Ken Starr: Obama’s Supreme Court picks will face trouble from Republicans
posted at 6:19 pm on February 16, 2009 by Allahpundit
Starr pointed out that Obama enters office with healthy Democratic majorities in the House and Senate; however, he said “the salience of this very enviable position, politically, for our president is brought home by the president’s own approach to the high court during his years of service as a United States senator.”
He continued: “There is one historical factoid of note: He is the first president of the United States ever in our history to have participated in a Senate filibuster of a judicial nominee. Never before has that happened.”…
Starr quoted from a November article in The Washington Times by my colleague S.A. Miller about the problems Obama faces.
“‘Senate Republicans say the president-elect’s voting record and long simmering resentments over Democrats’ treatment of President Bush’s nominees will leave Mr. Obama hard-pressed to call for bipartisan help confirming judges or even an up-or-down vote,’” he quoted.
Once Franken — excuse me, Senator-elect Franken — is seated, they’ll be one slim Collins, Snowe, or Specter vote away from a filibuster-proof confirmation. In fact, they won’t even need them initially: The One’s first nominee is likely to be a woman (guaranteed if the vacancy’s created by Ginsburg) and there’s no way the GOP’s going to leave itself open to identity-politics attacks about misogyny by filibustering her. As for future nominations, Collins and Snowe are both members of the Gang of 14, which vowed not to filibuster absent “extraordinary circumstances,” and Specter’s adopted that logic himself informally in interviews, so flipping them will be even easier than usual. Exit question: What exactly would qualify as “extraordinary circumstances” for an Obama nominee?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Justice Blagojevich?
That would shut his mouth pretty damn quick.
Bishop on February 16, 2009 at 7:41 PM
is factoid for real?
kelley in virginia on February 16, 2009 at 7:41 PM
You hope.
You asked me could I name the last SCJ who wasn’t a lawyer, with the point being that they are so rare that there was a small chance of the next one being a non-lawyer. My point in answering that with a rhetorical question about a Marxist POTUS was that just because such a thing is rare doesn’t mean that it is unlikely to occur.
As a matter of fact anything is likely to occur with the Obama Administration because of what I said earlier about rules: that they no longer apply.
baldilocks on February 16, 2009 at 7:43 PM
Maybe there should be no USSC confirmations for the next 4 years. Filibuster them all. That might keep the court out of marxist hands.
BottomLine5 on February 16, 2009 at 7:52 PM
Of course Obama would have trouble with a nominee, the gop is the party of no. They have turned obstructionism into an art form. The gop does whatever their guru (Rush) tells them to do and in the same breath tells us how the american people are sheep. Pot calling the kettle black. Liberals think outside the box,conservatives are trapped in a box. The world changes, conservatives stay the same.Democrats have mastered high tech communication and netroots, gop…..not so much. The gop is superior in name calling, I guess that counts for something.
athensboy on February 16, 2009 at 7:52 PM
The gop is superior in name calling, I guess that counts for something.
athensboy on February 16, 2009 at 7:52 PM
President HitlerFascistBurton BlackwaterNaziPretzelChimp would disagree with you.
As for the rest of your laughable screed, take it from getalife, it’s about as original as mud.
Bishop on February 16, 2009 at 7:56 PM
LOL! Do you get all your talking points from a Saturday Night Live skit and Jon Stewart?
terryannonline on February 16, 2009 at 7:57 PM
“Senator-elect Franken” – doesn’t saying that violate the Hot Air Terms of Use?
KS Rex on February 16, 2009 at 7:58 PM
LOL! Great come back. After Bush has been called every single name in the book, liberals have no room to whine.
terryannonline on February 16, 2009 at 7:58 PM
But human nature doesn’t.
baldilocks on February 16, 2009 at 8:03 PM
The most overused word in the past year
William Amos on February 16, 2009 at 8:09 PM
Weasels, sheep, rabbits, gnats, mosquitos, mice, rats, jellyfish and plankton definitely never change. They also don’t think. They just multiply and mooch.
Entelechy on February 16, 2009 at 8:16 PM
The the SCOTUS judge was a convicted pedophile, Democrats MIGHT pretend to be concerned about him.
Speedwagon82 on February 16, 2009 at 8:21 PM
If the SCOTUS judge was a convicted pedophile, Democrats MIGHT pretend to be concerned about him.
Speedwagon82 on February 16, 2009 at 8:22 PM
Actually my point was not that non-lawyer justices are so rare (IIRC, there have been a couple), but that the last one was so long ago that most people (including me) can’t even recall the person’s name. It has become established custom to nominate lawyer-judges, even though the Constitution does not require a law degree or experience in the practice of law for the position.
