make up for scalia, thomas, alito etc. To counter balance these thugs he has to nominate someone from the far left.

Posted by: davidsawh | April 5, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

cadam72: Princeton does not have a law school. Justice Sotomayor received her undergraduate degree from Princeton, then graduated from Yale Law School.

Posted by: boyyourenosey | April 5, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Anyone that says Justice Sotomayor is a "left wing activist" is either uninformed and stupid (what other than stupidity would justify making a comment about which you know nothing), lying or both.

Posted by: kermit5 | April 5, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

But you see Alito and Roberts (and for that matter Scalia and Thomas) are all extreme ideologues who, in addition to ruling based on party first, then ideology, then maybe with some glimmer of a look at the law or the Constitution, all lied under oath during their confirmation hearings.

These people are typical of what the Republicans call "strict constructionists", and the rest of us call partisan Republican judicial activists, and not only should have been rejected at the time, but probably deserve removal today.

That said, if Bush, Bush or Reagan were entitled to pack the court with whomever they chose, just because they happened to be qualified (although I recall that the ABA did not agree that Thomas was qualified), then Obama deserves the same.

If liars like Alito and Roberts deserved an up or down vote, then any nominee from Obama deserves the same.

Posted by: pblotto | April 5, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

For "Get your facts straight" cadam72-

I don't think Princeton has had a law school for 160 years. Something about people in glass houses...?

Posted by: PCK2 | April 5, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

The most rampant acivist court in the 230 year history of the court occupies the bench, or 5 seats on the bench, right now. The blatant conservative activism of this court is astounding to anyone who actually understands a jot or tittle of law. For right wingers to come out warning about not picking ideologues is beyond absurd. richard nixon started the entire concept of creating an ideological court during his 1968 presidential campaign. Conservatives were mad as hail that the SCOTUS had upheld the Constitution in an array of cases from Brown desegregating schools, to Gideon affirming the right to legal counsel. Conservatives hated that the courts undid their nasty discriminatory handiwork and they wanted revenge. Now they have it, and we the People are going to pay a heavy price as bush continues to plague the nation for the next generation with his choice of roberts and alito, who along with thimas and scalia are themost ideologically partisan hacks that the court has seen in more than a century.

Posted by: John1263 | April 5, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Robert Bork was (and still is) nuts. The right-wing's solution to having their nuts put on the Supreme Court rather than get "Borked" is to lie a lot. Roberts and Alito both told outrageous lies to get onto the court. That's apparently what the GOP stands for these days: perjury as a means to an end. I'd love to see Roberts and Alito impeached, and jailed. As for Obama's nominee to replace Stevens? How about Tom Hayden?

Posted by: rbmurals | April 5, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

So Battleground51, using your rationale, it would make more sense for the president to nominate a far left Justice.

He has already nominated a center left justice, after his predecessor replaced two center right justices with two far right justices.

Oh wait, fairness and balance is probably not what you have in mind.

Posted by: risejugger | April 5, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Suck it libs!

Posted by: cschotta1 | April 5, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Maybe this is an argument with the editor writing the headline but Ms. Rodriguez says her disgust is bipartisan-

"It still makes me sick -- whether these arguments are being made by Republicans or Democrats. It was dishonest, petty and opportunistic when some Democrats -- including then-Sen. Barack Obama -- and liberal activists argued that Roberts and Alito should be voted down because of 'extreme ideologies.'"

That is, I think, the better description- one should be skeptical, at best, at any declarations of "proper" procedural standards by most Republicans OR Democrats. Compare Barak Obama's statements before or after being elected President (or even the start of his presidency vs. more recently), Nancy Pelosi before and after 2007, when she was elected Speaker, and Mitch McConnell in the same time frames. All the more to support and treasure those whose principles do not change with the election results.

Posted by: PCK2 | April 5, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Anita Hill!!! Wouldn't that be just so much fun! And we could have a little rematch with Senator Spector, in preparation for a lifetime of "who put this pubic hair on my can of coke?"

Posted by: cyberfool | April 5, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Please! Bush nominated two rightwing conservatives who said they believed in upholding prior court rulings. Since Alito and Roberts have been on the court, the SC has overturned several prior rulings.

Posted by: mikel7 | April 5, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Good afternoon one and all. Come November, vote Democrat!

