Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Conservatives Move To Set Tone on Court Fight



Outside groups will play a significant role in framing the battle over Obama's choice to replace Justice David Souter. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)

With recent news reports suggesting that President Obama is moving quickly to fill the vacancy created by Supreme Court Justice David Souter's retirement, a leading conservative legal group has released a memo suggesting that the process be slowed down.

"We need a fair, orderly process to educate Americans about the potential nominees that the Obama-Leahy machine seems determined to rush through the confirmation process," reads the memo from Wendy Long and Gary Marx of the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network.

The memo, which was sent to conservative activists around the country, goes on to lambaste the vetting process of the White House in regards to "its willingness to appoint to high government posts nominees who gave cheated on their taxes and have other ethical problems." OUCH.

It also details the supposed flaws in the three leading picks for the Court opening: Elena Kagan ("a hard left activist record"), Sonia Sotomayor, and Diane Wood. (The Sotomayor image campaign is already under way with the surfacing of a YouTube video this morning that shows her seemingly advocating for judicial activism.)

The memo is meant -- and rightly understood in the political context -- as an opening salvo in the fight for public opinion over Obama's pick.

As we noted in this morning's Cheat Sheet, outside interest groups -- like JCN -- will do everything in their power to manipulate public opinion before, during and after the nominee is chosen.

The question for the Obama administration is which liberal outside group will step up to defend his thought process and eventual pick in the court of public opinion. It is unseemly for the White House to get into a prolonged back and forth with a conservative group but they also can't simply cede the field to JCN and similar groups.

Look for a liberal group -- Americans United for Change perhaps? -- to begin a concerted push back campaign in the coming days to ensure the environment isn't poisoned for Obama's Supreme Court pick before it is even made.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 5, 2009; 11:44 AM ET
Categories:  Supreme Court  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Rubio's Running in Florida Senate
Next: Wag the Blog: Do Primaries Help or Hurt?

Comments

Everyone click the "report abuse" link for JakeD!

Its all the rage...

Posted by: Kman23 | May 6, 2009 10:23 PM | Report abuse

JakeD is a mouthpiece for the far right agenda!

What does Air Force 1 photos have to do with Supreme Court justices?

Also, do you actually believe the stuff your writing or are you doing for another reason like Rush and Fox News?

Posted by: Kman23 | May 6, 2009 10:20 PM | Report abuse

As if Reagan and Bush II never appointed any high-level officials with ethical problems. Right-wing ideologues, get a grip, you lost the election and most people in this country oppose such an ideology.

I hope president Obama chooses a very liberal woman as the justice to succeed Souter. He has the votes in the Senate. Go for it!

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | May 6, 2009 12:58 AM | Report abuse

I would gladly accept money not to post.

Posted by: JakeD | May 6, 2009 12:16 AM | Report abuse

jaked wrote: "I don't get paid to post, but if you can let me know who to contact to get paid, that would be great"

I'll pitch in to pay him not to post.

But no. He's doing a public service, representing conservatives. As long as he keeps talking about birth certificates and watermelons on the White House lawn, he's discrediting that which I and most Americans detest. Indeed, perhaps he's already being paid -- by Carville.

Posted by: nodebris | May 5, 2009 11:53 PM | Report abuse

scrivener50:

Are you referring to yourself? I don't get paid to post, but if you can let me know who to contact to get paid, that would be great. Thanks in advance.

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 7:02 PM | Report abuse

TROLLING FOR TAX DOLLARS?


Boy, the not-so-covert paid blog mobbers are out in force today...

...your taxpayer dollars at work?

What would happen here if the anti-propaganda laws were ever enforced?

http://nowpublic.com/world/govt-fusion-center-spying-pretext-harass-and-censor

OR (if link is corrupted / disabled):

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | May 5, 2009 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Now that we are rid of her, I'd like to go back to the topic: was it "unseemly" for the White House to get into a prolonged back and forth with Rush Limbaugh? If yes, then why any qualms vs. lesser-known JCN?