So yes, Obama could nominate Michelle O, or Oprah Winfrey, or his manicurist, or anybody else he felt like, but that person would still have to face the scrutiny of groups like the ABA, which customarily reviews a nominee’s body of legal work and then issues an evaluation. Would the ABA give a “highly qualified” rating to Oprah? Would enough Senators be willing to vote to confirm a nominee deemed “not qualified” by the ABA? Who the hell knows? As you correctly point out, it’s a world gone mad.
AZCoyote on February 16, 2009 at 8:24 PM
Senate republicans are a lost cause. To hell with them.
Zorro on February 16, 2009 at 8:25 PM
I think it would be pretty extraordinary to find an Obama nominee who has actually paid their taxes.
Selkirk on February 16, 2009 at 8:34 PM
Yes. Any other questions?
factoid on February 16, 2009 at 8:38 PM
This is the #1 reason I only want a 4 year term for Obama. The damage he could do to the US through the Supreme Court is unmeasurable.
William Amos on February 16, 2009 at 8:40 PM
You just handed O the perfect reason to pick a non-lawyer.
baldilocks on February 16, 2009 at 8:45 PM
Doubtful. Not with a second in command at DOJ who defended an ACLU lawsuit against porn filters in public libraries.
College Prof on February 16, 2009 at 8:46 PM
I could be wrong but doesn’t Michelle Obama have a law degree from Harvard?
terryannonline on February 16, 2009 at 8:50 PM
Good reason to pray for the health of Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy.
As for the others, Obama would merely replace an old liberal with a young liberal.
Steve Z on February 16, 2009 at 8:50 PM
She does. You’re right. As a matter of fact, Barack was her assigned intern when he joined her law firm in Chicago. And I think he still is.
sherry on February 16, 2009 at 8:53 PM
Yeah, but she hasn’t done diddly with it. I’ve also seen comments (don’t know if they’re true or not) that she gave up her license to practice for some reason.
Most of the recent appointments have had a significant career as a lawyer/judge to point to. Don’t think we’ve had a diversity VP of a healthcare system, but I guess it would be a Precedent if it comes to that.
cs89 on February 16, 2009 at 8:54 PM
According to this CS Monitor article, there have been plenty of justices who were not judges (William Rehnquist being the latest), but so far all have been lawyers.
factoid on February 16, 2009 at 8:54 PM
She does have a law degree and I don’t AZ was saying that she doesn’t. The conversation, however, evolved into a discussion of all the logical and rule-based reasons (e.g. nepotism, lack of law degree, thin legal work, etc…), why the president’s wife or some equally unconventional nominee would not be able pass through the Senate should he nominate her, a rich talkshow host or some other unconventional type.
Why any close observers still hold onto the notion that the Obama Administration follows some sort of rule-based logical–other than the logical means to acquire power by any means necessary–is beyond me. And the Democrat-controlled legislative branch lives to serve him.
baldilocks on February 16, 2009 at 9:04 PM
Dtards, say it after me, “What goes around, comes around.”
lasertex on February 16, 2009 at 9:04 PM
The Senate Republican caucus wouldn’t sustain a filibuster of Joe Stalin or Heinrich Himmler.
BD57 on February 16, 2009 at 9:05 PM
A Non-lawyer will never serve on the SC. It’s laughable. It would be a PR nightmare even for The One.
Trent1289 on February 16, 2009 at 9:05 PM
Oy.
R.J. MacReady on February 16, 2009 at 9:08 PM
Don’t put it past them to try it. And remember: we have the first Marxist POTUS. I’m sure that a lot of folks never thought that would happen either
baldilocks on February 16, 2009 at 9:14 PM
Spector, Snowe and Collins are sure to continue to betray what ever conservative values they hold. As well as betraying the Republican party as a whole. Steele needs to get these three in line, but I am not sure that is possible.
caseyjones on February 16, 2009 at 9:18 PM
Look, I don’t like Obama, but I think you have him pegged wrong. First and foremost, this guy thinks about himself and his ego/legacy. Transitions are forgettable (do you remember how many tries it took for Clinton to get an AG? No, neither does anyone else), but people remember SC nominees. Nominating a non-lawyer would be Harriet Meyers X100 for Obama.
Obama won’t explicitly or overtly make power grabs. He’s not going to try to get rid of Congress. He won’t try to serve more than two terms. That doesn’t mean he won’t cause harm (look at the stimulus), but he’s not going to create or use a gestapo.
Lets focus on his policies (socialized medicine, amnesty, abortion, the war on terror), hypothesizing about stuff like this is just Bush derangement syndrome applied to the other side. It makes us look ridiculous and it taints valid criticisms.