Posted by: hoser3 | April 5, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Proving once again what an ignorant twit she is, Eva Rodriguez repeats the Post's mindless idiocy about how the U.S. Senate--and its election-is somehow supposed to have no role whatsoever in influencing the direction of American law through the confirmation process. Had he Framers of the Constitution wanted absolute appointment by the President, they wouldn't have required confirmation, you obnoxious know-it-all KNOW NOTHING.

Posted by: uh_huhh | April 5, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

The liberal view of the US Constitution is that it should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the morés and values of modern times. By that they mean the document should mean what modern liberals say it means. No doubt that is what Kyl meant when he used the word "ideology." Conservatives believe that the intent of the framers of the Constitution is what must be looked to. Imagine- the Constitution as Barney Frank or Russ Feingold or Howard Dean see it. Boggles the mind.

Posted by: mhr614 | April 5, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

The Party of 1/1/2010-12/31/2010 NO.

The Party of (pre) NO.

Posted by: hoser3 | April 5, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

May roberts have another siezure on a boating dock (only closer to the edge thie time), and scalia and thomas both keel over from cardiac arrest watching porn together. That would leave sammy to sit and watch actual JUDGES do their jobs, and not a bunch of partisan hacks in robes pretending to give a rat's rear about law or the Constitution while they legislate an extremist right wing agenda from the bench.

And for the record -- the "extremist left wing agenda" conservatives hate so much? integration. no warrentless searches. Reading the accused their rights. Access to an attorney. That kind of crazy lefty stuff.

Posted by: John1263 | April 5, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

All Republicans must vanish to ensure the survival of our nation, our union, our identity and the general sense of humanity and Christian values. These people are crooks, liars hypocrites and if you look at it in the grand scheme of things mass murderers. They make me absolutely sick and and man who consider himself a warrior poet in the classic sense of the term... should also be sickened by these cretins.

Posted by: veronihilverius | April 5, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

I also love how the GOP decries judicial activism, but loved the Citizens United decision.

Really, I don't see how the Dems should lose in 2010 - they have so much material they should be turning into ads.

Posted by: ravensfan20008 | April 5, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

As far as I know, Justice Roberts has never one single time ruled in favor of the side with less money.

Posted by: Gover | April 5, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Blueguano: People for the United Way. uh....WHAT? Bork, who taught at my law school GMUSL, was a blowhard overly pro business/"law and economics" guy; under and overqualified.

Thomas? Mr Coke pube can? Please.

Posted by: RogerRamjet2 | April 5, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Someone please tell me why it's ok for Obama and the dems to apply the Obama test to judical picks and it isn't for the repubs. For those of you who don't rmember when then Senator Obama wouldn't vote for Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Aelito because although he fully believed that they were fully judically qualified they didn't pass his test because their political preference, repub, weren't to his taste so he couldn't vote for them. That is the same reason that I couldn't vote for Obama the first time and won't vote for him when he runs in 2012.

Posted by: RICHDIET1 | April 5, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

the author of the article above these comments shows a very surprising lack of education. she seems not to remember the Democrats, especially, "The Lion of the Senate's," stand on Judge Bork. These people are truly one way streets. following their writings and beliefs will allow us to become another France. They think that would be great. But who would bail us out? Maybe their current favorite, Chavez of Venezuela.

Glory be to Democrat thinking!!

Posted by: wbabab1 | April 5, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

My whole point was that Obama claimed to be better than those mean old Republicans. He was for change. Bipartison-post partisan, etc.

If he is, indeed, better than George Bush he will be more fair than Bush.

If Obama is the same old partisan hack, he will go for another left-wing, activist judge like Sotomayor.

I'm curious to see how this thing plays out.

I think I already know.

Posted by: battleground51 | April 5, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

If ideological fairness is the issue, then I think he should nominate Laurence Tribe because he would be working to balance the nominations and confirmations of Thomas, Roberts, and Alito. He's made one liberal appointment, that leaves two.

Posted by: acf_public1 | April 5, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans are nowhere near being reasonable people. The President went way too far to keep them at the table. All they can do is have tantrums and throw food. They are unworthy of consideration. They should go back to spending their donor's money on the sex entertainment industry.

Posted by: revbookburn | April 5, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Recall the hearing on Robert Bork. He was, by all measures, well qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. The left, however, lead by Ted Kennedy and People for the United Way, constructed a smear campaign against Bork (and, later against Clarence Thomas) for no other reason than his legal philosophy (i.e., his ideology).