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 6:26 PM | Report abuse

So much for drindl "bring[ing] it on!"

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Don't let the door hit you in the ass, drindl.

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 4:10 PM | Report abuse

God, you'd even defend a slaveholder? Every time I have a discussion with a so-called conservative, I feel like I should take a shower. Sick.

Owning someone is depriving them of their human rights. You are sick -- and a waste of time.

Posted by: drindl | May 5, 2009 4:01 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

Then the government should "get out of the business" of the parents who threw that three-month old boy from a car on I-275 this morning. There's NO physical difference between the two cases.

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 3:53 PM | Report abuse


"So, that means that drug abuse, prostitution, and assisted suicide are all "made-up issues"? Besides location, what's the difference between an eight-and-one-half-month fetus and that three-month old boy that was thrown from a car on I-275 this morning?"

For the most part, yes. i don't care about prostituion, except that is should be made clean and legal. It's not my business or yours. Drug abuse is on the same par as alcoholism. Needs to be treated. Assisted suicide is again,not your business.

One is born, the other isn't. For the record, I don't beleive in 3rd term abortion either and there are issues with 2nd. It's a very difficult issue for anyone, but it is not up to you to decide it.

That's the point. Medical decisions should be left to the individuals involved, not the state.

Posted by: drindl | May 5, 2009 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Once you answer that, don't forget these pending questions:

1) Are drug abuse, prostitution, and assisted suicide all "made-up issues"?

2) Besides location, what's the difference between an eight-and-one-half-month fetus and that three-month old boy that was thrown from a car on I-275 this morning?

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 3:49 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

Just like slaveholders who never laid a hand on their "property" were charged with assualt?

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 3:48 PM | Report abuse

'Well, I thin that the law should be changed, and mothers who have elective abortions should be prosecuted for solicitation of murder.'

And I think that men who want to control women's bodies should be prosecuted for assault.

Posted by: drindl | May 5, 2009 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Well, I thin that the law should be changed, and mothers who have elective abortions should be prosecuted for solicitation of murder.

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Jake..
got you there..
abortion is awful.. even the pro-choice people will agree..
I'm the biggest know-it-all on this blog, but I don't have any idea what should be done about this issue.

Posted by: newbeeboy | May 5, 2009 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Jake, over the past three years plus I have been through this discussion at length three times. I may google for all of the previous posts! Briefly:

I think a state can criminalize a late term abortion. RBG's Stenberg decision is a second trimester decision, and has temporary life, only, as I will try to explain.

R v. W. arose out of a criminal prosecution. Wade was the D.A. of Dallas County. Constitution protects "persons born...". TX argued "Born=conceived". Roe argued "born=birthed". Court said "born=viable outside womb". Thus fetus stands on = footing with mama when viable outside womb.

Eventually we will face technology that makes fetus viable outside womb shortly after conception. Under R v. W, if it is still precedent, that fetus will have standing under the law.

That will occur in my lifetime, I am sure, and I am 65. Irony: RBG was a severe critic of R.v.W. when she taught law.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | May 5, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

So, that means that drug abuse, prostitution, and assisted suicide are all "made-up issues"? Besides location, what's the difference between an eight-and-one-half-month fetus and that three-month old boy that was thrown from a car on I-275 this morning?

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Activist Conservative to-do list:

set 'tone' to 'deaf'.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 5, 2009 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Men don't own or control women's bodies anymore, Jake. Unless they're the Taliban.

Posted by: drindl | May 5, 2009 3:20 PM | Report abuse

'm interested in your (non-legal?) opinions on partial-birth abortion as well."

there's so such thing -- it's a made-up issue. It's a medical procedure. Government should not be dictating which medical procedures a citizen may have. It's an enormous intrusion on individual liberty.

I don't tell you what to do with your body, you don't tell me what to do with mine. EVER.

Posted by: drindl | May 5, 2009 3:19 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House says that President Barack Obama will not be announcing a Supreme Court nomination this week.

Presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs on Tuesday ruled out that time frame when asked about published comments of Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch. Hatch had been quoted as saying that he would be surprised if Obama's announcement of a nominee did not happen this week.

