“Republicans in the House have gone a long way [toward satisfying conservatives] with votes on the stimulus,” says Gary Bauer, president of the anti-abortion, anti-gay-marriage group American Values. “But when it comes to the Senate, there are still a lot of people not convinced that … what people expect is for them to carry the banner of our philosophy as boldly and with as much confidence as the other side does.”
“The other side does not agonize about whether they are going to give a Republican Supreme Court nominee a difficult time, they just do it.”
Conservatives remember Sen. Ted Kennedy’s ferocious attack on “Robert Bork’s America,” the pubic-hair-on-the-Coke-can humiliations visited upon Clarence Thomas and the way that Samuel Alito’s wife cried after Sen. Lindsey Graham recounted the Democrats’ charges against her husband.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. 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
Hell yeh they better be
CWforFreedom on May 25, 2009 at 6:16 PM
Sure they are. Democrats are going to have no problem ramming who ever they want through. Elections have consequences.
El_Terrible on May 25, 2009 at 6:19 PM
It`ll make for good political theater, but nothing more.
ThePrez on May 25, 2009 at 6:20 PM
I hope they point out that, whoever it is, she’ll be a judicial activist that wants to legislate from the bench and also a Socialist.
Proud Rino on May 25, 2009 at 6:27 PM
Ogabe and then senators Biden and Clinton proudly voted against Alito and Roberts—both very decent men who happen to be conservative. They would have voted against probably any of Mr. Bush’s picks other than Meirs. I expect our side to return the favor in spades but it will never happen.
Why is it that when the dems are out of power they continue to act like they still are? Oh I forgot,—we get effed every time by our own “moderate” brethren.
arnold ziffel on May 25, 2009 at 6:28 PM
The Dems need one GOP in committee to vote any nominee out. I expect Graham wil be the squish. Or maybe Hatch, as a favor to his old buddy, Kennedy.
Wethal on May 25, 2009 at 6:29 PM
There, we might as well start with you.
darwin on May 25, 2009 at 6:32 PM
Tee hee.
Buy Danish on May 25, 2009 at 6:34 PM
I want to hear the nominees questioned as to whether people in Presidential elections should have to actually prove that they satisfy the Constitutional requirements for elegibility. I’d also be very interested to hear whther the SCOTUS nominee thought that the Founders intended for dual citizens to become Presidents.
If the courts won’t hear these cases then the Senate judiciary committee should ask them and force the weasel nominees to answer.
I also want every nominee raked over the hot coals about how stupid it is to want judges to have empathy – emphasizing that the blindfold on Lady Justice is specifically to prohibit any such idiotic idea as having empathy come into judicial reasoning.
I want to see The Precedent’s nominees torn to shreds, or forced to explain what a moron The Precedent is, instead. I will not be satisfied with anything less.
progressoverpeace on May 25, 2009 at 6:35 PM
Never gonna’ happen.
Barry’s nominee will get at least 85 votes.Republicans caved in on every single one of Obama’s cabinet picks and I see no reason for them to do anything different now.They don’t have the will to resist.
NeoKong on May 25, 2009 at 6:36 PM
I want to see a Unicorn.
Proud Rino on May 25, 2009 at 6:37 PM
Yes, the GOP Senators will probably not go after the SCOTUS nominees like I think they should. I’m just hoping that they will come to their senses.
progressoverpeace on May 25, 2009 at 6:41 PM
I’m bringing a tire iron to this fight.
Blake on May 25, 2009 at 6:42 PM
I don’t think you know how judicial confirmation hearings work.
Proud Rino on May 25, 2009 at 6:44 PM
The one good thing is Jeff Sessions is in charge of the GOP effort, not squishy Graham. Remember Sessions? Who helped derail, along with DeMint, amnesty with his fine knowledge of the more arcane details of senate procedure?
Sessions was also nominated for a federal judgeship in 1986, but never got it due to the votes of some Republicans. Including Specter.
Payback’s a b……
Wethal on May 25, 2009 at 6:49 PM
The supreme Court appointments are the gold ring and the whole point from the start, imo.
Itchee Dryback on May 25, 2009 at 6:51 PM
Remember, though, it only takes one Senator to ask the right questions. The Precedent is such a total fool and has said such stupid things about the Constitution, like his talk about how the Warren Court wasn’t nearly radical because they didn’t “break free of the essential constraints the Founders had laced in the Constitution”, or The Precedent’s desire to use tax policy for everything but funding government operations, etc., etc. that all a Senator has to do is repeat some idiotic statement of The Precedent’s and force the nominee to take a position on it. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel, frankly, and it just takes one to do it.
progressoverpeace on May 25, 2009 at 6:52 PM
I’d ask about Tribe’s idea of a “Second Bill of Rights.” Economic entitlements that are an example of what Obama probably wanted the Warren Court to do.
