“We’re about to find out immediately how much we [Democrats] have improved as a party,” writes PaulUCLA, in the comments section below. Truer words …
Patrick Leahy Letter (Via Democracy For America) below the fold. “We cannot allow the independence of our courts to be threatened by a judicial activist who places personal ideology above the law.”
Harry Reid statement (Raw Story) below the fold.” Justice O’Connor has been a voice of reason and moderation on the Court. It is vital that she be replaced by someone like her…”
SCOTUS non-partisan blogger: (via MSNBC): “The Gloves Are Off”
David Sirota: “Is That a Pool Cue in Corporate America’s Pocket, Or Are They Just Excited About the Supreme Court?” (Text below fold.)
MoveOn ad buy: Raw Story reports: MoveOn takes on Court vacancy: Remember Schiavo
ACLU Press Release: ACLU Concerned O’Connor Replacement Will Roll Back Vital Civil Liberties Protections
Raw Story: “Bush allies promise $18m ad blitz for new pick” (Raw Story links to Monday WaPo story, quoted below fold.)
Bush spoke at 11:15 AM. Very brief — thanked O’Connor, said he hopes for a “dignified” process. Bush will likely move QUICKLY. Frist just spoke on the Senate floor honoring Justice O’Connor. Harry, come on out. No name until Bush returns from Europe, per MSNBC at 12:15 PM.
(Earlier) Just in off the wires, per MSNBC: Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is retiring. She is often called a “swing vote” on the court. Nominated by President Ronald Reagan, she was approved 99-0 by the U.S. Senate. Biography.
We’ll have to brace ourselves for Bush’s nominee. Any early guesses? (Orrin Hatch, Alberto Gonzales, or one of the lesser known circuit judges?) Yahoo! News story, below the fold, has list of potential nominees:
Update [2005-7-1 15:51:34 by susanhu]:
This morning, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced her retirement from the United States Supreme Court.
This is a momentous time in our nation’s history. The next justice will have enormous influence on a woman’s medical decisions, the rights of workers and consumers, the civil and privacy rights of us all, the enforcement of our environmental laws, how our elections are conducted, and nearly every other aspect of our lives.
We cannot allow the independence of our courts to be threatened by a judicial activist who places personal ideology above the law. The Supreme Court is no place for fringe judges. And the Senate is not a rubber stamp for any president’s nominations.
Join me in calling for inclusive, thoughtful deliberations during this process:
Thank you,
Senator Patrick Leahy
Ranking Democratic Member, Senate Judiciary Committee
Update [2005-7-1 12:16:3 by susanhu]: Harry Reid:
RAW STORY
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has been an inspirational figure to all Americans. As the first woman to serve on the United States Supreme Court, she blazed a trail that many will follow. As a Westerner, she brought to the Court a love of the land and an appreciation for individual rights. And as a former state legislator, she had a practical sense of how to balance the will of the majority with the rights of the minority …
Above all, Justice O’Connor has been a voice of reason and moderation on the Court. It is vital that she be replaced by someone like her, someone who embodies the fundamental American values of freedom, equality and fairness.
The decisions handed down by the Supreme Court profoundly affect the daily lives of all Americans. The Court is the final guardian of our constitutional rights and liberties. That is why the process of filling a Supreme Court vacancy is so important.
The Constitution gives the President and the Senate shared responsibility to fill this vacancy, because the President may only act with the “Advice and Consent” of the Senate. At this critical moment, the President must recognize the Senate’s constitutional role. He should give life to the Advice and Consent Clause by engaging in meaningful consultation with Senators of both political parties.
Working with the Senate, the President should identify a highly qualified candidate whose views are within the broad constitutional mainstream and who will make all Americans proud. With this nomination the President should choose to unite the country, not divide it. I look forward to working with the President and my colleagues in the Senate to fill this critical vacancy.
Update [2005-7-1 12:37:40 by susanhu]:
David Sirota:
Is That a Pool Cue in Corporate America’s Pocket, Or Are They Just Excited About the Supreme Court?
[A] group of sweaty, cigar-smoking executives and lobbyists are right now sitting around a mahogany conference table somewhere on K Street rubbing their greasy palms together and plotting how to make sure that just the right corporate hack will replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court. …
[T]he media will make this whole story about the Religious Right vs. Evil Secular Liberals. But behind the curtains in a dark little peep-show-like room, Corporate America will be busy lubing up the process and panting with glee as they take over our judiciary.