Said Gibbs flatly: "It's not going to happen this week."

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Bondosan and drindl:

I'm interested in your (non-legal?) opinions on partial-birth abortion as well.

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 2:52 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

Then you understand that "the dissent's argument is fundamentally inconsistent with Morgan's reasoning ...". What's your opinion on partial-birth abortions?

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Besides location, what's the difference between an eight-and-one-half-month fetus and that three-month old boy that was thrown from a car on I-275 this morning?

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, first, I meant to say "question counsel" not "Question witnesses".

Second, the critical disagreement in Ledbetter is actually about the definition of "discrete acts" which Alito says must include failure to give raises for discriminatory reasons. Discrete acts were partially catalogued in Morgan, but Alito correctly states that Ledbetter is a case of first impression in this regard. Alito did not agree with RBG's attempt to distinguish failure to give raises from discrete acts over which there could be no failure of understanding, like termination.

I represent employers and I would have argued for the position Alito took, but I would have seen the possibility that the Court might say
"Small initial discrepancies may not be seen as meet for a federal case, particularly when the employee, trying to succeed in a nontraditional environment, is averse to making waves. Pay disparities are thus significantly different from adverse actions “such as termination, failure to promote,. . . or refusal to hire,” all involving fully communicated discrete acts, “easy to identify” as discriminatory... ."
I would have been thankful I won, because in the context of labor law, this was a 50-50 shot.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | May 5, 2009 2:46 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

Bring it on!

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 2:43 PM | Report abuse

newbeeboy:

Rove (and JakeD) v. World. For all the "war crimes" and cries about innocent Iraqis killed in the war, there have been over 40 million unborn babies slaughtered with no end in sight.

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 2:40 PM | Report abuse

P.S. being raped does not justify murder of an innocent bystander either.

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse

The usual litmus test:
Rove v. World.

Posted by: newbeeboy | May 5, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Yes, the law should be changed, and mothers who have elective abortions should be prosecuted for solicitation of murder.

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 2:34 PM | Report abuse

"Women hire "hit men" all the time. "

And they get prosecuted for it. Are you suggesting that women should be prosecuted for abortion is what i am asking.

Posted by: drindl | May 5, 2009 2:31 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

Not necessarily, especially since the LAW permits them to do so. Women hire "hit men" all the time. Even if we can change the law some day, that's not a capital punishment case.

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Okay Jake, if abortion is murder, then women who have them should be executed, shouldn't they? That would be consistent with your beleif.

Posted by: drindl | May 5, 2009 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Bondosan:

Does that make Obama, for refusing to prosecute them, an accessory before or after the fact?

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Really? Then W and Dick should be the next up on the chopping block.

Posted by: Bondosan | May 5, 2009 2:15 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

Ginsburg basically argued to abolish any and notions of statute of limitations in the Bedwetter case -- Alito notes that Ginsburg would allow 20-year old lawsuits and she never rebutted that -- her strawman argument that employers could use "laches" ignores that Congress has specifically disallowed that defense in pay discrimination lawsuits. Alito "tore her apart" in polite Supreme Court-ese:

"Although the dissent relies heavily on the Morgan case, the dissent's argument is fundamentally inconsistent with Morgan's reasoning ..."

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 2:14 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

No. "Small" government still punishes murderers.

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

The government is not "forcing" any woman to carry to term (that's the problem!).

So you think 'small government' includes forcing women to have children?

wouldn't 'small government' mean it doesn't make people's medical decisions for them?

Posted by: drindl | May 5, 2009 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Bondosan:

The government is not "forcing" any woman to carry to term (that's the problem!).

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 2:01 PM | Report abuse

mkarns:

I will give you Justice Rubberstamp ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 1:59 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

I never said that "fair" in a case means "my political view wins". Alito ripped her dissent in Bedwetter apart.

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse

"At least you can't say, with a straight-face, that Justice Ginsburg is "fair and even", right?"

