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: 1 2 Next »
Justice William Ayers?
jgapinoy on February 16, 2009 at 6:22 PM
Why does it have to be a woman to replace Ginsburg?
Notorious GOP on February 16, 2009 at 6:23 PM
The GOP will rubber stamp anyone he puts up. Sad but true.
roninacreage on February 16, 2009 at 6:23 PM
All taxes paid?
JiangxiDad on February 16, 2009 at 6:23 PM
That’s the make-up of the Senate for now. Republicans may have a larger margin in ’10 and I doubt all of Obambis nominations will come within the next two years.
amerpundit on February 16, 2009 at 6:23 PM
yes – but those nominees (which may never occur anyway) might come after 2010, when the senate will be different. if the R’s pick up just a couple, it will be completely different
darkegop on February 16, 2009 at 6:24 PM
Well of course he will face problems. Duh. Would he face more or less problems if the nuclear option had been enacted? If the Gang of 14 had not acted would the filibuster even be an option? I forget.
Terrye on February 16, 2009 at 6:25 PM
amerpundit beat me by a minute. damn.
darkegop on February 16, 2009 at 6:25 PM
I welcome Michelle Ogabe as our next Supreme Court justice.
Bishop on February 16, 2009 at 6:26 PM
Strangles and consumes a live puppy in the middle of the televised confirmation hearings. Maybe then.
Cowboy on February 16, 2009 at 6:26 PM
Having shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die?
rbj on February 16, 2009 at 6:26 PM
Such attacks really ought to be DOA in a post-Palin world. You know, from the same Democrats and Drive-By Media that oh-so delighted in shoving her head in a toilet.
In a sane world, those cretins would never get away with going back to this same crap.
Hawkins1701 on February 16, 2009 at 6:27 PM
Oh, come on. It’s the same reason Hillary’s replacement had to be a woman, and Obama’s had to black, and Teddy’s soon-to-be vacancy will have to be a Kennedy (his current wife)….
Wethal on February 16, 2009 at 6:27 PM
In a sane world, The One would have been laughed off the stage in the primaries.
Cowboy on February 16, 2009 at 6:28 PM
Justice Caroline Kennedy! You know!
profitsbeard on February 16, 2009 at 6:28 PM
Somehow I imagine Justice William Ayers would end up being welcomed.
aic4ever on February 16, 2009 at 6:29 PM
Cool username. Welcome to HA.
jgapinoy on February 16, 2009 at 6:29 PM
Oh, come on. It’s the same reason Hillary’s replacement had to be a woman, and Obama’s had to black, and Teddy’s soon-to-be vacancy will have to be a Kennedy (his current wife)….
Wethal on February 16, 2009 at 6:27 PM
So who is going to be the brave soul to break the black chain of Presidents started by Ogabe or female secretary of state?
Gaia help us if Lizard Man ever runs for POTUS and wins; they are not a large community.
Bishop on February 16, 2009 at 6:30 PM
I assumed the liberals on the court have already told Obama they intend to leave in order to give him some time to find a replacement. Why do you think they will stick around and risk a change in the next Congress?
JiangxiDad on February 16, 2009 at 6:30 PM
To these turds? Six arms.
progressoverpeace on February 16, 2009 at 6:30 PM
That is easy. There is no such thing.
Mr. MacIan on February 16, 2009 at 6:31 PM
Hey pal, we support EQUALITY and DIVERSITY here in this country so we must never give a woman’s position to a man!
Skywise on February 16, 2009 at 6:31 PM
well, look at it this way: ginsburg (she may be the first to go–literally) is so liberal that her replacement won’t shock/rock the current makeup of the court.
kelley in virginia on February 16, 2009 at 6:32 PM
Ummmmm…….
Duh?
BallisticBob on February 16, 2009 at 6:33 PM
Terrye, if you think the Dems won’t use the nuclear option, you’re more of an idjit than I think you are….. which takes some doing. All that the Gang of 14 did was keep us from getting our judges placed; if you think the Copperheads will reciprocate you need a keeper.
SDN on February 16, 2009 at 6:33 PM
The justices better hire food-tasters. /jk /maybe
baldilocks on February 16, 2009 at 6:33 PM
Sex with an intern! No, wait……
TheTrollhammer on February 16, 2009 at 6:34 PM
John McCain?
hawkdriver on February 16, 2009 at 6:34 PM
You sow chaff, you reap nothin’.
Entelechy on February 16, 2009 at 6:35 PM
That was a dick thing to say Hawk!