[T]he Wall Street Journal [gets] the real story. There you will find a story about how Corporate America is already scheming. Here are some of the excerpts:
Business cases, many concerning the reach of regulation and interaction of state and federal governments, consume a large chunk of the Supreme Court’s docket. Now for the first time, the National Association of Manufacturers, which represents big corporations, is creating a committee of executives to screen the business rulings of prospective nominees…Two lower-court judges have drawn interest in corporate circles because they represented companies on regulatory matters before going on the federal bench: John Roberts of the Washington, D.C., Circuit Court of Appeals and Michael McConnell of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver…
John Engler [head of the National Association of Manufacturers] began making the rounds in Washington, pitching a new corporate activism on judicial nominations. He informed the offices of the White House counsel and political adviser Karl Rove about his plans. He met privately with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and other top Republicans…This month, as speculation heightened about Mr. Rehnquist’s possible resignation, Mr. Engler and his executive committee approved a creation of an endorsement process for Supreme Court nominees. A new committee of executives will vet any White House nominee based on his or her business rulings.
… Reporters seem to prefer the fake storyline of “conservative” vs. “liberal” as opposed to the real storyline of “Big Money” vs. “Ordinary Americans.” … Corporate America is going to be spending millions to make sure they get who they want. …
Sources:
Justice O’Connor retires
Wall Street Journal on Corporate America’s scheming about Supreme Court nominees:
Previous post about how it is Big Money vs. Ordinary Americans:
MoveOn ad buy, Raw Story. Go to link to view text of story and of MoveOn ad.
ACLU Concerned O’Connor Replacement Will Roll Back Vital Civil Liberties Protections. Go to site to read text.
For more information, go to: ACLU Supreme Court
We’d better donate to the ACLU too.
Update [2005-7-1 10:58:22 by susanhu]: WaPo Monday story on gearing up for court battle:
The meeting, hosted by White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr., his deputy Karl Rove and counsel Harriet Miers, was called to ensure that President Bush’s supporters are ready for the high-stakes, high-intensity, high-dollar campaign that would follow a nomination. But some participants later told associates that they were not sure if any justice would retire.
[This article speculated about Rehnquist, not O’Connor.]
[…..]
By most accounts, it would rival a presidential campaign, complete with extensive television advertising, mass e-mails, special Internet sites, opposition research, public rallies and news conferences. Both Democrats and Republicans have been raising money for this moment for years. The president’s allies have promised to bankroll an $18 million public relations blitz, and administration opponents have set up a war room and enlisted veterans of the campaigns of Bill Clinton and Al Gore to devise strategy.
“This has been such a huge political spectacle that this is not your run-of-the-mill confirmation hearing,” said Kenneth M. Duberstein, a former Reagan White House chief of staff who shepherded two high court appointments through the Senate for President George H.W. Bush. “This is a fundamental decision about the future of the Supreme Court. Everybody’s eyes are peeled, and the far left and the far right are ready.”
Portion of Yahoo! News story:
Another prospective candidate is Edith Hollan Jones, a judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who was also considered for a Supreme Court vacancy by President Bush’s father.
NBC Today show announcing the same. Here we go Susan…gonna be a bumpy ride. And oh isn’t the timing something too? Another distraction. They have us going in 100 different directions. Can we keep up?
It is wild. We could each write about 30-40 stories per day! Just trying to keep up with what the right is doing — simply because they have so much power now that they’re attacking all fronts.
I wish I had the confidence to help with the stories. Someone broke this at dkos because they had received an email from Heritage Foundation and everyone told them to take this down that it was a different judge with same name. Well, guess the diary police over there were wrong huh?
RAW STORY HAS THIS:
Email from Clarence Thomas’ wife floated around D.C. this morning…
(no link yet to that headline)
The folks over at SCOTUSblog have a separate blog running specifically dedicated to any Supreme Court nomination. They’ve already begun a steady flow of posts, which will doubtless last throughout the day (and for the duration of the nomination process).
What’s also available there (and these, too, will be further fleshed out, I’m sure) are extensive bios and backgrounders on pretty much all the major potential nominees (in no particular order, Luttig, Roberts, McConnell, Garza, Wilkinson, Jones, Alito, etc.). They also have — or will shortly have — sections on the specific nomination process, interest group politics, and so on.