Wethal on May 25, 2009 at 7:00 PM
I’d ask if bailouts are Constitutional.
darwin on May 25, 2009 at 7:04 PM
There are so many truly important questions, that go right to the heart of what America stands for, that MUST be asked and the nominees MUST be forced to answer. I hope some bloggers and talk shows and the conservative media start putting together lists of questions, soon, so that GOP Senators will have no choice but to ask them.
progressoverpeace on May 25, 2009 at 7:05 PM
I’m torn. On the one hand, who cares about the pick? Obama’s replacing Souter, so it’s not like the ideological makeup is going to shift in any meaningful way.
And yet… on the other hand I want the GOP to make the process as excruciating and horrifying a spectacle of political theater as they can possibly manage. Somewhere in the confirmation proceeding I want to hear about ball-gags, heroin balloons, and a vulgar act with a dead mule.
Lehosh on May 25, 2009 at 7:08 PM
They’ll ask the right questions or it’s their kneecaps. What? You think the O’bammy gang isn’t going to be breaking kneecaps, too?
Blake on May 25, 2009 at 7:08 PM
With nothing to lose, it makes a perfect opportunity to practise playing hardball.
Blake on May 25, 2009 at 7:10 PM
Anybody want to predict game playing by Specter and McCain?
Blake on May 25, 2009 at 7:11 PM
McShame will get into his “Can’t we just get along?” mode. He can’t help himself.
I would be surprised if Specter even opens his mouth. His committee seating is in the peanut gallery, these days, isn’t it?
progressoverpeace on May 25, 2009 at 7:14 PM
Republican elected officials on this side of the room… spines on the other… and never the twain shall meet.
I have faith in Jeff Sessions… and that’s about it.
mankai on May 25, 2009 at 7:16 PM
I don’t think McCain ’s on judiciary, and he has to think of his campaign in 2010. He might have a primary challenger. So he has to act like a Republican for a while.
Arlen could be fun to watch. He is now the most junior member of the Dem contingent on judiciary. He sits way over at the end of the table, out of range of the cameras. He would’ve have been Ranking GOP Member at the center of the table if he hadn’t flipped. Now he’ll be one of the last to ask questsions, I think.
Arlen, too, has to think about 2010, and how he’ll run against Toomey (who looks like he’ll have no primary challenger and PA GOP support). Arlen has to please PA and and the Dems at the same time. Tough being a wh*re, ain’t it Arlen.
Who knows what they’ll do on the senate floor. Or if any Red State Dems will wobble (probably not).
Wethal on May 25, 2009 at 7:20 PM
McCain’s poodle, Graham, might do McCain’s work on judiciary.
Wethal on May 25, 2009 at 7:22 PM
What are the right questions?
Proud Rino on May 25, 2009 at 7:22 PM
The role of the judiciary for one. The extent of executive powere, in light of 9/11 and Iraq. The relations between the federal and state governments, and allocations of power (Is there anything Congress can’t legislate under the Commerce Clause?).
A Second Amendment question would be fun, too.
Wethal on May 25, 2009 at 7:25 PM
Thanks Rush.
The Republicans will cave. They caved as a majority, they will cave as a minority.
True_King on May 25, 2009 at 7:29 PM
There will be enough GOP who will admit that they disliked it when the Dems attacked Bush’s judicial nominees, but they will take the “high road” and let the person get a floor vote without filibuster.
Some may vote for the person on the old, “As long as the person’s qualified, judicial phislophy shouldn’t matter” meme, despite the Dems’ voting on the basis of philosophy with GOP nominees.
Wethal on May 25, 2009 at 7:32 PM
Gun free school zones, violence against women, and the civil commitment of sex offenders after a jail term, off the top of my head.
That’s not really very interesting, but I’m sure it’ll get asked.
This is a good question. Probably not going to get a good answer from anyone since the legal precedent is kind of weird, though.
Ugh, I’m sure it will come up but I hope it doesn’t. Even though I agreed with him, one of Scalia’s worst opinions (in terms of his reasoning) was Heller (or whatever the name was, I can’t remember).
Proud Rino on May 25, 2009 at 7:33 PM
It is interesting, since Obama may go choose a “judicial activist” who thinks that judges should interpret the “living constitution” in light of current events, rather than stick to “original intent.” (Tribe now refers to the “hidden constitution” – that which is written between the lines, apparently.)
Of course, those two phrases are complex in themselves, but the fundamental issue is should judges decide certain issues or defer to the legislature, especially when there’s a claim of an unenumerated “right” or an expansion of the “right to privacy” found in a penumbra.
