The first woman appointed to the Supreme Court announced her retirement today, and considering Cheif Justice Renquist is battling cancer (and John Paul Stevens is 85) it looks like we can look forward to decades of right wing nuttery on the high court.

 

O'Connor was the swing vote in all those 5-4 votes that kept things like abortion legal and church and state separated. Since the Bush team likes to nominate the most far right nutballs possible, bidness is about to pick up.

This isn't good, although conservatives are arguing that Democrats should be welcoming Gonzales into the fold since he disagrees with many Bush policies and is pro-choice. Is that incorrect?

Gonzalez isn't bad as Bush appointees go, but there will certainly be more than one spot to fill and I keep hearing John Ashcroft mentioned as a replacement for another vacancy.

I think Ashcroft will only be nominated if the hard left REALLY pisses off the administration.

 

 

From a longevity point of view, Ashcroft's a bad choice because he's had some medical problems over the last few years (including gallstone pancreatitis) and was just completely worn out from his job as AG.

 

That means he probably doesn't have 20 years to put into the Supreme Court like a Priscilla Owen or Miguel Estrada.

 

Considering the fights over these confirmations, and the fact that it's near impossible to replace a Justice against their will, Bush and company have to be sure that whoever they nominate can hack it both medically and philisophically.

Well, considering the Republicans are threatening to rewrite the way they do business in Congress to get around minority party protections, I don't think there is really anything the Dems can do.

Well, considering the Republicans are threatening to rewrite the way they do business in Congress to get around minority party protections, I don't think there is really anything the Dems can do.

It's a huge game of "Chicken".

 

The Dems really have a few choices...

 

1. Let Bush get his nominees through in a graceful way, much like how Clinton got Ginsburg and Breyer through in the 1990s with votes of about 97-3.

 

This would show that they're not as obstructionist as they've come off over the past 4 years, which might actually give them a BIT of credibility back that they've lost over the partisan shit they've pulled.

 

Considering Ginsburg's past as the general counsel for the ACLU, Clinton should still be kissing Sen. Orrin Hatch's ass for giving her a pass.

 

 

2. Let the nominees get a cloture vote but attack them in the meantime.

 

This is the "Borking" strategy, as they'd allow Bush's nominee to get an up-or-down vote, which is what he's asking for, but they could probably dig up enough dirt on whoever gets the nomination to make a few of "maverick" Republicans like Chuck Hagel, John McCain, Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snowe, etc. bolt.

 

 

I feel this strategy could work ONCE... After it happens once, it's hard to justify doing it again to whoever fills O'Connor or Rehnquist's spot on the court.

 

 

3. Filibuster the nominee and pray to God that the 7 Republican members of the Gang of 14 (the people who made the agreement on filibustering of judges) vote against the so-called Nuclear Option.

 

 

This strategy is not a long-term winner by any means.

 

1. They can't hold up a Supreme Court nomination for 3 more years until Bush's successor takes office. There's a Republican majority and there are a LOT of vulnerable Democrat seats coming up in the 2006 midterm elections.

 

2. Public opinion will shift wildly against them because blocking a Supreme Court justice, ESPECIALLY after the wildly unpopular Kelo vs. New London decision last week, will get a lot of media attention. No matter how the media spins it, it's hard for an obstructionist minority to be seen in a positive light under those circumstances.

 

3. If they try this and fail, the "Nuclear Option" removes this tactic from the floor for the forseeable future.

 

 

It's basically a one-shot deal and should only be used by them if it's late enough in Bush's term that they think they can ride it out until the 2008 Presidential Election.

 

 

 

The Dems better think long and hard about this, as I think they're going for a combination of strategies 2 and 3, which are not long-term solutions and could have SEVERE repercussions on both their position as a minority party in the Senate as well as at the ballot box.

This would show that they're not as obstructionist as they've come off over the past 4 years, which might actually give them a BIT of credibility back that they've lost over the partisan shit they've pulled.

 

 

Well, since nearly every accusation levied his way eventually has come to pass as fact that Bush is a liar and a fraud, I think obstructionist is a necessary course since he is allowed to lie to the public time and time again with little or no consequence.

 

And to accuse the Democrats of being the only partisan bully? That is just weak.

A liar and a fraud?

 

O....k.

 

 

Got specific accusations and any proof to back you up?

 

 

 

The only recent accusation against Republicans that was ever proven correct was the "Schiavo Memo" that was traced back to a staffer for Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL).

 

Most of the other accusations were of voter fraud. While there was fraud in this election, the only convictions have been against DEMOCRATS in places such as East St. Louis, Illinois.

As for the partisan bully stuff, keep in mind that the Republicans are the majority in the House, Senate, and control the White House.

 

As the minority party, the Dems have to be able to put together a successful argument of WHY the plans of the majority are wrong, come up with an alternative, and successfully negotiate a compromise or pull enough Republicans to their side to defeat the action.

 

 

The latter is certainly possible in the Senate, which is 55-44-1 right now, IF they could put together a plausible argument AND offer an acceptable alternative.

 

 

 

This won't work on judges, though, as the Supreme Court nominees are permanent, tend to last 20-25 years at a time, and previous prescedent says that any qualified nominee will get voted on.

 

The only nominee that was the subject of a possible filibuster was Abe Fortas, who had massive ethical dilemmas and was not brought to a floor vote because they didn't want to embarrass him or LBJ by denying him the Chief Justice slot then impeaching him for fraud.

 

 

Other nominees that were deemed unacceptable by the Dems in the past were given a vote. Robert Bork was voted on in the late 80s and did NOT receive a majority. Clarence Thomas was voted on in the early 90s and received a VERY small majority (something like 53-47, IIRC).

 

If the Dems want to block someone, they need to come up with legitimate concerns about someone's competence and NOT 30-year old complaints that have nothing to do with their standing as a judge.

I love how the Republicans control the White House, both houses of Congress, and is working hard to stack the judiciary with conservatives, yet somehow the "obstructionist Democrats" manage to stop parts of their agenda.

 

If your party controls EVERYTHING and you still can't get shit done, I don't think you can blame the minority.

 

liar and a fraud?

 

O....k.     

 

Got specific accusations and any proof to back you up?

 

Seen the Downing Street Memos yet? When you have the British, who were pretty much the only country to offer any meaningful support to the war, saying "The Americans had a hard-on to invade and made shit up to justify it" it's hard to maintain that conservative air of righteousness.

Actually, the specific incident I was referring to was Republicans obstructing an investigation of Tom Delay by playing partisan politics. My point isn't that Democrats aren't dirty but that BOTH parties play dirty AND use obstructionist tactics AND play partisan politics.

No doubt both parties play dirty, which makes it even more funny to hear Republicans cry when Dems block (or try to block), what was it, like 7 out of 200-something Bush nominees and act like they aren't allowing *anyone* to get a fair vote.

 

Compare the number of blocked Clinton appointees to the number of Bush appointees and the obstructionist argument suddenly loses a lot of merit.