I’d recommend periodic visits there to see what’s up.
This is a must read – hillarious because it could really really happen
“BUSH NOMINATES JUDGE JUDY UNTIL A REAL JUSTICE IS CONFIRMED”
The link is here http://satire.myblogsite.com/blog
This is an absolute disaster. We needed her to hang on for three more years. Replacing Rehnquist was a non-issue, he was already a wingnut. Replacing O’Connor, a true swing voter (particularly on social issues) with a wingnut is going to be disastrous. We have to fight with everything we have for a moderate replacement.
Exactly my thoughts…This is the one that’s gonna change things…we’re screwed.
This has only just begun. Do not give up hope before the battle even begins.
You’re right, of course.
Here’s another thought to temper some pessimism, even my own (posted this in the comments at dKos as well):
I agree that abortion rights will remain under attack, but I don’t know if this will spell the demise of Roe and privacy rights. My thoughts flows from the Lawrence decision a couple years ago. The Court struck down Texas’s sodomy law on a privacy basis, drawing heavily on Griswold, Roe, etc. Kennedy’s decision, extending the privacy guarantee of these cases, was joined by four other Justices–O’Conner (who has basically upheld privacy rights and Roe) was not among them–she wrote a concurring opinion based using equal protection. There were five votes basically accepting the right to privacy.
I’m very worried about potential nominees, but Lawrence makes me feel a little less frightened.
But I’m feeling like a Southern virgin on her wedding night…we ain’t screwed yet, but we’re gonna be, and there ain’t nothing we can do about it…
Have a great trip, BTW… 🙂
How long can there be a vacancy (or two, if Renquist goes as well) on the SCOTUS?
And what happens to cases before the court during a vacancy – does business just shut down until the vacancy is filled?
Thanks in advance!
There is no requirement to fill the seat by any particular time — sometimes the vacancies can go unfilled for quite a while.
For the next three months, however, the Court is effectively on hiatus, with only minimal review of petitions for certiorari by the justices’ law clerks and processing of briefs for the next term, beginning the first Monday in October.
If the 2005 term opens with only eight sitting justices, they proceed the same as they would if there were nine. Cases would be heard and decided upon in the same fashion. The only difference is that any case that comes out 4-4 merely upholds the lower court ruling and is essentially without any precedential value (since there’s no majority opinion on which anyone can rely).
Thanks a bunch, Maven!
To seize the initiative here, Senate Democrats should immediately issue a statement that any Bush nominee who isn’t pro-choice could face the serious possibility of a filibuster.
It’s called Framing The Issue–Roe v. Wade–and it’s about time Democrats learned a few motor skills in this area.
Harry Reid announced 4 conservative names a few days ago that he said would be easy for Democrats to get behind.
However, the owners are about to stand up.
From the MSNBC article:
Don’t know where I got the idea of 4.
From June 28:
Seeking a possible consensus nominee, Reid recommended Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Mel Martinez of Florida, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Mike Crapo of Idaho.
Looks like MSNBC overlooked Graham…
Also, aren’t all four of these Senators from states with Republican governors? That would appeal to Bush, as he wouldn’t be worried about the Repubs losing a Senate seat.
SHIT!!!
We’re about to find out immediately how much we have improved as a party.
There should have been a strong plan in place with a unified voice for all or at least almost all Democrats (Lieberman’s almost always a lost cause). They need to be out there NOW talking about how moderate a voice O’Connor was, a disciplined judge that followed the law and not politics (yeah, I know this is hard to say but this is how it must be framed). They need to be constantly praising her as moderate, a supporter of choice, and that her replacement should equally be someone that upholds precedent, respects the law, etc.
Instead of seeing Democratic framing already taking place, MSNBC now has Frist on the floor framing the debate. Oh lord, we may be in serious trouble here.
We’re about to find out immediately how much we have improved as a party.
Hell of a remark, Paul. I’m going to quote you in the story.
I do disagree with you about MSNBC showing Frist… he’s the Majority Leader so it’s fitting he’d be speaking. BUT Harry et al. HAVE to step up to the podium IMMEDIATELY AFTER.
No matter how good we are, we’re nowhere.
We own almost none of the economy, almost none of the media, almost none of the military, we represent almost none of activist religion, and we’re out of political power.
