Comments on: Ken Starr: Obama’s Supreme Court picks will face trouble from Republicans

By: Monkei

Monkei — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:34:40 +0000

Ken Starr? I thought he died 10 years ago.

By: kens

kens — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:01:35 +0000

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

By: Ken Starr: Obama’s Supreme Court picks will face trouble from Republicans — But As For Me

Tue, 17 Feb 2009 15:23:27 +0000

[...] Read this post » [...]

By: right2bright

right2bright — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 15:00:02 +0000

don’t you think at least one of nine justices should be a female?

paul006 on February 16, 2009 at 10:50 PM

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…

By: right2bright

right2bright — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:56:30 +0000

The first AFL/CIO Supreme Court pick…then an ACORN attorney…then, finally, an openly gay ACLU attorney…that completes the “tri-fecta”.

By: LimeyGeek

LimeyGeek — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:51:50 +0000

don’t you think at least one of nine justices should be a female?

paul006 on February 16, 2009 at 10:50 PM

No. I don’t. I value individual merits, not quotas.

If those merits come along with nice funbags, all the better.

By: sabbott

sabbott — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:49:19 +0000

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!

By: unclesmrgol

unclesmrgol — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:59:48 +0000

is factoid for real? kelley in virginia on February 16, 2009 at 7:41 PM

Not quite:

And in January Obama publicly criticized a fledgling effort to filibuster nominee Samuel Alito. Obama actually voted for the filibuster, but his statements helped take the steam out of that effort.

That straddle he has now was in full force even back then.

By: rockmom

rockmom — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 06:16:10 +0000

I predicted before the election that the loony Left will eventually start demanding that Chief Justice Roberts resign. Hide and watch.

By: runner

runner — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 04:32:12 +0000

To difficult to sell as legit. That sort of thing beyond the pale.

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

By: journeyintothewhirlwind

journeyintothewhirlwind — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 04:27:33 +0000

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.

By: paul006

paul006 — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 03:51:10 +0000

By the way, the RNC requires that half its members be women.

By: paul006

paul006 — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 03:50:20 +0000

Why does it have to be a woman to replace Ginsburg?

Notorious GOP on February 16, 2009 at 6:23 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?

By: benny shakar

benny shakar — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 03:42:05 +0000

"Extraordinary circumstances"

By: steveegg

steveegg — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 03:18:25 +0000

What exactly would qualify as “extraordinary circumstances” for an Obama nominee?

Justice William Ayers?

jgapinoy on February 16, 2009 at 6:22 PM

Ayers would still sail through.

By: Trent1289

Trent1289 — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 03:01:38 +0000

Dave_d on February 16, 2009 at 9:52 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.

By: Lummox

Lummox — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 02:59:11 +0000

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.

By: Trent1289

Trent1289 — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 02:57:42 +0000

But, I think to assume Obama won’t do dumb thing in the name of ego is naive.
mngander92 on February 16, 2009 at 9:47 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.

By: MB4

MB4 — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 02:56:00 +0000

why would they wait?

Dave_d on February 16, 2009 at 9:52 PM

Self admiration.

By: Dave_d

Dave_d — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 02:52:18 +0000

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?

By: larvcom

larvcom — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 02:51:13 +0000

Specter will never filibuster Obambi’s picks so it won’t make much of a difference.

By: MB4

MB4 — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 02:48:26 +0000

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.

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.

By: mngander92

mngander92 — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 02:47:29 +0000

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.

By: Trent1289

Trent1289 — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 02:36:15 +0000

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.

By: caseyjones

caseyjones — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 02:18:13 +0000

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.