Ms. Rodriguez is either ignorant of history, or should do her homework before publishing such inaccurate nonsense.

Posted by: BlueIguana
===================================

Please read the article again. Ms. Rodriguez AGREES with you that the ideology argument is pointless and has no place in the discussion. She was very clear on this point.

Posted by: damascuspride04 | April 5, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

President Obama should not be expected to replace a Judge on his side of most issues with one that is on the opposite side. So any qualified candidate he selects should be confirmed. Its insane to expect him to alter the balance to the Right

If one of the conservatives judges dies or retires, then there is more room for debate, however elections have consequences and thus the President should be able to tilt the court to the left, just as GW did when he replace a center right justice with a solidly right justice in CJ Roberts.

Posted by: Muddy_Buddy_2000 | April 5, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

How about some GOP hypocrisy on foreign policy, too?:

From a Cato Institute panel discussion moderated by Grover Norquist:

Norquist asked Rohrabacher to provide a “guesstimate percentage of Republicans in Congress who would share that view — not that they opposed the President at the time, but today looking back.”

Rohrabacher replied that “everybody I know thinks it was a mistake to go in now”:

ROHRABACHER: Well, now that we know that it cost a trillion dollars and all of these years and all of these lives and all of this blood, uh, I don’t know many...

NORQUIST: Looking for a number. Two-thirds? One-third?

ROHRABACHER: I, I can’t. All I can say is the people, everybody I know thinks it was a mistake to go in now.

NORQUIST: That’s 100 percent.

Norquist then turned to McClintock, asking “what percentage”:

NORQUIST: Of Republicans in Congress, who would agree with the general analysis here that it was a mistake and/or we should go in.

MCCLINTOCK: I think everyone would agree Iraq was a mistake.

NORQUIST: Two hundred percents. Ok, we’re going to average these.

MCCLINTOCK: And, you know, again, I think virtually everyone would agree going into Afghanistan the way we did was a mistake. How many share my, my cynicism over this idea of a resolution of force, which I can’t find anywhere in the Constitution. And how many believe that in those rare cases where we go in, we put all of our resources behind our soldiers, I would say certainly more than half of the Republican caucus probably believe that.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/19/gop-congressmen-iraq-mistake/

Hey Republicans, can we have our over 4,700 killed in action, over 30,000 wounded in action, and $1 trillion back?

Chickenhawk traitors.

Posted by: losthorizon10 | April 5, 2010 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Roberts only had 2 years judicial experience at the time he was nominated to the Supreme Court. He was hearing a case involving one of Bush's overreach of power. Roberts knew he was being considered for the Supreme Court position when he ruled in Bush's favor in the lower court.

Perhaps then-Senator Obama understood Roberts had a conflict of interest. Roberts still has that taint of using his power to rule for or against Bush. Judges can be impeached just for the appearance of impropriety. Perhaps after this fall's elections, Congress will impeach and remove him from the Court so we can get something closer to balance on the Court.

Posted by: CarrotCakeMan | April 5, 2010 7:34 PM | Report abuse

What I'd like to see is another Sandra Day O'Connor.

Posted by: BradG | April 5, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Courts in the USA have a record of siding with the US Govt's secret police, shielding the secret police, protecting the secret police, aiding secret police crimes, encouraging secret police crimes, helping the secret police coverup crimes and criminal activities, and allowing the secret police to be above the law; above the Bill of Rights; and, above the American Constitution: thus, whichever Govt puppet they pick the Court system shall continue to be subservient to the secret police, Pentagon Gestapo, and secret police power and abuses of secret police power.

Posted by: max21c | April 5, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Just another reason Republicans will burn in hell.

Posted by: chucky-el | April 5, 2010 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Republicans who gave us such dullards as Thomas who hasn't asked a question from the bench since 2006 (what, cat got your tongue or you just can't figure things out?) and Alito, a federalist rightwinger. Obama should appoint an authentic liberal, a real liberal and push him/her through. Who cares if the Republicans object? They are the party of NO. it wouldn't matter who you appointed, they'd whine curse scream and send the nominee down the road. A LIBERAL that is who we need and I hope the heck it is someone who is as far left as Alito, Roberts and Scalia are right. fair is fair.

Posted by: medogsbstfrnd | April 5, 2010 8:42 PM | Report abuse

to battleground51:

Anything on Glenn Beck's immediate left, or Sarah Palin's, would be considered a left-wing activist. You might consider looking in the mirror to see how far right YOU are.