This, specifically, is why the last election was the most important in our lifetimes, and there’s a serious chance that that designation will hold indefinitely.
No doubt, I said it before and I will say it again that the single biggest reason Kerry HAD to win was the Supreme Court. Quoting the law professor speaking right now on MSNBC, this is “monumental” – “this could change the very fabric of American societ.”
We are in a boatload of trouble here, but we have to fight this as hard as we possibly can. We did it with Bolton. If they put up someone that’s a wingnut, we can use it and turn it against them. We have to try.
Exactly, Paul. It was absolutely necessary due to the very real possibility this would happen.
And what if Rehnquist has to quit? We’ll have a 6-3 court.
AND! You’re also right that we HAVE TO TRY. HAVE TO.
I could care less if Rehnquist quits. The replacement couldn’t possibly be any worse. It won’t change the fabric of the court one iota, in fact we could get lucky and get someone slightly less conservative.
But O’Connor, this one surprised me, disappointed me, and scares the hell out of me. I’ll never forgive her for Bush v. Gore, but the reality is that she was truly a “moderate” by today’s standards. Choice, gay rights, separate of church and state, etc. are all in serious jeopardy right now.
I hope people understand precedent. If Bush gets a wingnut in, and they have important rulings, that will be the RULE OF LAW in this land until the Supreme Court somehow changes its mind, which has happened only a handful of times in history.
Any word from the dems/Harry Reid? I agree that we must jump on this immediatley. I am sure they have already been working on this behind the scenes. If not you are correct we are in deep doodoo.
This is the kind of vote where the Republicans have the maximum incentive to scrap any agreement.
Even if it cost them House and Senate, that’s a temporary loss, whereas the swing of the court this time gives them the Court that can repeal the Great Society and New Deal.
But it won’t cost them that. This isn’t an issue that will move centrist or casual Democratic voters our way, it only moves our activists who are already engaged.
And the timing is the worst possible, well in advance of typically low participation mid terms.
I disagree. If the past few months have demonstrated anything, it’s that the American public is not in the mood for continued extremism on the right. This administration has NO political capital to force through an hard-right ideologue. Zero.
Bring it on, I say. Today’s the anniversary of the first day of Gettysburg. If they try to push through a Scalia clone, we’ll be seeing another epic disaster unfold.
They’re going to try, though. Rove knows that if his pet monkey doesn’t nominate one, Dobson and friends get nasty. And we have to make sure that Senate Democrats understand that, if they don’t filibuster such a nominee, their careers are over.
Even if it’s Abu Gonzales. The last thing we need right now is a Supreme Court Justice who believes that treaties aren’t binding and that citizens have no rights.
They might. I wouldn’t be surprised either way: hard right or essentially replacing O’Connor.
But if they go hard right, they’re going to piss away what little political juice they had left.
And I’m thinking that the answer to THAT framing (with which I agree) depends to a large extent on how much capital and credibility the administration thinks they still have.
If they think they can induce Rehnquist to resign in a few months or a year and at that time send in the bastard offspring of Stalin and Hitler, then this time they might go with someone who’s only SLIGHTLY to the right of Attila the Hun, just to brace the argument later that they gave us a moderate and we, being greedy liberals, want it ALL even though we lost the election.
If they see things screaming downhill like a rock on jet skis and there’s some concern whether they’ll be able to win a vote to go to lunch in a year or two, they may try to force through the whackjob NOW on the theory that if they don’t get it now they won’t get it ever, and so they need to send that FUCK YOU message to the non-contributors NOW.
I think they’re going to go hard-right, but for a different reason. Bush’s approval ratings are in the toilet. And the entire Republican party’s lashed itself to him (along with a couple Democrats, like Biden and Lieberman). Their only hope at this point is to hope the wingnuts keep turning out in high enough numbers – and to do that, they need an ultra-conservative supreme court judge.
I am watching Frist and he remarks about O’Connor are well prepared. This has been in the works for some time.Now McConnell is giving her kudos and how well balanced, indepent thinker. We must stand up and demand a nominee that is JUST the same as O’Connor.
Humorous diary over at DKos:
by BarbinMD
Fri Jul 1st, 2005 at 07:46:49 PDT
No more diaries! Please! There is already one on the front page, one in the recommended list and at least 10 in the recent diaries.