No less so than Scalia or Thomas (though Scalia at least thinks originally sometimes.) And it's probably easier to say that than to say in 1991 that Clarence Thomas was the best qualified candidate to succeed Thurgood Marshall.

Posted by: mkarns | May 5, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Biden, Part III:

"Why are radicals focusing on the court? Well, first of all, it is their time to be in absolute political control. It is like, why did Willy Sutton rob banks? He said: Because that is where the money is. Why try it now–for the first time in history–to eliminate extended debate? Well, because they control every lever of the Federal Government. That is the very reason why we have the filibuster rule. So when one party, when one interest controls all levers of Government, one man or one woman can stand on the floor of the Senate and resist, if need be, the passions of the moment.

But there is a second reason why they are focusing on the courts. That is because they have been unable to get their agenda passed through the legislative bodies. Think about it. With all the talk about how they represent the majority of the American people, none of their agenda has passed as it relates to the fifth amendment, as it relates to zoning laws, as it relates to the ability of Federal agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, to do their jobs."

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Any move by Republicans or conservatives to smear and block Obama's nominee would be the height of hypocrisy after the GOP rammed through Roberts ans Scalito...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | May 5, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Oh yeah, as if there was "..a fair, orderly process to educate Americans about the potential nominees that the" Rove-Cheney machine seemed "determined to rush through the confirmation process"

Republicans are like your father's Pontiac - but morally bankrupt with wide-stances instead of wide-tracs.

Posted by: coloradodog | May 5, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

Forcing a woman to carry a child to term IS involuntary servitude.

Posted by: Bondosan | May 5, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuse

At least you can't say, with a straight-face, that Justice Ginsburg is "fair and even", right?"

you wouldn't know it if you saw it.

Posted by: drindl | May 5, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuse

The death of the Republicans may go down as the shrillest, most drawn out suicide ever recorded. The smart play by conservative groups is to whine and scream about the nominee(s) they want the least. If they are lucky, Obama will heed them and pick someone they don't like but whom they like more than the ones they screamed the loudest about. If, however, they play it true to form and oppose anyone Obama picks the rest of the country will simply dismiss them.

Because the real question is what is the timing of Al Franken's swearing in? While Obama's proposal to close some corporate tax loopholes has shown just how not united the Democrats are, 60 Democratic senators means Obama's pick will be forwarded to the senate for a formal up and down vote. Obama can get fifty votes to confirm his new puppy. Ideally, Rush and company will force every Republican senator to vote nay. And then the Democrats and the media will remind the country that there were plenty of Democratic senators who didn't like Bush's nominees but voted for them anyway. And yet, the Republicans can't do the same? If Obama is really lucky the Republicans will blow it so badly that it'll be the straw that breaks the party affiliation back of Snowe and Collins. Like I said, the longest, shrillest, suicide ever.

Posted by: caribis | May 5, 2009 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Jake, I do say that RBG is fair and even. I have listened to her question witnesses and read her opinions. I am linking for you the majority in Ledbetter and her dissent as well.

Both the majority and the dissent martial the law well - and it was an area where the law was not so clearly established that there could be no controversy. Whether or not you agree with the result in Ledbetter I think you will find RBG's dissent well reasoned and fair.

I pick this one as a recent example of a dissent by her. She and Scalia usually agree on the First Amendment cases, so I could have picked those for you to look at too. Understand that fair in a case does not mean "my political view wins".

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1074.pdf.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | May 5, 2009 1:50 PM | Report abuse

mkarns:

At least you can't say, with a straight-face, that Justice Ginsburg is "fair and even", right?

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 1:39 PM | Report abuse

(Senator) Biden, cont.

"The nuclear option makes a mockery of the Senate rules. You’ll notice that when the nuclear option is triggered, the Presiding Officer will refuse to seek the advice of the Parliamentarian, his own expert. He won’t ask because he doesn’t want to hear the answer.

Isn’t that what’s really going on here? The majority doesn’t want to hear what others have to say, even if it’s the truth. Well, as Senator Moynihan used to say, “You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts."