Okay…
Arlen Specter?
hawkdriver on February 16, 2009 at 6:35 PM
The Conservative ones you mean?
hawkdriver on February 16, 2009 at 6:36 PM
Get ready for Lani Guinier redux. Sure she was unqualified, racist, and very nearly retarded. The Democrats don’t care about any of that stuff.
And if the GOP can approve Ginsburg 96-3 just because she’s qualified, then surely an imbecile like Collins or Snowe can vote to confirm a retarded racist, just because she’s got a uterus.
Right?
Jaibones on February 16, 2009 at 6:36 PM
Being left wing enough to be nominated by Obama.
thirteen28 on February 16, 2009 at 6:37 PM
More likely the guy that swings both ways. Kennedy? Souter?
baldilocks on February 16, 2009 at 6:37 PM
I can’t even imagine how awful a nominee it would have to be for the Republicans to filibuster. Even if they had 60, they still wouldn’t do it. The might consider it if there were to be more than three replacements.
Cindy Munford on February 16, 2009 at 6:37 PM
Extraordinary circumstances for an Obama nominee? No tax problems. Or, to put it more in the judicial realm, no felony convictions.
NeoconNews.com on February 16, 2009 at 6:37 PM
Allah, can we get a thread about Charles/LGF calling out Ann Coulter as racist? :)
SnarkVader on February 16, 2009 at 6:39 PM
Showing up at the confirmation hearings munching on an aborted fetus with a briefcase full of child porn?
phelps on February 16, 2009 at 6:39 PM
To these turds? Six arms.
progressoverpeace on February 16, 2009 at 6:30 PM
Are you kidding? The ‘rats would LOVE to have six arms, that they could hysterically gesticulate with four, hold the microphone with one and use the last to point their finger at us and say, “Ok now LOOK…” before every sentence as Ogabe does.
Bishop on February 16, 2009 at 6:40 PM
The GOP lost their balls. They’ll pass anyone Obama selects.
jencab on February 16, 2009 at 6:40 PM
Don’t get me started! Obama voted against ROBERTS, for goodness sake. And Ken Starr, one of the most decent people there is, painted as a religious fanatic and prude in his time in the public light. The world is crazy.
Paul-Cincy on February 16, 2009 at 6:41 PM
Hmm, nope! Demonstrates he approves of Free Choice, Stem Cell Research and the 1ST Amendment. Now if he opposes the Fairness Doctrine, there you might be on to something.
hawkdriver on February 16, 2009 at 6:43 PM
Dude, it doesn’t matter if we pick up 10 seats, or 20. Even when we had a slim majority at the beginning of the Bush Presidency, the leadership wanted to share power in the interest of bi-partisanship. The best analogy I can come up with for the GOP’s problem…remember the Star Wars movie, where they cloned Jango Fett to use as the template for the Clone Army? Well, just imagine our GOP Senators are cloned from Don Knotts. Ugly, funny-looking, fall over their own feet, and sound like blithering idiots on TV. They all end up looking and sounding the same. The one thing I admire about the Democrats is even when they are dead wrong, and lying through their teeth, they stay on message and won’t back down from anything. Your average GOP Senator, will happily sell out and turn on his party, his voters, just for some good press, or a candy bar.
austinnelly on February 16, 2009 at 6:43 PM
belly laugh
hawkdriver on February 16, 2009 at 6:45 PM
I honestly don’t see any legislation put forth by Obama failing. Please, someone, convince me I’m wrong.
genso on February 16, 2009 at 6:46 PM
Nah, phelps, that’s just the new litmus test for Roe v Wade and First Ammendment positions.
Hugo CHavez, maybe.
The_Livewire on February 16, 2009 at 6:47 PM
Being a former Klan member? oh, wait, nope. Uh, committing a crime like tax evasion or perjury. Shoot, wait, I can do this. Getting caught stuffing classified documents down your pants and smuggling them out of the national archives. Dang! Leaving the scene of a fatal car accident in which you were driving. Having your live in lover run a prostitution ring. Getting inappropriate loans when you chair the Senate Committee on Banking.
Oh, hell, I give up.
trubble on February 16, 2009 at 6:48 PM
Justice Bill Clinton
Justice Hillary Clinton
Justice Michelle Obama
tjexcite on February 16, 2009 at 6:48 PM
Because since Sandra O’Connor retired (to look after her Alzheimer’s-afflicted husband, who then was placed in a nursing home and promptly fell in love with another woman; very sad story), Ginsburg is the sole female justice. To name a male replacement for her seat would mean an all-male Supreme Court, and that just wouldn’t look “diverse” enough in the Obamanation — plus, the feminists would scream bloody murder.