In fact, I’ll bet there will be one (in several hours) with “BREAKING” in its title.
No more diaries, please, please, please…this diary will self-destruct in 15 minutes. …
And RIPPING Bolton a new one — he is going on the record, I think, to warn Bush off of a recess appointment.
This is pretty good stuff:
Why would we send someone to the UN who needs supervision?
John Bolton could hurt America’s interests…
live on cspan…Voinyvich has the floor and he is talking on Bolton and how he is not the right nominee and in these troubled times Bolton does not have the where withall to be a diplomat for the USA. Check it out.
I suspect W will wait over the holiday weekend and try to find out if Rehnquist is planning to retire now. The answer to that will affect who he nominates to fill this opening.
If he’s getting a two-fer, one will be a raw-meat religious conservative, and one will be Attorney General Gonzales. Which gets which opening I don’t know.
If he’s only getting one slot now, I suspect he himself hasn’t yet decided whether to nominate Gonzales or make the red-meat rabble happy.
Activity at the WH this afternoon will probably be as frenetic as a hill of fire ants stirred up with a stick. And the outcome will probably be about as pleasant.
Just one guy’s opinion on the nominees. How do you see it?
Is anyone else disturbed by the $18M ad blitz for the nominee? I’m a little sick of ad campaigns designed to convince me that black is white, red is blue, etc.
If they picked a nominee that didn’t suck, they wouldn’t need a big expensive ad campaign. But, picking a non-sucky justice would be too intelligent I guess.
Anything to distract us.
Sigh.
I just took a dip in FReeperville.
They do NOT want Abu Gonzalez (of course).
They are saying that they would really like to seee Ted Olsen, Janice Rogers Brown, Miguel Estrada, or Luttig.
They are very pessimistic about this (believe it or not). They are sure that Frist is ‘not ready for the big leagues’, and is going to fail to hold his party together to ram through a ‘true conservative’ (their words, not mine).
OK, I have to go shower now.
As tough a pill as it would be to swallow, Democrats should seriously consider floating an easy confirmation for Gonzalez. He’s about as moderate as we can hope to get.
Not saying this is how Dems should proceed, but it’s something that should be very seriously considered.
I agree. Someone over on dKos had a good point: despite the fact that we make a big deal out of him being ‘pro-torture’, we don’t actually know if he is personally pro-torture or not. His job was to make things that the administration does seem legal. And the administration was and is torturing people.
A lot of conservatives (and FReepers) are saying that they are afraid that Gonzalez would be another Souter, and that he would be the most likely to go his own way after appointment.
I’m not excited about a Gonzalez nomination, but it is clear that we could do much, much worse.
How about this strategy?
We float an easy nomination for Gonzalez, Bush nominates him, and we confirm him 100-0.
Then, when Renhquist retires, we use the Gonzalez nomination as an example of how this can go smoothly – simply nominate someone who isn’t a wingnut. If Bush nominates a wingnut, we fight like hell and use Gonzalez as an example that we are not across the board obstructionary, only against wingnuts.
So, it’s at least possible that by accepting Gonzalez we end up with another O’Connor (Gonzalez) and someone slightly less conservative than Rehnquist, and the court is saved.
I’m sorry all, but I CANNOT abide Gonzalez. CANNOT.
The man may or may not be a wingnut, but he is an ass-sniffing, mediocre law professional, who has absolutely NO integrety and calls the Geneva conventions “quaint”. I understand where this strategy is coming from, but no, no Gonzalez.
I feel sick to my stomach.
funny how a month ago people were comparing Abu Gonzalez to everyone short of hitler, and now he’s “moderate” enough to garner some democrat support. If that’s the best we can hope for, well, that’s just not good enough.
I understand where you guys are coming from as well, and it makes me sick to my stomach as well. But, this comes down to whether you want to maintain the court’s current balance, or possibly even shift it a bit to the left, or have it certainly shift far to the right, probably resulting in the end to choice, gay rights, affirmative action, separation of church and state, etc.
This isn’t a game or time to be idealistic, it is time to save what’s left of the progressive fabric of our country. There’s a real reason the wingnuts are in a tissy over a potential Gonzalez nomination.
and I understand the political strategy behind supporting AG. that said, I still think it’s bs that makes a mockery of what the SCOTUS should stand for.