The nuclear option abandons our American sense of fair play. If there is one thing this country stands for it’s fair play–not tilting the playing field in favor of one side or the other, not changing the rules unilaterally.

We play by the rules, and win or lose by the rules. That is a quintessentially American trait, and it is eviscerated by the “nuclear option."

The Senate stands at the precipice of a truly historic mistake. We are about to act on a matter that will influence our country’s history for the foreseeable future.

We are only the Senate’s temporary custodians–our careers in the Senate will one day end–but the Senate will go on. Over the course of the next hours and days, we must be Senators first, and Republicans and Democrats second.

We must think of the rights and liberties of the American people, not just for today but for the rest of our lives.

Again, ask yourself why is this extreme change being put forward over 7 out of 218 federal judges?

As I said earlier, history will judge this Republican Majority harshly if it succeeds in changing the way the Founders intended the Senate to behave, emasculating it into a parliament governed by a single party’s ideology and unable to be thrown out be a vote of no-confidence."

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 1:38 PM | Report abuse

"That didn't answer my question about the Dems using the "nuclear option". That would be the ultimate hypocrisy, right?"

It would be hypocritical, but no more so than the GOP filibustering in the first place, after their moaning about the practice during the Bush years.

"your main "opposition" to Miers was that she was likely to have rubberstamped everything Bush wanted, I definitely don't want to hear your opinion of Justice Thomas ; )"

You've probably guessed what my opinion of him is, and your guess is almost certainly right.

Posted by: mkarns | May 5, 2009 1:36 PM | Report abuse

LOL! Does mark_in_austin really think that RBG is "fair and even"?!

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Most ironically, while Senator, Joseph ROBINETTE Biden was one of the most vocal critics of Sen. Bill Frist's plans to employ the so-called "nuclear option" to end Democrats' use of the filibuster to block President Bush's judicial nominees in 2005. He would gladly go nuclear now though. For posterity's sake:

"I have not been here as long as Senator Byrd, and no one fully understands the Senate as well as Senator Byrd, but I have been here for over three decades. This is the single most significant vote any one of us will cast in my 32 years in the Senate. I suspect the Senator would agree with that.

We should make no mistake. This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab by the majority party, propelled by its extreme right and designed to change the reading of the Constitution, particularly as it relates to individual rights and property rights. It is nothing more or nothing less. Let me take a few moments to explain that.

Folks who want to see this change want to eliminate one of the procedural mechanisms designed for the express purpose of guaranteeing individual rights, and they also have a consequence, and would undermine the protections of a minority point of view in the heat of majority excess. We have been through these periods before in American history but never, to the best of my knowledge, has any party been so bold as to fundamentally attempt to change the structure of this body.

Why else would the majority party attempt one of the most fundamental changes in the 216-year history of this Senate on the grounds that they are being denied ten of 218 Federal judges, three of whom have stepped down? What shortsightedness, and what a price history will exact on those who support this radical move.

It is important we state frankly, if for no other reason than the historical record, why this is being done. The extreme right of the Republican Party is attempting to hijack the Federal courts by emasculating the courts’ independence and changing one of the unique foundations of the Senate; that is, the requirement for the protection of the right of individual Senators to guarantee the independence of the Federal Judiciary.

This is being done in the name of fairness? Quite frankly, it is the ultimate act of unfairness to alter the unique responsibility of the Senate and to do so by breaking the very rules of the Senate.

Mark my words, what is at stake here is not the politics of 2005, but the Federal Judiciary in the country in the year 2025. This is the single most significant vote, as I said earlier, that I will have cast in my 32 years in the Senate. The extreme Republican right has made Federal appellate Judge Douglas Ginsburg’s “Constitution in Exile'’ framework their top priority."

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Harriet Miers was neither dumb nor unqualified. She did, however, blow off the SJC's questionnaire and p.o.'d the entire Committee. I assume no one else has ever done that. That was a dumb action.