Trent1289 on February 16, 2009 at 9:36 PM
Excuse me, Trent1289,
But, I think to assume Obama won’t do dumb thing in the name of ego is naive. The guy just doesn’t demonstrate the maturity needed to divorce his decison making from ego. Sometimes, being the smartest guy in the room isn’t always a good thing.
mngander92 on February 16, 2009 at 9:47 PM
If that woman is like Ginsburg they had better filibuster like the integrity of the Republic depended on it as down the road a bit it well may.
MB4 on February 16, 2009 at 9:48 PM
Specter will never filibuster Obambi’s picks so it won’t make much of a difference.
larvcom on February 16, 2009 at 9:51 PM
To be blunt I don’t see any reason Ginsberg or Stevens shouldn’t retire in the first 2 years of Barry’s reign. I mean right now the way things are they could quit and have a huge probability of being replaced with a like minded judge. (Given the tilt of Congress is there any reason for him to nominated anybody that isn’t liberal?) If they even wait 2 years then there’s is some probability that there would be a shift back to the right and that he’d have to nominate someone more centrist. (Or a stealth candidate.) When I look at it like that given that things can a best get only slightly more in their favor why would they wait?
Dave_d on February 16, 2009 at 9:52 PM
Self admiration.
MB4 on February 16, 2009 at 9:56 PM
Oh, he’ll definitely do dumb things in the name of his ego. But only if he thinks he can trick the public into buying it (there’s a bit of this in the stimulus and also his constant team of rival chatter), but naming a non-lawyer or his wife to the SC? No way. To difficult to sell as legit. That sort of thing beyond the pale.
Trent1289 on February 16, 2009 at 9:57 PM
I don’t even foresee the Ginsburg seat being vacated before 2010. SC Justices cling to their seats like conservatives do to their bibles and guns. That being said , I would be hard pressed to name someone I would be satisfied with, from a conservative perspective.
Lummox on February 16, 2009 at 9:59 PM
Totally agree. I would not be surprised if both Ginsburg and Stevens retired in June or thereabouts. Despite their relative youth, if the polls aren’t looking good for The One come 2012, you can bet Souter and Breyer will follow suit, just in case Jindal or Palin or whomever might serve a 8 year term.
Trent1289 on February 16, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Ayers would still sail through.
steveegg on February 16, 2009 at 10:18 PM
“Extraordinary circumstances”
benny shakar on February 16, 2009 at 10:42 PM
Well, if her replacement isn’t a woman, there won’t be any women on the court. And in a country where many women are well-qualified to sit on our highest court, don’t you think at least one of nine justices should be a female?
paul006 on February 16, 2009 at 10:50 PM
By the way, the RNC requires that half its members be women.
paul006 on February 16, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Obama seems to pick people from Chicago first and then branches out. If he stays true to form I would guess his first SCOTUS pick would be Illinois Supreme Court Justice Anne Burke who hails from the southside of Chicago and whose husband is a Chicago City alderman. Her downfall might be her age-65 but that might play into Obama’s hands because he can say he picked someone with experience and that we should trust the rest of his choices.
journeyintothewhirlwind on February 16, 2009 at 11:27 PM
we have a Marxist demagogue who was sold to the populace as the Messiah, sitting in an oval office pretending to be POTUS – beyond the pale, but there it is
runner on February 16, 2009 at 11:32 PM
I predicted before the election that the loony Left will eventually start demanding that Chief Justice Roberts resign. Hide and watch.
rockmom on February 17, 2009 at 1:16 AM
Not quite:
That straddle he has now was in full force even back then.
unclesmrgol on February 17, 2009 at 3:59 AM
Oh C’mon! Nitwit Senators are all eager to “cross the aisle” and deliver a big ole’ Monica to The Great and Glorious Leader (May He Live Forever) over his SCOTUS nominee! And this includes John McNumbnuts and Little Miss GrAmnesty!
sabbott on February 17, 2009 at 5:49 AM
No. I don’t. I value individual merits, not quotas.
If those merits come along with nice funbags, all the better.
LimeyGeek on February 17, 2009 at 8:51 AM
The first AFL/CIO Supreme Court pick…then an ACORN attorney…then, finally, an openly gay ACLU attorney…that completes the “tri-fecta”.
right2bright on February 17, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Don’t you think one should be:
Extremely fat
Gay
Not an attorney
Transexual
Red Hair
Mormon…Lutheran…Muslim…Amish
Afraid of the dark
A badminton expert
None of these are represented…
right2bright on February 17, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Every one of Obama’s picks are going to make it through with or without any conservative support. Likely the RINOs will once again save the day. I do wish I had copies of the blackmail pictures the democrats have of Snowe, Collins and Specter
kens on February 17, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Ken Starr? I thought he died 10 years ago.
Monkei on February 17, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2