In 20 years, whites will no longer be the majority in the United States. There might be 3 Sottomayors on the SCOTUS. Get used to it.

******************************************

Yes, the Supreme Court needs one more Hispanic justice. And his name is Miguel Estrada!

Posted by: CaughtInAMosh | April 5, 2010 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps Obama will nominate someone so shocking to Republicans such as Kyl that have heart attacks.

Hmmmmm....Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: sasquatchbigfoot | April 5, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

The nominee should defend and respect the Constitution. (Period)

Posted by: MHawke | April 5, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

The nominee should defend and respect the Constitution. (Period)

Posted by: MHawke | April 5, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

I'm part of the 52% of the American people who voted for Obama in 2008. I never ever vote Republican for Congress and 2008 was no exception. We have a majority in the House and 59 U.S.Senators, Why then do we have to continue to kowtow to Kyl and the other snarks on the other side on so much of everything in the way of legislation and judiciary picks? They keep acting like they won!

I hope that President Obama has learned his lesson from the long siege on health care and takes Bill Maher's recent advice to forget about bi-partisanship. It's a myth and a joke.

BTW - If the Republicans had close to a supermajority in the Senate during the GWB years do you think they would have reached out across the aisle to consider the feelings of the Democrats on SCOTUS selections?

Posted by: CynthiaD1 | April 5, 2010 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Anita Hill.

Posted by: CynthiaD1 | April 5, 2010 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Dear Sirs,
Were haynesworth and Carswell qualified to sit on the bench?
Clifford Spencer

Posted by: yankeefan1925 | April 5, 2010 9:12 PM | Report abuse

I hope Stevens and Scalia both quit during Obama's term so we can even out the right-wing activists that Bush appointed.
This country needs to belong to the people, not corporations.

Posted by: dwdave67 | April 5, 2010 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Years and years of republican presidents' nominees! It's time to point the court back. Plus if Stevens goes, we'll need a liberal to replace him. Eat your hearts out, republihutareeteapartiers.

Posted by: brantdavis07 | April 5, 2010 9:21 PM | Report abuse

Your bias still shows through Ms. Rodriguez. What was your position on the hearings of Robert Bork? You have been in town long enough to remember the Democrats behavior during Judge Bork's hearings haven't you?

Posted by: bobbo2 | April 5, 2010 9:32 PM | Report abuse

The President voted against both Alito and Roberts . both based on ideology. . . So much for his belief in qualifications.

Posted by: sarno | April 5, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse

YES, CHOSE THE MEDIOCRE


Inconvenient fact: Roberts and Alito were so much smarter than the STEAL-O-CRATS who questioned them, it was LAUGHABLE.

MESS-iah's TG handicapped black/latino/anchor-baby candidate better be LEGITIMATELY top-ten. Or prepare to be LAUGHED AT!

Posted by: russpoter | April 5, 2010 10:24 PM | Report abuse

See, Repub;icans only believe elections have consequences when THEY win them--they want it their way damn the country or those that voted against them. Obama should fing THE most qualified seriously left wing jurist and nomintae him/her to the bench, just to balance out Scalia--a judge whose attitude is a little to the right of Hitler. Only those who haven't a clue about ideology would proclaim Sotomayor to be left wing, but then again, most of THOSE people think Beck is a centrist rather than a right fringe loonie. Let Kyl babble and pre-empt; he's just another bloviator from the party that thinks none of us remember their excesses, their lies, their subversion of the political process. Whine away little losers...

Posted by: bklyndan22 | April 5, 2010 10:41 PM | Report abuse

SEE YOU NOV. 2


"Whine away little losers..."

Be sure MESS-iah calls his pals in Dubai to send $$$ to buy STEAL-O-CRAT votes.

Posted by: russpoter | April 5, 2010 10:45 PM | Report abuse

Is there nothing the reps wont whine about?Anything at alllll?Every time they open their mouths to spout off more b/s im thankfull i voted for President Obama.

Posted by: smorrow | April 5, 2010 10:50 PM | Report abuse

My pick for Supreme Court Justice would be a brilliant legal scholar with an analytical mind who resists the temptation to legislate from the bench. Sometimes social justice demands that the court act in the absence of good sense or guts in the legislature. It is a stretch to extend the right of free speech to corporate entities. Individual executives at the top of the org chart have free speech rights. They can buy time on TV and rant about this or that. But should business interests overwhelm political discourse simply because they have the resources to do so? Highly doubtful. But the business of the GOP is business and that means business must own a controlling interest in government. The right wing of the Senate seems to be confused. They are, in fact, in the minority. They don't make the rules. So them reading the riot act to Obama so as to threaten him into nominating a nullity to the Supreme Court plays simply as sour grapes.