A question on full faith and credit might be good, too, considering the possiblity of married homosexuals asking states that don’t have such marriages to recognize them.
Wethal on May 25, 2009 at 7:41 PM
While I agree, if there isn’t a paper trail leading directly to evidence that the nominee supports that nonsense, you know the nominee will just lie in the answer because while the idea of a second bill of rights is all kinds of stupid, it’s part of the far left’s dogma and I can’t imagine Obama nominating someone who doesn’t follow that dogma.
venividivici on May 25, 2009 at 7:48 PM
I expect the lack of a big liberal paper trial was one of the requirements. Yet a paper trail is also how one determines the nominee’s philosophy (the lack of a trail gave us Souter…).
Obama does’t want to get a Souter, so he needs some proof of the nominee’s true approach to judging, as evidenced over the years, and not just recently cooked up to get the job. Granholm would not have a judicial paper trail, but her governing certainly tells one a lot about her theories of government.
Wethal on May 25, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Well, I don’t know exactly what Tribe is speaking of there, but there is obviously much more to the Constitution than just what is written there. I doubt even your most strict textualists would deny that.
But even your most liberal judge probably thinks himself an originalist in some respect. Brennan certainly thought he was an originalist in some respects, it’s just that these thinkers thought the more important thing to hew to was the original ideals of the Constitution, whereas textual originalists tend to just read the words and go with that.
Both arguments have their merit, and truthfully, however you feel about certain legal issues, you’ll use one mode of thought or the other depending on whether it’s convenient.
Proud Rino on May 25, 2009 at 8:20 PM
I thought the Second Bill of Rights was, like, the right to an education, the right to be paid a reasonable wage, etc. I don’t know if Tribe was actually advocating *ratifying* such a thing, though. I know Cass Sunstein wrote about it as more of an aspirational goal, but I haven’t read enough Sunstein.
And you say it might be stupid, but all that stuff already exists. Just because it’s not in the Constitution doesn’t mean that states could abolish their school systems, or refuse to follow minimum wage laws.
I mean, the right to an education is as much an American right as is any other right. Just because the amendment wasn’t written down doesn’t mean the Constitution hasn’t been amended in a particular way.
Proud Rino on May 25, 2009 at 8:26 PM
Eisenhower thought the same thing with Earl Warren.
Heh.
Proud Rino on May 25, 2009 at 8:27 PM
True, but it’s unlikely she’ll go to the right. Judges tend to drift left on the Court, if they drift at all. Can’t think of a liberal who went right offhand.
Drifting left has been called the “Greenhouse Effect” after NYT law reporter Linda Greenhouse, who would write articles about whether the judge would “grow” in office. If they started moving left, they would have “grown” or have developed a fuller judicial philosophy. Add to the flattering NYT (and WaPo coverage) if they decide things the way the papers approve of to that the liberal Ivy League law reviews and the DC social circuit, and the pressures to “fit in” are there.
Those who’ve been on the federal bench a while tend to be less susceptible.
Wethal on May 25, 2009 at 9:02 PM
An interesting point. If a state did away with all its public schools, would there be a lost right? By now it has perhaps become a vested right, but can the court create new ones that the legislature has not first provided for by statute? Health care comes to mind.
Wethal on May 25, 2009 at 9:06 PM
I like it. It would be most instructive.
Now if someone could just figure out a way to slip some testosterone patches on the senators while they are sleeping.
MB4 on May 25, 2009 at 11:39 PM
The Judge is going to get through, what the Republicans need to do is make a very public spectacle of this by attaching her to Obama. Obama is going to appoint a radical leftist to be used as a backdoor policy maker. He says he’s against gay marriage, she’ll vote for it. He’ll say he supports the military tribunals, she’ll vote against them. He’ll say he respects State Sovereignty, she’ll centralize power. He’ll say he respects American sovereignty, she’ll vote for transnationalism.
This is part of his legacy and his nominee needs to be tied to him from the start. Every single vote she makes is what Obama had planned all along and the more nominees he gets, the more influence he will have over the direction of this country both in and out of office.
Daemonocracy on May 26, 2009 at 12:15 AM
You are confusing laws and rights.
If it’s not written down in the Constitution, it is not a right. The judges need to back off and let the legislature do its job. The Constitution is very particular about what it protects, even Obama understands this which is why he wants more enumerated rights added (economic bill of rights) to force the legislatures hand. Even activist judges are somewhat limited in how they twist/reinterpret words and bastardize the 9th amendment; new amendments would make it so much easier for them to make policy.
Daemonocracy on May 26, 2009 at 12:27 AM
It’s Sotomayor. I look forward to her confirmation hearings. I look forward to SCOTUS’ coming review of the Connecticu affirmative action case, too.
Wethal on May 26, 2009 at 8:32 AM