That won’t happen, because then she’d have to release her law school records and her employment records for her whopping 3-year tenure as a lawyer (at Sidley & Austin) — records Michelle probably does not want the public to see.
AZCoyote on February 16, 2009 at 6:48 PM
SDN:
I don’t think you know what the nuclear option is. Really. It favors the majority. Right now Republicans are not the majority.
Terrye on February 16, 2009 at 6:50 PM
I thought this was interesting poll and graph from Rasmussens. Note the approval/disapproval rating for Obama. Getting closer and closer.
Terrye on February 16, 2009 at 6:52 PM
Specter will watch his reelection numbers and that will be “extraordinary” enough. However, I wish the 60 upon the country. One way or another the left must own her destruction, clearly. The people must be punished and they must know who’s destructive of their land.
Entelechy on February 16, 2009 at 6:52 PM
All it takes is one Senator to put a hold on a judicial appointment.
Last I heard Ginsburg’s cancer treatment is going well and that it had not spread.
goat on February 16, 2009 at 6:54 PM
Starr’s way out in left field on this one. Unless he expects no vacancies til 2011, and a huge Republican pick up.
Iblis on February 16, 2009 at 6:55 PM
I don’t admire them. I just feel more and more contempt for the fools who fall for it and allow themselves to be exploited, in the name of being ‘for the people’ and all the other malarkey. The meak will never ineherit the earth but they will always be enslaved, this time in a modern day version of serfdom, i.e. Venezuela.
Every populace deserves its leaders.
Entelechy on February 16, 2009 at 6:57 PM
Obama could nominate Madonna for the Supreme Court and the 3 stooges would go along with the Messiah.
technopeasant on February 16, 2009 at 6:58 PM
No she wouldn’t.
baldilocks on February 16, 2009 at 7:00 PM
…and then claim “so many other Republican Senators wished they could have voted for Madonna too” ~ ~ Sen. Collins
Entelechy on February 16, 2009 at 7:00 PM
What an idiot! Ferme la bouche, Starr- NOT!
Halli Casser-Jayne
http://www.thecjpoliticalreport.com
The CJ Political Report on February 16, 2009 at 7:00 PM
To satisfy his constituents, Obama is searching for a one-legged, biracial, bilingual, bisexual ACLU type. Citizenship status not an issue. Former male a plus. OAC.
Patrick S on February 16, 2009 at 7:00 PM
I printed out and actually read her ‘thesis’ – 7th graders would have done better – it was enough to form an eternal opinion about her dovebrain.
Patrick S, I can see you from my office.
Entelechy on February 16, 2009 at 7:02 PM
What exactly would qualify as “extraordinary circumstances” for an Obama nominee?
Let’s see:
1) NON-PAYMENT OF TAXES
2) Prior felony arrest
3) Currently under investigation by the FBI
Any of the three or combination thereof should sink most if not all of his nominees.
GarandFan on February 16, 2009 at 7:03 PM
Obama picked a Republican for SecDef, another for National Security Advisor and was ready to make a third one Sec’y of Commerce. What makes you think his Supreme Court nominees will be so far out of the mainstream that the Republicans would risk an ugly and protracted fight over it?
factoid on February 16, 2009 at 7:04 PM
AZCoyote on February 16, 2009 at 6:48 PM
Just as Mr. Ogabe released all of his records? Come now, we have a new paradigm at work here, records and documentation have taken a back seat to feelings and assuaging liberal guilt.
Do I really think Mrs. B. Hussein Ogabe would be nominated? No, but if it happened, I would casually shrug and continue digging the foundation for my bunker.
Bishop on February 16, 2009 at 7:04 PM
nope, required
Being a former Klan member? oh, wait, nope. Uh, committing a crime like tax evasion or perjury. Shoot, wait, I can do this. Getting caught stuffing classified documents down your pants and smuggling them out of the national archives. Dang! Leaving the scene of a fatal car accident in which you were driving. Having your live in lover run a prostitution ring. Getting inappropriate loans when you chair the Senate Committee on Banking.
nope, another requirement
being born in the united states……
UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on February 16, 2009 at 7:04 PM
Who is this Mrs. B. Hussein Ogabe you speak about? Does the President really have so few policy weaknesses that the only way you can attack him is by twisting his name, like we used to back in third grade?
factoid on February 16, 2009 at 7:07 PM
factoid on February 16, 2009 at 7:04 PM
Because secretaries can be fired or marginalized, Justices are effectively forever and are constrained only by their deaths or personal choice to resign.