Roberts should have been nominated unanimously. Alito should not have drawn the threat of a filibuster. The Prez, as Sen. BHO, voted against both of them and is in no position to claim the presidential prerogative to pick a Supreme of his choice subject only to a finding of a lack of qualification or a defect of character. Because I believe in the prerogative, I hope that Sessions, Hatch, or Graham vote the Prez's nominee out to the floor as Leahy did for Alito and Roberts, assuming a qualified nominee of good character.

I think the only conservative voices that count here, and the only liberal voices, and the only moderate voices, are to be found among the Prez and the SJC.

Let me add a personal view here of the recent process. Roberts, and before him RBG, were the two best witnesses I ever saw before a congressional committee. They each knew so much more about what they were being questioned about than the entire SJC that it was like the difference between a law school prof and the first years. I hope the Prez picks someone as knowledgeable as these two, as open to listening as these two, and as even temperamentally as these two. He will try to pick someone who is philosophically like RBG, and that is his prerogative. I just want someone that smart, that fair, and that even.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | May 5, 2009 1:30 PM | Report abuse

mkarns:

That didn't answer my question about the Dems using the "nuclear option". That would be the ultimate hypocrisy, right?

I also didn't say that the Democrats filibustered Roberts. Modern-day filibusters don't even deserve that name -- I want to see DAYS AND DAYS of debate --if your main "opposition" to Miers was that she was likely to have rubberstamped everything Bush wanted, I definitely don't want to hear your opinion of Justice Thomas ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Oh yes, the hateful and vituperative racist Sessions... yes, he'll definitely put his foot in it. Good choice, guys!

Posted by: drindl | May 5, 2009 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Democrats didn't filibuster Roberts; about 20 of them even voted for him. The Alito filibuster was more show than substance, as there was no chance of it being sustained and was easily broken (including by many Dems who didn't vote to confirm him.)

As to Miers, while she may have been technically qualified for the Court the main reason for her nomination was the likelihood that she would have rubberstamped everything Bush wanted (and even worse, Al Gonzales was once actually considered a serious Court possibility--shudder.)

Posted by: mkarns | May 5, 2009 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Tony163:

Roberts and Alito had the credentials to be on the Court too, and got WELL-qualified from the ABA, but that didn't stop the Dems. We'll have to agree to disagree on Ms. Miers.

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 1:17 PM | Report abuse

For the record, I was in favor of Senate filibusters (regardless of whether it was Kerry last time or Sessions this time around), but I want to see 24 hours straight again!

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 1:15 PM | Report abuse

To Jake D:

My beef is with the hypocrisy of the JCN in jumping on a not yet individual nominated for the Supreme Court. Surely Kagan, Sotomayor and Wood have the credentials to be on the Court which Ms. Miers lacked and moved her to withdraw. As you know, a "qualified" rating from the ABA is not a ringing endorsement. If it's a movie, it's better than "right to video" and worse than "wait 'til you can rent it."

Posted by: Tony163 | May 5, 2009 1:14 PM | Report abuse

"I'm looking forward to seeing Sessions unleashed before a microphone, for instance."

Yes, what is up with that? Does the GOP think that making someone who once denounced the NAACP and said he had no problem with the KKK except the drug use of a few of its members into the voice of opposition to Obama will go over well with the public? And they wonder why the public isn't following them.

Posted by: mkarns | May 5, 2009 1:07 PM | Report abuse

mkarns:

And, as we were endlessly told four years ago, minority rights are crucial. Hypocrisy will be seen on both sides of the aisle. At least the GOP never pulled the trigger on the "nuclear option". Will the Dems?

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 1:07 PM | Report abuse

So these people think the confirmation process is too fast? Funny how they whined endlessly when Democrats wouldn't instantly rubber stamp every Bush nominee.

As we were endlessly told four years ago, "Elections have consequences". Obama won, and incidentally by more than Bush ever did. Apparently some groups think elections only have consequences if Republicans win. Obama and the Senate Democrats should forget them and forge ahead.

Posted by: mkarns | May 5, 2009 1:04 PM | Report abuse

What the Republicans do or don't do will be fine entertainment for those so inclined, put without any practical import.

The biggest question, given their record of late, is what new self-inflicted wound they'll stagger away with this time.

I'm looking forward to seeing Sessions unleashed before a microphone, for instance.

Posted by: nodebris | May 5, 2009 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Can I get a "liberal" viewpoint on Obama refusing to release the Air Force One NYC fly-by photos?

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 12:59 PM | Report abuse

That's right, scrivener50. Obama's nomination[s] don't warrant any of your attention. Please focus your considerable posts on "directed energy weapons" and don't forget Area 51 too!

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

I do need to make one more correction. Miers's nomination was withdrawn before the ABA issued its rating. Keep in mind, though, that Miers was the first woman to head the State Bar of Texas and White House Counsel -- she also served as chair of the Board of Editors for the American Bar Association Journal and as the chair of the ABA's "Commission on Multi-Jurisdictional Practice" -- were they REALLY going to rate her "not qualified"? She was the first female lawyer hired by the Dallas law firm of Locke, Liddell & Sapp and later became its president. When the merger that created Locke, Liddell & Sapp took place in 1999, she became the co-managing partner of a legal business with more than 400 lawyers.

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 12:50 PM | Report abuse

A "leading" conservative legal group? And just who are they leading?


HOW IMPORTANT IS THE HIGH COURT ANYMORE...

...WHEN THE RULE OF LAW IS BEING SUBVERTED AT THE GRASSROOTS?


• The case of "The People vs. the Extrajudicial Justice Network" must be fought "on the ground..."

...by Congress, local officials, the largely unaware mainstream media...

...and by the good people on the inside of "enabling" federal agencies whose officials have constructed a "bypass" of the judicial system and the rule of law.


http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

http://nowpublic.com/world/bush-torture-memos-oked-radiation-weapon-use-americans-too

OR (if links are corrupted / disabled):

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | May 5, 2009 12:47 PM | Report abuse

This will be like everything Rs do-- poisonously partisan. Like this:

"On Sunday, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) wrote in Politico that “health reform should be developed through a bipartisan process,” echoing the demands of Republicans who have complained about President Obama’s bipartisan outreach. Yet at a meeting with Obama last month — after the President offered some concessions on health reform — Time’s Karen Tumulty reports that GOP lawmakers refused to compromise at all:

So, right there in the Cabinet Room, the President put a proposal on the table, according to two people who were present. Obama said he was willing to curb malpractice awards, a move long sought by the Republicans and certain to bring strong opposition from trial lawyers.

What, he wanted to know, did the Republicans have to offer in return? Nothing, it turned out. Republicans were unprepared to make any concessions, if they had any to make.

As ThinkProgress noted yesterday, the GOP’s National Council — a recent effort to “rebrand” the party — offered no new ideas on health care at a retreat this weekend, instead attacking a “government takeover” of health care."

Posted by: drindl | May 5, 2009 12:46 PM | Report abuse

in = is (darn Spellchecker ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 12:44 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

I wasn't asking you, but what's good for the goose in good for the gander.

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 12:43 PM | Report abuse

I don't recall you denouncing the Democrats when they blocked Bush's nominees either. Curious timing ...

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 12:42 PM | Report abuse

"In case you've forgotten, John Kerry led a filibuster against Samuel Alito."

yes and republicans screamed bloody murder and what an awful thing to do and of course now they will turn around and do the same thing themsleves.

Posted by: drindl | May 5, 2009 12:42 PM | Report abuse

"The ABA gave Miers a rating of "qualified". So, what was your beef with her?"

She terrible judgment and didn't really seem all that bright, for one thing.

Posted by: drindl | May 5, 2009 12:41 PM | Report abuse

In case you've forgotten, John Kerry led a filibuster against Samuel Alito.

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 12:40 PM | Report abuse

No Jake, like I said, it's the president's prerogative. Unless there's a legitimate question of the nominee's fitness to serve, a filibuster is just petty crap. As the threats of filibuster were during the Roberts confirmation (I don't recall Alito's)

Posted by: financepirate | May 5, 2009 12:40 PM | Report abuse

"Conservatives have to be careful. If the tone they set is too shrill and too negative, it will backfire on them."

They've been that way too long to change now. Anyway, as the recent election and their rhetoric now shows, they are incapable of learning. Just don't have the capacity for it.

This will be an ugly fight, just like everything else they're involved in.

Posted by: drindl | May 5, 2009 12:39 PM | Report abuse

financepirate:

So, filibuster is still an option for the Republicans then, right?

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 12:36 PM | Report abuse

It will be interesting to see how hypocritical the Republicans get on this issue. 4 years ago, "elections have consequences"; now all of a sudden, they feel the minority deserves a voice, after all. To heck with them. "Advise and consent" is all I heard out of those loud mouths before, and that's all they're going to hear from me. For what it's worth, while I didn't like Roberts and Alito getting on the high court, I recognized that it was Bush's prerogative to choose his nominees, and the Senate's responsibility to verify their fitness (as opposed to verifying their ideology). Democrats won the election, so the eventual new justice will be liberal. Deal with it.

Posted by: financepirate | May 5, 2009 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Tony163:

The ABA gave Miers a rating of "qualified". So, what was your beef with her?

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Funny, because it was the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network who were the first to come to the defense of Harriet Miers, as reported by Byron York of the National Review: "I think that Harriet is just a bit of an unknown quantity to some people," [JCS's Wendy] Long said. "But I think as she becomes better known, more is learned about her, and certainly as she testifies before the [Senate Judiciary] committee, I think there will be an increased comfort level with her." Long defended Miers against the criticism that Miers had never been a judge, and also confidently predicted that Miers would "very modestly and strictly interpret the Constitution and laws." In the next 24 hours, Long spoke highly of Miers in interviews with other press organizations, including Fox News, MSNBC, C-Span, the Associated Press, the Boston Globe, and the New York Sun."

Wendy, can't wait to hear you comment on the next nominee for the Court.

Posted by: Tony163 | May 5, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

rharring:

Will you bet he won't nominate Michelle or one of the Clintons?

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Well i bet Obama wont try to nominate his personal lawyer like Bush did..........

Posted by: rharring | May 5, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Chagasman:

Even Obama admitted that Roberts was well-qualified. What could you possibly have against that pick?

archaeoman:

You mean "too negative and too shrill" like dem4life1?

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Anyone Obama picks has to be better than the last three Republican picks. Besides, the Republicans have had more than their share of turns to pick Supreme Court judges lately. Between that and their performance in governing for the last eight years, they should shut up, sit down, let Obama nominate whoever he pleases, and vote for the candidate without a whimper. What's fair is fair.

In the Republican mind, if a judges rules in such a manner that individual rights are expanded, the judge is an "activist". If a judge rules so that the rights of corporations or government are expanded to the detriment of the citizens, the judge is a "strict constructionist".

Posted by: Chagasman | May 5, 2009 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Conservatives can pound sand. This choice will be made by President Obama and confirmed by reasonable members of the Senate. The conservatives in the senate will scream and cry, but they are irrelevant....kind of like the party they hijacked and destroyed. God this is fun.

Posted by: dem4life1 | May 5, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Conservatives can pound sand. This choice will be made by President Obama and confirmed by reasonable members of the Senate. The conservatives in the senate will scream and cry, but they are irrelevant....kind of like the party the hijacked and destroyed. God this is fun.

Posted by: dem4life1 | May 5, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Liberals have to be careful in nominating someone who thinks that pregnancy is tantamount to “involuntary servitude”.

http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YzcyODUwNjAwNzg3YTYyZjBiOWU3ZTQwZmYzOGIwOGQ=

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Conservatives have to be careful. If the tone they set is too shrill and too negative, it will backfire on them.

Posted by: archaeoman | May 5, 2009 12:02 PM | Report abuse

What are the odds that Obama picks someone like Kmiec?

Posted by: JakeD | May 5, 2009 11:59 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company