Posted by: BlueTwo1 | April 5, 2010 11:24 PM | Report abuse

Funny...hypocrisy on the Right only makes it into Eva Rodriguez's columns. If she is an equal-opportunity hater of hypocrisy, maybe she can write more about hypocrisy on the Left...the Post's editorial board produces three hypocritical editorials a day -- that would be a good start.

Posted by: diehardlib | April 5, 2010 11:28 PM | Report abuse

The President could nominate John Marshall (our greatest Chief Justice 1801-1835 for you teabaggers)and it wouldn't make any difference. The do nothing party of "No" will fillibuster anyone the President nominates. The President should just nominate the best person and endure the fillibuster. No fillibuster has lasted more than about three months so we will get through it.

Posted by: orange3 | April 6, 2010 6:54 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps Ms.Rodriguez missed the comments Senator Obama made about John Roberts' nomination. He adjudged Justice Roberts to be highly competent and a decent human being, and voted against him. Same standards should apply to President Obama's picks. As for Justice Sotomayer: If you believe that affirmative action can trump the rights of individuals who have done nothing wrong, then she is a fine choice.

Posted by: sailhardy | April 6, 2010 8:44 AM | Report abuse

I see the Neo-Cons of the Republican Party have decided to issue hypothetical "NO's" instead of waiting until legislation has been proposed or a nomination has actually been made. The time has come for true Repbulicans to take the party back from the Neo-Cons that are turning the party into a party of hate.

Posted by: truthoverlies1 | April 6, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

The Party of No is also the Party of Hypocrisy. They've gone a long way down since Reagan's spirit of optimism. Reagan would be voted out by this bunch of aging grumps and angry screamers.

That the leaders of the party continue to pander to the "worse angels of our nature" rather than the "better angels of our nature" is only surprising because they are clearly cowards.

They fear the "real" leaders: Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. It's a disgusting sight to see the cowering and lockstep behavior. The sheer terror in the eyes of Boehner and Kyl and McCain (who now is going around declaring that he never considered himself a "maverick" . . . wha . . .? There are dozens if not hundreds of clips of McCain proudly calling himself a maverick. And Palin is a rogue, remember?)

This cowardly and lying leadership expect their mindless followers to behave like sheep as they all continue to yell "wolf" over and over in unison for the sake of their own political lives.

Someday those sheep are bound to see the hypocrisy and fear for what they are and wonder why they came with their pitchforks so many times when they heard "wolf" and no wolf appeared. The bullied will eventually discredit their bulliers.

Or are they just all too far gone? It's true they've been denouncing education, common-sense, pragmatism, and thinking for themselves for many moons. Mindless screaming and whining perpetuates itself.

Posted by: cturtle1 | April 6, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

The term "right-of-center' is a bogus term; the center is the center.

Posted by: vigor | April 6, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

If the Democrats lacked integrity they could nominate someone like Roberts who assures Congress thier judicial philosophy is to give great weight to established precedent and then rewrites the law on his first three opportunities. Lots of great comments from liberals but it is a waste of time to try to tell conservatives that when Democrats win they get to govern.

Posted by: withersb | April 6, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Overturning existing law and precedent to scratch one's ideological itch means that Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas are ideologues.

Posted by: newsraptor | April 6, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Yeah. Like Presidents from the Democrat party don't appoint judges based on ideology.

Posted by: Ynot1 | April 6, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Republicans would filibuster Scalia if Obama had nominated him.

Posted by: AxelDC | April 6, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Dear Mss you must be very young because you don't remember what Ted Kennedy did to fromer judge BORK who was the most qualify for the SUPREME court. Here is a man who was chasing women all over and drinking and
he stop this good judge to be on the SUPREME coourt.
Thank you Gill Cockeysville Md

Posted by: bsrgil | April 6, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

I will fully support the minority party if they BORK a nominee that Presdient Obama may make to the Supreme Court. Eva, it is reather convenient that you only go back to the Roberts and Alito and not Bork.

Posted by: colonyr | April 6, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company