Gotta play the hand we’ve been dealt.
well, I’m holding out some hope that we have a better hand than you seem to think. If nothing else were gonna find out what kinda team Reid has put together here.
OH, Shit.
Thanks. Had to get that outta the way.
I agree with goimg with Gonzalez, if we must. I say that with great sadness. I say that, disgusted that at the fact that he’d be the Latino Clarence Thomas. Especially when there are more deserving, more talented, and dare I event go there….more qualified jurists like Judge Richard Paez or Judge Amalya Kearse (damn Bill Clinton for not nominating her in the first place).
But do we actually think that anyone they nominate will respect international law or constitutional law? Not likely, to put it mildly. Every last nominee will be a reliable corporate lackey and wingnut religiofacist shill, completely incapable of independent thought. They want someone who won’t “surprise” them by walking deviating from script, a la Kennedy (remember, a Reagan appointee). No moderates will be considered, and by that, I mean, right of center.
It doesn’t matterif they don’t have the political capital, they’re going to do what they damn please b/c they know they won’t have to be held to account for it. They will recess-appoint there boy Bolton b/c they can. They will ram through the nuttiest of the wingnut judges because they can. And when they do–Roe is overturned. Any and all civil rights cases will be stopped in their tracks.
And that’s just off the top of my head.
Don’t think the WH hasn’t been planning for this day–from the day they stole the election in 2000. Frist likely recd his talking points directly from the White House, so obvious it is that he takes his marching orders from them. But yeah, they were ready.
O’Connor wanted to retire under a rethug admin. She got her wish, and so have they.
I usually edit. I know preview is my friend. I was typing fast as I cannot stay much longer. I apologize for all the typos.
Must be a record, geeze, there were so many!
Does anyone have any knowledge of what kind of decisions he made while he was actually on the bench?
He is at least pro-choice and in favor of the assault weapons ban (according to what I’ve read).
It depends on the level of wingnuttery that the Republicans think they can push through. There are much, much worse options out there. We’re going to be sick about nearly anyone they put up.
Here’s a place to start — if you want more, just ask!
A few words about his Texas Execution Memos….
Here’s a good profile in a nutshell, with links discussing his tenure as a judge in Texas. For all the displeasure that Gonzales raises among the hardcore wingnuts, though, he’d still be a lightning rod for opposition.
I’m still more inclined, though, to think that if it’s to be a Hispanic nominee from Texas, Emilio Garza is more likely and would end up being significantly less controversial.
No. Because no! I love this. Let’s just assume we’re dead in the water and start compromising before the process even starts. That’s like a boxer punching himself in the eye, before he gets into the ring, because he’s going to get hit anyway. If Democrats have any damn sense they will start floating the idea that they are going to fight tooth and nail against radical appointments, and confirming a torture apologist, and Bush’s legal lackey, is like saying we’ll take ourselves to the woodshed, so don’t bother getting out the paddle.
This is how weak people win repeatedly. They bully people so much that they stop fighting back. When are people going to notice that Bush has a glass jaw, politically, and start fighting back? I hate to tell you, but this is exactly how we got so deep into our current mess. You can’t compromise with bullies. They will just keep taking your lunch money, until you’re broke.
AMEN!
let’s stand for something. we do it both by standing firmly for principles of freedom and privacy – and by opposing that which should be opposed.
Torture should be opposed – on it’s own merits.
Choice should be supported – on it’s own merits.
if there’s a conflict between those ideals – as Gonzo MIGHT offer – we use the conflict to try and divide the GOP and deal a defeat to Bush.
We should use any nomination as a chance to show what Dems stand FOR – that includes choice, that includes human rights, that OUGHT to include supporting people over corporations.
We should use it to show what the GOP is for – a fundamentalist state in which human rights are not valued.
We should push for a moderate – and settle for nothing less.
If they have the votes to push someone like Gonzo through – fine. That’s the breaks – but let’s not help them by settling and cutting deals.
Let’s oppose that which should be opposed. The GOP agenda IS NOT POPULAR. Let’s stop being afraid of the bullies and stand for what we believe.
he’d have to recuse himself from any case dealing with anything remotely related to Justice.
(plus, the TX abortion rulings)
Where in the HELL are the democrats?!?! I just listened to CORNYN of all people, calling for a dignified process and saying that there is a “right way and a wrong way to debate the nominees” — now DeWine…yabbering about the Fourth of July and a woman soldier (whose name he can’t pronounce) who died on this day last year….
