This is why Bob Casey, Jr.’s seat mattered.
In a concession to the Senate’s new Democratic majority, four of President Bush’s appeals court appointees have asked to have their nominations withdrawn, Republican officials said Tuesday.
These officials said that William Haynes, William Myers and Terrence Boyle had all decided to abandon their quest for confirmation. Another nominee, Michael Wallace, let it be known last month that he, too, had asked Bush to withdraw his nomination.
Haynes is the Pentagon’s top lawyer, and was an architect of the Bush’s now-abandoned policy toward treatment of detainees in the war on terror. He had been tapped for the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Boyle is a federal judge in North Carolina, and his appointment to the 4th Circuit provoked opposition from Democrats who cited his rulings in civil rights and disability cases, as well as his higher-than-average reversal rate by higher courts.
William G. Myers III, nominated to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, sparked opposition from environmentalist organizations and their allies among Senate Democrats.
Wallace’s appointment to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals drew opposition from Democrats, civil rights groups and the American Bar Association.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has said only ”consensus nominees” are likely to win confirmation under the new Democratic majority — a declaration that effectively doomed the chances for the four men whose appointments were left in limbo when the Senate adjourned last year for the elections.
I had to spend way too much breath trying to explain this. I never had any enthusiasm for Casey. But I knew that Santorum’s seat was absolutely necessary for a Senate majority. And I knew that, in a Democratic Senate, Bush’s worst judges would never get out of the Judiciary Committee to the floor where Casey might vote for them.
:::crickets chirping:::
I listened. And while I detested every molecule of graphite, I voted for Ritter in Colorado (Gov), who has the same stance.
Santorum still would have lost to Pennachiochiocaccio or whoever the more liberal guy was. I am convinced that we could have run (for instance) a box turtle as a Democrat and still beaten Santorum.
Er, I don’t think so. See the 2000 senatorial election, when Santorum beat Ron Kline.
Seriously Psi, stop writing shit like this without thinking a little first. Kline? Fucking Kline? “See the 2000 senatorial election, when Santorum beat Ron Kline.” The Democrat who failed to campaign in the portion of the state containing the majority of the Democratic voters? Seriously? Really?
Jesus. The extraordinarily conservative Kline ran the worst campaign in the entire history of the world. As the Democratic candidate for Senator from Pennsylvania, he failed to campaign in Philadelphia, or its suburbs, or advertise in the Philadelphia media market ever. I wonder what portion of potential Democratic Pennsylvania voters live in the Philadelphia area? Don’t you remember how fucking awful 2000 was? Were you even here? Don’t you remember the train wreck? Jesus.
No, I wasn’t here. I was living in New York, attending high school. I’ve heard that Kline was a bad campaigner, but I wasn’t aware that he didn’t campaign in the Philly area. That’s pretty stupid and probably explains a good deal as to why Santorum won the Philly ‘burbs. My apologies.
That being said, I just wish people would stop with the sour grapes over Bob Casey and refighting the PA-Sen primary. If Casey turns into Joe Lieberman, I’ll have a problem. For now, though, I’m willing to give him a chance. Hell, he’s not even a week into his first term.
Oops. I’m screwing up – Ron Klink, not Kline. Sorry. How quickly I forget the Colonel Klink Meme.
i was wondering who this kline fellow you were talking about was.
LOL …
comfort yourself how you must. Treat us to another post the first time that fucker crosses the aisle to screw over the base. I’m sure it won’t be long.
The plain fact of the matter is that they were facing actual questioning, and they have some VERY shady and troubling ties and histories. Before they were guaranteed to be protected, and now they aren’t. It’s as simple as that.
Casey has nothing to do with it, and as another commentor has already pointed out, Santorum was such damaged goods that the more liberal Pennachio would have likely won as well.
Whatever, keep holding tight to this comforting thought.
Casey has the same amount to do with it as McCaskill, Tester, Whitehouse, Brown, and Webb. We needed every seat.
but don’t expect me to be happy about it…we’re not out of the woods till we reclaim the White House.
(adding Justice Stevens to my prayer list…)
Bush’s worst judges would never get out of the Judiciary Committee to the floor where Casey might vote for them.
We had to vote for Casey so that we could get a majority that would protect Casey from Casey! Is that about correct?
No, not really. Those four judicial nominees might well have been approved if Casey had lost. Now there is no vote on them at all. That was what I was predicting. If you cared about judges, at least in the short term Casey was a major improvement over Santorum. And specifically because of the repercussions for the Judiciary Committee which Casey will never get anywhere near.
at least in the short term Casey
I am sure there were people who voted for Hitler despite his rhetoric because they wanted some change, some statement to be made, short term. Too bad they did not understand about long-term consequences of principles being violated.
that is really too much. It’s not even worthy of a response.
Okay, well then let me ask you this. How many Casey’s could progressives vote in before what they hoped for politically from the process would be poisoned out of possibility even though such candidates had the (D) next to their names?
Anyone (and that includes Chuck Pennacchio, for whom I proudly volunteered 1/2 my life for for several months) would have beaten that scumbag. This douchebag, who now sits on the fucking Foreign Relations committee, sucks donkey balls.
I had to spend way too much breath trying to explain this.
Oh for Heaven’s sake. Noone was arguing that there wouldn’t be some benefits to a Dem majority in the senate, we were arguing that any benefit would be outweighed by the toxic disaster that is Bob Casey.
Imagine the breath we’ve collectively wasted trying to convey that simple idea.
I really doubt the benefit will be outweighed.
I really doubt the benefit will be outweighed.
Casey will make you nostalgic for Zell Miller.
I sincerely doubt it. He might make me think Joe Lieberman has a doppelganger though.
Booman:
You can rationalize your appeasement of and capitulation to the right-wing however it makes you feel better.
It still took the Democrats totally trashing democracy in Pennsylvania to get Casey elected. By supporting Casey you supported that suppression of democracy in Pennsylvania. My democratic rights were goose-stepped all over by the authoritarian Democrats and their undemocratic ballot access laws. Laws they wrote in collusion with the GOP in the state house.
When you supported Casey you played craps with the constitutional rights of my wife and every women in Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania had three politicians who would all have better respected all of our democratic rights. Women’s rights. and the rights of the clear majority that has voted opposition to the Iraq War.
You Democrats are pretty cavelier with the rights of the rest of us. This is why I am no longer a Democrats. Power and authoritarian control are more important to even liberals Democrats than are democracy and constitutional rights.
you might try reading anything I wrote about Schumer, Rendell, and Casey at the time.
fuck those motherfuckers to fucking hell. BooMan definitely ripped into them proper. he only supported, and without anything close to a glowing endorsement, ‘the brow’ after the primary.
And that is any sort of response to the well reasoned thoughts of aapht how?
Yes, BooMan most definitely supported Casey for the reasons he has articulated. That doesn’t mean that women who view their equal rights as more important than political machinations, including, gasp the SCOTUS, which is so corrupt and bought as to be laughable, are out of line to see him as part of the problem vs. the solution.
But there is something you can do. Prove us wrong.
Not with words surmising how things “might” have turned out, but with actual cases that a Dem did something to advance a progressive cause, without trashing another ‘progressive’ principle while doing so.
This is my dare for 2007. Well, until War with Iran: breaking, news at 11.