This is Ogabe we’re talking about here, Mr. ObIwon himself, and there is a larger plan at work; finding a candidate acceptable to the GOP is the last thing on his agenda.
Bishop on February 16, 2009 at 7:07 PM
supreme court justice does not serve “at the pleasure of the president”
runner on February 16, 2009 at 7:08 PM
I don’t think BHO will introduce any legislation. The recent porkulus bill was not his; it was written by congressional Democratniks.
Pelayo on February 16, 2009 at 7:08 PM
Oh you voyeur you!! I guess I better start dressing better then!
Patrick S on February 16, 2009 at 7:09 PM
O/T:
Did anyone else see the ad for Joe the Plumber’s book on the front page? Hi-larious!
Califemme on February 16, 2009 at 7:10 PM
Technically speaking, you’re correct. There’s no requirement that she release those docs. But practically speaking, she almost certainly would have to. She has no other paper trail. She has never published any scholarly legal works, she has no written opinions as a jurist, etc. So the only other available measure of her fitness would be her law school records and her work records. And she would not want to release those because they would most likely put an end to the popular myth of her as a “brilliant” career woman.
AZCoyote on February 16, 2009 at 7:10 PM
did I miss something? IS GINSBURG a woman?
Next you will tell me Helen Thomas is a woman too……
SDarchitect on February 16, 2009 at 7:12 PM
Most of the Senate GOP would let just about any Obama nomination through. They still hold to the quaint, “The president should be able to nominate anyone, as long as the person is qualified.”
Of course, the Dems did not abide by that with Reagan (Teddy’s attacks on Bork coined the verb “to bork”). The GOP let Ginsberg (and Breyer) through, and almost all of Clinton’s lower court picks. Only one I recall turned down was Fredericka Massiah-Jackson of Philadelphia. The mammoth Jackson (as wide as she is big) hated the police, and would state the names of confidential informants in open court. (I think even Arlen voted aginst Jackson, but he is a former Philly DA.)
Then the Dems tried to stop Roberts and Alito not because they weren’t qualified, but becuse they were conservative.
But with Obama, it’ll be back to the Stupid Party’s, “The president should be able to nominate….”
Wethal on February 16, 2009 at 7:12 PM
After all the chaos that has taken place in the past 3 weeks, I do not even know how I would define “extraordinary” as it relates to the 0′s administration.
DrStock on February 16, 2009 at 7:12 PM
As a couple others have pointed out an opening in the upper court is unlikely before 2010 but there will be plenty of lower court nominees to fight over. Meanwhile here is a list of Senate seats we will have to defend or try to take over next year.
2.1 Retiring Senators
2.1.1 Ted Kaufman (D) of Delaware
2.1.2 Kit Bond (R) of Missouri
2.1.3 Sam Brownback (R) of Kansas
2.1.4 Judd Gregg (R) of New Hampshire
2.1.5 Mel Martinez (R) of Florida
2.1.6 George Voinovich (R) of Ohio
2.2 Democratic incumbents
2.2.1 Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas
2.2.2 Barbara Boxer of California
2.2.3 Michael Bennet of Colorado
2.2.4 Christopher Dodd of Connecticut
2.2.5 Daniel Inouye of Hawaii
2.2.6 Roland Burris of Illinois
2.2.7 Evan Bayh of Indiana
2.2.8 Barbara Mikulski of Maryland
2.2.9 Harry Reid of Nevada
2.2.10 Kirsten Gillibrand of New York
2.2.11 Chuck Schumer of New York
2.2.12 Byron Dorgan of North Dakota
2.2.13 Ron Wyden of Oregon
2.2.14 Patrick Leahy of Vermont
2.2.15 Patty Murray of Washington
2.2.16 Russ Feingold of Wisconsin
2.3 Republican incumbents
2.3.1 Richard Shelby of Alabama
2.3.2 Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
2.3.3 John McCain of Arizona
2.3.4 Johnny Isakson of Georgia
2.3.5 Mike Crapo of Idaho
2.3.6 Chuck Grassley of Iowa
2.3.7 Jim Bunning of Kentucky
2.3.8 David Vitter of Louisiana
2.3.9 Richard Burr of North Carolina
2.3.10 Tom Coburn of Oklahoma
2.3.11 Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania
2.3.12 Jim DeMint of South Carolina
2.3.13 John Thune of South Dakota
2.3.14 Bob Bennett of Utah
goat on February 16, 2009 at 7:13 PM
Yeah, Ginsburg is, but not Thomas. Don’t be stupid.