WHERE THE HELL ARE THE DEMOCRATS???
I just updated the story with Reid’s statement. I haven’t caught him on TV yet though
I keep hearing things like “ACLU fears rollback of civil rights” and concern over Roe v Wade etc, but I am curious as to what process the process would be for any of these thigs to come to fruition. I can’t imagine the new justice gets retroactive votes on previous cases (duh), so presumably new cases would need to be brought to the SCOTUS based on the assumption that the new vote would swing prior decisions. In that case, is it a lock that the SCOTUS would ever hear cases that were clearly being raised in efforts to overturn previous rulings? Are they just as likely to say “we ruled on this already???” or would the extra vote (or two) be enough to get the court to hear whatever the conservative agenda item of the day is?
there are constantly cases that could be pressed – and the far right – especially if they think they have the judges they need – will create them. If O’Connor is replaced with a wingnut – I give it inside a year before a number of these issues are back before the court.
Roe and Griswold are in serious trouble.
I’m very appreciative of MAJeff’s comments above, but right now I’m feeling decidedly un-optimistic.
…it’s so good to see you here! I always looked for your posts on the other site. I need a reason to smile for a sec, knowing what we are certain to face.
I am absolutely, positively, scared shitless for what this means for my country…hell, for my family. I have two nieces I so obviously adore, but really, you should see them. They’re amazing. They have such potential, and it’s just beginning to get tapped. What about their future?
I’m gonna drink a lot this weekend, because on Tuesday, things are gonna get real ugly, real fast. Believe that.
Living through the Bush Junior years is the political equivalent of Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride. Each day not one but several bewildering developments unfold, and one never, ever knows what’s going to happen next.
O’Connor, the “voice of moderation”, is one of the Scalia Five who voted to shut down the vote recount in Florida, and as such, her reputation is forever tarnished as one who participated in an illegal judicial coup. O’Connor helped to illegally install Bush in the White House, the same man who will now nominate her replacement. The arrogance of O’Connor, Bush, and the rest of that scurvy lot of pirates is truly breathtaking to behold.
What is important to remember in the upcoming battle over O’Connor’s replacement are the following points:
(1) Bush and Frist want to throw a bone to the rabid far right by putting an anti-abortion judge on the Supreme Court;
(2) Bush, like his father before him, is almost certain to nominate a token minority to the court–an Hispanic or female equivalent to Clarence Thomas. The new nominee will hide behind his/her ethnicity or gender to shield unwanted questions about bad personal behaviour, ethical lapses, or ideological extremism. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would be perfect in this regard, but I’m certain there are others Bush can locate who will also fit the bill.
(3) It is unlikely that the Bush White House will reject a candidate who has a known or discoverable history of problems (personal or ethical). This is so because the Bushies are so damned arrogant they think they can ram anything down our throats, and also because I think that Rove actually wants to tie up the Senate in a nasty fight over this nomination. While the Senate is considering this, they aren’t taking any initiative on Iraq, for example, which would normally be the business of the Senate. A prolonged fight over a Supreme Court nominee will be a good chance for Rove to rally the troops.
(4) Democrats had better be prepared to fight smart, fight long, and fight hard on this one–because if they don’t, then to hell with the lot of them. This is too important to roll over and play dead for the Repubs.
Look at it from the other side for a moment. This really puts the GOP in a bind.
If they nominate a wingnut to please the Right then they loose the Middle. If they nominate a Moderate they loose the wingnuts. If they don’t nominate a wingnut they risk further alienation of the wingnuts – their local activists. If they do nominate a wingnut they risk loosing Senate seats – see the recent history of California – and I doubt the nomination will make it through the Senate.
If they nominate as Conservative judge as they can get past Senator Reid and then tell the wingnuts that is as good as they could do it makes Bush look weak and seals the deal on Bush being a lame duck. If they do this and blame Senator Frist it will end any chance of his getting the GOP nomination in 2008.
If they don’t get a nomination through then Bush is a lame duck, Rove has no more political clout, and he can forget getting anything done in the next 3 years.
agreed. I think this puts Bush between a rock and a hard place.
Something like 70% of the public wants a cooperate, bipartisan strategy, with a moderate nominee. Then there’s the 28% or so that wants nothing short of Grover Norquist on the bench. Either way he goes, Bush is fucked.
Looking like it might be a fun summer.
He dropped this nugget as he responded to an inquiry:
Taken from Talking Points Live on washingtonpost.com.
Thanks to the Senate Democrats that compromised on the filibuster, we still have some ability to stop the awful nominee that bush is sure to give us.
…let’s say that Bush nominates a far-right ideologue.
So what? I say, “bring it on”. This is the battle that could be the defining moment for Harry Reid and the Democrats–a no-holds-barred fight-to-the-finish. There are still enough pro-choice Republicans (Collins, Snowe, Chafee, Specter, Voinovich) to put up one hell of a fight.
Look on the bright side–what if Bush nominates a far-right ideologue to succeed O’Connor on the court? By doing so–
(1) He risks a humiliating public defeat of his nominee, and a repudiation of far-right judicial philosophy;
(2) Bush further hardens the battle lines in the Senate, making further compromise on other issues more difficult;
(3) Bush scares the living daylights out of people on our side and mobilises them to donate money, sign petitions, call congressional representatives, vote talk to their neighbours, etc.
(4) Bush focuses the public’s attention on the fact that he, and the Republican Senate leaders like Frist, are out of touch with mainstream America (who overwhelmingly favour keeping the guarantees of Roe v. Wade in place, for example).
Ask yourselves: What if we battle Bush and the Republicans on this one–and win? It would be a body blow to Bush and proof that his presidency is faltering in domestic as well as foreign policy.
And if Bush does succeed in getting a far-right nutter on the Supreme Court–well, maybe having the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade will be just the impetus we need to get people to wake up and elect Congressional and state representatives who will guarantee the right to abortion legislatively if it is no longer guaranteed judicially. I would rather that right would never be taken away from any woman, particularly those living in the Red states, but the battle would then shift to state legislatures and congressional races.
We shall not flag nor fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall defend a woman’s right to control her own body whatever the cost may be; we shall fight in the chambers of the Sente, in the voting booths, in the state legislatures. We shall never surrender.
I still count five votes in favour of keeping right to choose: Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens, Kennedy. However, have a far-right wing ideologue on the Court would make things dicier if the liberal Stevens retires or dies (he is 85 years old and reportedly frail).
Worst-case scenario: Let’s say that Bush nominates a far-right ideologue.
So what? I say, “bring it on”. This is the battle that could be the defining moment for Harry Reid and the Democrats–a no-holds-barred fight-to-the-finish. There are still enough pro-choice Republicans (Collins, Snowe, Chafee, Specter, Voinovich) to put up one hell of a fight.
Look on the bright side–what if Bush nominates a far-right ideologue to succeed O’Connor on the court? By doing so–
(1) He risks a humiliating public defeat of his nominee, and a repudiation of far-right judicial philosophy;
(2) Bush further hardens the battle lines in the Senate, making further compromise on other issues more difficult;
(3) Bush scares the living daylights out of people on our side and mobilises them to donate money, sign petitions, call congressional representatives, vote talk to their neighbours, etc.
(4) Bush focuses the public’s attention on the fact that he, and the Republican Senate leaders like Frist, are out of touch with mainstream America (who overwhelmingly favour keeping the guarantees of Roe v. Wade in place, for example).
Ask yourselves: What if we battle Bush and the Republicans on this one–and win? It would be a body blow to Bush and proof that his presidency is faltering in domestic as well as foreign policy.
And if Bush does succeed in getting a far-right nutter on the Supreme Court–well, maybe having the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade will be just the impetus we need to get people to wake up and elect Congressional and state representatives who will guarantee the right to abortion legislatively if it is no longer guaranteed judicially. I would rather that right would never be taken away from any woman, particularly those living in the Red states, but the battle would then shift to state legislatures and congressional races.
We shall not flag nor fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall defend a woman’s right to control her own body whatever the cost may be; we shall fight in the chambers of the Sente, in the voting booths, in the state legislatures. We shall never surrender.
Then he best not insult our dignity with an incredible nomination, a la Bolton.
You forgot to use your Babel fish interpreter, because what he really means is…
“You are my rubber stamp. We bought and paid for you. So you will act as one.”
Left my towel, too!
Don’t Panic.
:<)