JiangxiDad on February 16, 2009 at 7:13 PM
Who is this Mrs. B. Hussein Ogabe you speak about? Does the President really have so few policy weaknesses that the only way you can attack him is by twisting his name, like we used to back in third grade?
factoid on February 16, 2009 at 7:07 PM
I take joy in twisting his name to resemble that of another “President” whose policies have led to his nation’s utter ruin. If your delicate constitution can’t deal with that, I suggest taking a long swig of Imodium A-D and retiring to your room.
Bishop on February 16, 2009 at 7:14 PM
Ummm… showing up on an al Qaeda training video?
Wethal on February 16, 2009 at 7:14 PM
Godspeed to Justice Ginsburg, but consider this bit from Wikipedia:
That’s pretty grim.
factoid on February 16, 2009 at 7:14 PM
They don’t even have to be lawyers. I don’t think he would pick his wife though, nepotism to tenth degree. I think even the enamored would have a fit.
Cindy Munford on February 16, 2009 at 7:17 PM
Ummm… showing up on an al Qaeda training video?
Wethal on February 16, 2009 at 7:14 PM
Bwaaaaa, it depends on what you would classify as a training video.
Playing vids of the various dems and media whores who have insulted and maligned our troops over the years could be classified as “How To Use Your Enemy’s Own Media Against Them.”
Bishop on February 16, 2009 at 7:19 PM
She has had a rough time of it. The prognosis is not good. Despite disagreeing with probably most of what she believes I hope she bounces back.
Cindy Munford on February 16, 2009 at 7:20 PM
If Ginsberg leaves the Court, it will be a black or Hispanic woman, a two-fer, paying off two special interest groups.
Wethal on February 16, 2009 at 7:20 PM
Some people aren’t paying attention.
baldilocks on February 16, 2009 at 7:22 PM
Holding either Collins or Snowe at gunpoint at the Circle K.
Maybe.
spmat on February 16, 2009 at 7:22 PM
Justice Oprah Winfrey
terryannonline on February 16, 2009 at 7:23 PM
I’d say you’re right on target there. My guess would be a Hispanic woman, since there’s already a black guy on the court, and since the Hispanics feel that they’re “owed” a high-profile appointment after Richardson withdrew at Commerce and was replaced with a gringo.
AZCoyote on February 16, 2009 at 7:24 PM
Wethal on February 16, 2009 at 7:20 PM
Didn’t Bush nominate a black woman that got filibustered by the diversity loving lefties?
goat on February 16, 2009 at 7:25 PM
Justice Anita Hill?????
Gag
BrianA on February 16, 2009 at 7:26 PM
It’s payback time so cherchez la femme who got him elected. Have Granholm or McCaskill been tapped for a cabinet position yet? If not them, then Hillary gracefully exits the SOS, takes the position on the Court and makes room for Rice to come in and take her place. Which leaves Powers an opportunity to move up the food chain. And the soap opera continues……
sherry on February 16, 2009 at 7:27 PM
Seems like Bush also nominated some hispanics that cought a lot of grief.
goat on February 16, 2009 at 7:27 PM
You all seem to think that this is still a country of laws here. Those days are almost over and after President Obama signs the bill to give away our future, it will be. This country will have become one of men; one in which the rules followed depend on who’s making them and to whom they apply.
baldilocks on February 16, 2009 at 7:28 PM
BTW, one does not have to be a lawyer at all to be a Supreme Court justice.
baldilocks on February 16, 2009 at 7:29 PM
I’m aware of that. Can you name the last non-lawyer appointed to the Court?
AZCoyote on February 16, 2009 at 7:31 PM
Great minds.
Ever hear of the Kennedy brothers?
baldilocks on February 16, 2009 at 7:32 PM
baldilocks on February 16, 2009 at 7:29 PM
I don’t they have to be but it would seem to be an unspoken requirement that they have studied law to be qualified
goat on February 16, 2009 at 7:32 PM
Nope. Can you name the last Marxist POTUS? :-)
baldilocks on February 16, 2009 at 7:33 PM
Barack Hussein Obama.
AZCoyote on February 16, 2009 at 7:37 PM
Better yet, a black or Hispanic and lesbian woman. He could hit the whole trifecta.
TheQuestion on February 16, 2009 at 7:40 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »