April 13, 2010

"A big debate on the Constitution, a serious debate, actually, in the Senate this year would be good for Republicans..."

And therefore Republicans will and should oppose any Supreme Court nominee Obama comes up with — even "a very respectable choice" like Elena Kagan — says Bill Kristol.

Watch/read the diavlog. It's very funny, because Juan Williams tries to push Kristol back: How is it that a conservative President gets to "nominate very conservative people to the court like the chief justice," and the conservatives expect Democratic Senators to vote for him because he's very highly qualified, and "then when a liberal president" gets his turn they get to put up opposition and won't vote for the nominee simply based merely on her very high qualifications? That sounds like a great argument, but the parry is pathetically easy:
Who voted against Justice Roberts and Justice Alito? A senator from Illinois named Barack Obama. Also a Senator from Delaware named Joe Biden. I don't think Barack Obama and Joe Biden can very well say about these two extremely well qualified nominees they voted against that Republicans in the Senate and conservatives in the country aren't entitled to say, "We respect Elena Kagan," or, "We respect Diane Wood..." [but...]
You can't say let's stop noticing how political it is now, when I've got the political power.

And, of course, conservatives are always up — or should always be up — for a debate about how their approach to constitutional interpretation is properly and neutrally judicial and it's only the the liberal's approach that is political. That's not quite true, but the general public is immensely receptive, and the liberals know it. That's why, when their nominee comes before the Senate Judiciary Committee, regardless of the reason why she was picked — e.g., her empathy with the poor and the unfortunate — she is not going to open up and defend liberal constitutional jurisprudence. She is going to do her best imitation of John Roberts.

And that's why Bill Kristol is crushingly right: "A big debate on the Constitution, a serious debate" will benefit Republicans.

71 comments:

E Buzz said...

LOL, look at the first comment at that nice little site. yes,m teabaggers are so vulgar and awful people, and terrible, and racist, awful judgmental jerks.

"I truely hope one day he gets what he deserves.republicanism/conservatism is a mental illness. kristol is the poster boy for the insanity party.
Go fuck yourself you shitbag!"

mesquito said...

That's why, when their nominee comes before the Senate Judiciary Committee, regardless of the reason why she was picked — e.g., her empathy with the poor and the unfortunate — she is not going to open up and defend liberal constitutional jurisprudence.

If she did, this is what she would sound like:
"Sure, the Constitution says absolutely nothing about abortion, and explicitly allows for the death penalty. But see, these questions are really hard and strewn with serious philisophical and societal landmines."
"So, how's about this: You morons shouldn't have to trouble your pretty little heads about the hard stuff. We'll deal with. After all, we're lawyers who went to really good schools.

Mick said...

Any "progressive" judge that seeks to change or expand the meaning of the Constitution is by definition Unconstitutional. Not that anyone in congress cares about the Constitution anyway, so it's all a big show. They ran no less than 2 ineligible Non Natural Born Citizens in the last election. McCain was born in Colon, Panama and Obama's father was never a citizen (he would have had to be a US citizen when Obama was born).

prairie wind said...

"A serious debate" assumes that the Senate Judiciary Committee is not full of people like Edward Kennedy during the Bork hearings.

Mark O said...

And, just who could lead that debate? The Republicans will fold like they always do.

mRed said...

I'd love to watch liberal Senators debate constitutional principles. By minute 6 it would be like watching a 90 weakling swinging a 10 pound hammer.

Huff, sweat, puff. Quit.

Brent said...

Bring.It.On

traditionalguy said...

If the Dems send up Leah Ward Sears, then running gladiator games at the circus will not look so good for the Repubbies. She is a part black woman who possesses all of the qualities that are needed for the job. Trashing her will only cause a show that proves all opposition to Obama must be rascist.

Ann Althouse said...

"If she did, this is what she would sound like..."

No, it wouldn't. If you'd ever gone to a conference where conlawprofs spoke you would know how wrong that is. Obama's short-listed folks all know exactly how to propound the most elegant explanations for liberal constitutional interpretation, and also how to shred the conservative theories. It is done all the time. Except in the confirmation hearings, where there's nary a peep about it.

vet66 said...

Any opportunity to allow the liberal/progressives to put on public display their double-dealing hypocrisy must be encouraged. They hide from the truth by their very nature saying one thing and doing the opposite.

Note to Americans; the democrats dumb down the population by teaching a prepared "truth" in our propaganda institutions of lower learning. They then play on the created ignorance of the masses to push through their perverted view of our culture by justifying their actions as the means justify the end.

The MSM's denial of the Tea Party belies their fear of a resurgent populace who have a fundamental belief in the greatness of this country being undermined by American haters and apologists. The Tea Party movement is a serious threat to the aspirations of the Marxist/socialist cabal that threatens our constitution.

As for BHO, there is a difference between bowing and bending over. Americans do neither.

MaggotAtBroad&Wall said...

I hope whoever is in charge of rallying the Republicans will make every member of the judiciary committee watch the videotapes of how Kennedy and Biden almost railroaded Thomas and succeeded in railroading Bork for political gain.

Learn how it's done from the professionals.

LarsPorsena said...

"..If you'd ever gone to a conference where conlawprofs spoke you would know how wrong that is. Obama's short-listed folks all know exactly how to propound the most elegant explanations for liberal constitutional interpretation, and also how to shred the conservative theories. "

How many conservative conlawprofs are there? Do any really show up
at conferences and challenge the accepted orthodoxies?
I betting conlawprofs live in a bubble that is rarely pierced.

A.W. said...

Btw, i don't respect Elena Kagan. She screwed the pooch in her Citizen's united argument. At one point they are asking her, in paraphrase, well, if a corporation wants to put out a book arguing agaisnt a candidate, does congress have the power to do that?

She said sure.

zzzzzt, wrong! the correct answer, if you don't want to lose your case, is, "no, of course not. but that is different from the instant case because..."

i mean i am glad citizens united came out the way it did, but i can't help but point out that it didn't help the pro-censorhip "liberals" that she made a bonehead argument that is frightening to any lover of democracy and freedom.

She's an idiot... so actually come to think of it, she would be great on the court. she will radically drive people away from the left. i support this nomination!

traditionalguy said...

The best that the senators will get a Dem nominee to admit is that she respects precedent(Most of the harm has already been done.) Our Professor is warning us that the questioners will be making accusations that the Name , rank and serial number responses will never agree with. Abortion of the partially born may stick its head into the room. It would be good TV if the nominee admit she has some great beastality porn . Othewise, it gonna be a big bore.

Sloanasaurus said...

COnsider this question about freedom and our constitution.

Two guys live next door to each other and make $60k a year. Both qualify for the Obamacare subsidy. Except guy #1 spent the last 10 years saving his money forgoing vacations, SUV's, big screen TVs, concerts, etc.. He did this to make life better for his kids. They other guy spent all his money on these luxuries. Now guy #1 is pushed out of the Obama Care subsidy because he earnes to much income on his savings. Instead Guy #1 has to pay taxes subsidizing guy #2's health insurance. WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is the essence of OBAMACARE and Obama's America. It will surely destroy America as we know it.

mesquito said...

Obama's short-listed folks all know exactly how to propound the most elegant explanations for liberal constitutional interpretation, and also how to shred the conservative theories. It is done all the time. Except in the confirmation hearings, where there's nary a peep about it.

Well, I once heard Joe Biden wrestle ineffectively with natural vs positive law.

But really, Professor, what would they sound like? I'm merely a carpenter, so I really don't know.

ricpic said...

Goddamned liberals rape my pocketbook. Including Goddamned liberal judges. And that I'm immensely concerned about.

Sofa King said...

And, just who could lead that debate?

There doesn't have to be any one leader. But Paul Ryan is certainly capable of it.

Jason said...

Sloan,

Guy number one should have a cup of coffee with someone like me or with Dust Bunny Queen. Under current tax law, that's often a solvable problem.

GMay said...

"If by Good for Republicans he foresees some kind of ballot box benefit, I am dubious. The election will turn on the economy."

Agree on point two, but I think a protracted debate over a nominee with frequent references to healthcare is what will keep the fires hot enough for point one.

If there is even a miniscule uptick in the economy, the Dems and the media will trumpet it as the new golden age. This will be the extra push Republicans need.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Bill Kristol is right. Anything that brings the Constitution front and center to the attention of the population that hasn't been paying attention will be a good thing.

The Tea Party is all about Constitutionality and Government out of control.

If the Republicans keep the discussion firmly on point of what the function of the Supreme Court is according to the Constitution and keeps away from personal, divisive and emotional issues they will win. Maintain rational discussion and take the high road.

People are already concerned about activist judges on BOTH sides. I don't want an activist conservative or an activist liberal judge. I want a court that interprets the law dispassionately. This is why I was (and still am) very concerned about the empathy, wise Latina meme from Sotamayer.

Big Mike said...

If you take a look at the Ginsburg nomination and confirmation, it's clear that Republicans tried taking the high road. The result was the late Ted Kennedy taking the Democrats down the low road on Roberts and especially on Alito. Stare decisis -- there's precedent for just about anything the Republicans care to do.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Guy number one should have a cup of coffee with someone like me or with Dust Bunny Queen. Under current tax law, that's often a solvable problem.

@ Jason.

Yup. I get more new business this time of year for precisely this reason.

Lem said...

I see that Stevens was nominated by president Ford.

Has there ever been a Democratic appointment were once the nominee was confirmed to the supreme court he took on a conservative, narrow interpretive philosophy of the constitution?

I ask because my impression is that Republican presidents have a dismal record picking reliable conservatives.

HDHouse said...

I don't think either Obama or Biden raised the spector of a filibuster which is the republican threat now. This isn't about up or down votes. This is about not voting at all.

I fail to see why you can't see the difference.

victoria said...

Of course the man, Kristol, refers to a Fox news poll that says people would prefer a conservative justice. People, it's Fox News!!! I would be surprised if it came out with any other result. Too bad that Chris Wallace can't have a "fair and balanced" crew on his show. He is just like Hannity. Hannity has his "Great American Panel" on with himself and 2 other conservatives and 1 "Liberal". Trust me, the "liberals" he has on his panel are from the far right wing of the liberals. And he is relentlessly mean, nasty and dismissive of ANY opinion that is not his. Chris Wallace is more of the same except a little nicer.


Liz Cheney, douche. Michelle Bachman, nuts. Anyone who equates the census with putting Americans in "settlement" camps is wacked out. Keep it up, ladies, we will have a Democratic victory in 2010 and 2012.


Vicki from Pasadena

Vicki from Pasadena

Lem said...

There is a serious debate going on right now btwng Scalia and Breyer on C-SPAN.

HDHouse said...

So let me get this straight if I may paraphrase some of the comments presented so far:

Liberals must select only the most, by concensus, qualified and non-left or right jurist while conservatives can nominate only reliable conservatives who keep to the conservative republican ideals. Strange set of rules if you ask me.

c3 said...

I often agree with what Bill Kristol says even though he's more conservative than I. Yet every time I listen to him I have this urge to reach to my back pocket just to make sure my wallet's still there.

There's something patently insincere in his voice

Daniel said...

Who voted against Justice Roberts and Justice Alito? A senator from Illinois named Barack Obama.

If I could just chime in here from my reliably liberal perspective, the problem was not that Obama voted against Roberts and Alito. It's that he supported a filibuster of Alito. If someone's qualified, he or she should get an up or down vote.

gk1 said...

Juan Williams is a nice liberal and all but he generally walks into haymakers like this time and again. Given that the MSM default position is "of course" obama needs to pick a liberal justice to keep a balance on the court.No one ever examines why that is, it just is. I hope the republicans go all "Borky" on the democrat's ass, they truly deserve it for turning SCOTUS judicial picks into a freak show. Sauce, goose gander etc.

MadisonMan said...

I get more new business this time of year for precisely this reason.

Wouldn't it be better to visit you -- or Jason -- before the end of the Calendar Year?

Richard Dolan said...

Kristol says that the Constitution today doesn't limit government -- gov't just "does what it does." Once you get past the specific constitutional directives (e.g., Amendments 4-6), the problem is that the Constitution is too vague and general to impose much in the way of limits. Those are found instead in various theories of the Consitution, of which every ConLaw professor has his or her own favorite.

As Ann says, "Obama's short-listed folks all know exactly how to propound the most elegant explanations for liberal constitutional interpretation, and also how to shred the conservative theories." No doubt about it, absolutely true. And there are plenty of conservative folks who can return the favor with equal intellectual firepower. Where this leaves things is that there is rarely a sensible line between 'activist judge' and 'strict constructionist' -- it all comes down to a matter of which theory of 'constitutional interpretation' one happens to subscribe to, and (what is often the same thing) what one thinks the proper role of the judiciary should be. Nothing in the Constitution addresses those issues or imposes any clear limits on that choice.

Kristol believes that a serious debate about the Constitution would be good for conservatives. It would be just as good for liberals and everyone else. If it ever happened, the end result would be to highlight the extremely odd position that the SCOTUS occupies in our national scheme. Nine lawyers, appointed for life (and as Stevens and his colleagues show, that can be a very long time) have the power to impose political values on the Nation based only on whatever theory of 'constitutional interpretation' they happen to favor. Kristol knows but doesn't acknowledge that the text of the COnstitution turns out not to limit the judges any more than it does the rest of the gov't he is talking about.

The only sensible conclusion is that any nominee to the SCOTUS can and should be blocked by those of the opposite political views, to the extent it is politically (meaning electorally in the short term) possible. Today it's the conservatives who want to do the blocking, but a few years ago it was the liberals.

When it comes to the SCOTUS' role as an imagined check on the political branches (in truth, a small part of its function), it's hard even to see an argument about why they shouldn't. What's amazing in all of this is that the blocking of SCOTUS nominees is still more talked about than done. That suggests to me that the Dem and Rep Senators having the power to do the blocking where their team is the out party share the view that the political cost is too high -- that the public would be unforgiving. The serious debate Kristol wants, if it ever happened, could change that. It would certainly show that the arguments you usually see about whether blocking a nominee is justified are all about political expediency, with Dems and Reps engaged in acrobatic flip-flopping depending entirely on which team is in power and doing the appointing.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"I get more new business this time of year for precisely this reason."

Wouldn't it be better to visit you -- or Jason -- before the end of the Calendar Year?

Of course, but sometimes it takes a slap in the face or a kick in the groin/wallet to wake some people up. Better late than never.

rhhardin said...

Thomas Sowell bids farewell to Justice Stevens "Good Riddance", with a short constitutional argument.

GMay said...

victoria blurts: "FOX...spittle...HANNITY...froth...CHENEY..."

Almost got the trifecta, but Hannity is sooooo 2007. He's out, Beck is 'in'. Technically you used the wrong Cheney, but for those libs skimming for keywords, you still get credit.

mccullough said...

From a practical standpoint, the problem for liberal nominees is that their views are not as aligned with the public as conservatives views.

During the election, Obama had to come out and say he disagreed with the decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana (death penalty is unconstitutional for child rapist when victim doesn't die).

The dissenters in that case, whose view on the issues most of the public share, which is why Obama was aligned with their view, were Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas.

The reason KSM will never get a civilian criminal trial is that the public does not want him to have one. The public prefers Gitmo to housing suspected terrorists in the U.S.

So from a political standpoint, the Republicans on the committee just need to ask very direct policy questions on issues the public agrees with Republicans on that come before the Court.

Here are three:

1. Do you agree the government can ban a law-abiding adult from possessing a hand-gun in their home for self-defense?

2. Do you agree with the majority in Kennedy v. Lousiana that it is unconstitutional to give the death penalty to an adult man who brutally rapes a three year old girl?

3. The Constitution says the Senate has to advise and consent on Supreme Court appointments. President Obama, when he was a senator said the Senate has the right and should reject nominees based on ideology. I think you are a smart, hard-working, person of integrity. But I don't agree with your views. Should I follow President Obama's advice or because I disagree with your views even though I think you are highly qualified, should I vote against you?

sunsong said...

Are the republicans smart enough to orchestrate a meaningful debate on the Constitution?

Joseph said...

A debate is great. But blocking the nominee is a moot point. The Republicans simply don't have the votes to filibuster. Collins, Graham, and Snowe have said they won't.

edutcher said...

Kristol (not one of my favorite neo-cons) dances around the real point; namely, that Conservatives usually can point to strong Constitutional grounds for their views while The Lefties always seem obliged to fall back on invective, witness victoria.

Yes, it would do the Republicans some good to express some concern for abiding by a more strict application of the Constitution.
This would solidify support - and trust - among the Tea Partiers.
And, while MadMan is right about the economy, the issue of who is going to follow the Constitution more closely, given the Demos' arrogance in making the rules as they go along, will help nudge a lot of votes that one last inch over the line.

As Ann has stated, the public (those exposed to it at all) gets its concept of how the government works from the picture of the Constitution they get in grade school. As she and some of the commenters note, what is in the Constitution and what actually is valid law (e.g., 10th Amendment) are two different things and tends to be a morass only a conlawprof could explain.

traditionalguy said...

RedLyssa...Bachman has a normal German personality that seems like it is stubborn and pushy. Add to that the feeling that she actually believes everything she says, and the Crazy meme has been prima facie proven to the Media talking heads. Maybe Michelle will get herself some intense training by a media specialist on how to smile and act friendly on the Cool Medium. That is what Newt the Gingrich had to do for years.

HDHouse said...

edutcher said...
Kristol (not one of my favorite neo-cons) dances around the real point; namely, that Conservatives usually can point to strong Constitutional grounds for their views while The Lefties always seem obliged to fall back on invective, witness victoria."

well edutcher...that sure is a few geese short of a flock. you have anything at all to back up such a stupid remark or did you tilt your head and this spill out of an ear like a ball of wax? victoria had it about right. you on the otherhand..well you aren't on the same planet.

honest to god you sound soooo silly.

edutcher said...

Oh, gee, let me think, how about the treatment of Robert Bork and Thomas Sowell or the systematic stonewalling of Dubya's choices for the appellate courts.

All victoria did was call people names - just like you.

WV "visted" How people felt when they downgraded from XP.

victoria said...

Lyssa, I mentioned just 1 thing that she said. She declared that the CENSUS was a communist plot and that if you filled out the CENSUS form that you were at risk to be sent to relocation camps, like the Japanese were during WWII. That alone give me the right to call her nuts. Would you like me to go on? Go to youtube and check out some of her speeches or her call-ins to radio stations. The whole concept of things like "Death Panels" is pretty ridiculous. Face it, if you are a thinking person, which I know you are, the whole idea of death panels is purely nuts.


Vicki from Pasadena

clint said...

edutcher said...
"... The Lefties always seem obliged to fall back on invective, witness victoria."

HDHouse said...
"well edutcher...that sure is a few geese short of a flock. you have anything at all to back up such a stupid remark or did you tilt your head and this spill out of an ear like a ball of wax? victoria had it about right. you on the otherhand..well you aren't on the same planet."


Awesome.

Good thing you managed to respond without falling back on invective.



HDHouse said...

"I don't think either Obama or Biden raised the spector of a filibuster which is the republican threat now. This isn't about up or down votes. This is about not voting at all.

I fail to see why you can't see the difference."

I fail to see why you think so highly of an argument from your own ignorance.

You may not remember whether or not Obama supported the filibuster, but a quick Google of "Obama filibuster Alito" will refresh your memory.

Not only did he publicly support the filibuster, then-Senators Obama and Biden both voted against cloture on the confirmation vote -- that is they voted to filibuster Alito's nomination.

(Congressional record: here)

Penny said...

This post helps shed more light on some of the comments you made in the Bloggingheads piece with Bazelon on this topic.

It was fascinating to watch. Bazelon appeared confused by your position, Althouse, particularly when you never went on to explain it any detail. Instead you said something like "why kowtow to the conservatives!" She never followed up with a question, and nor did I in the comment section. Both of us should have asked for more clarity, but since we didn't, this post has been extremely helpful.

Now, that being said, I have to agree with what Juan Williams only said with his body language in that clip today. Where is the COMMON SENSE in Republicans stone walling an appointment that both sides feel would be an effective justice?

In the eyes of the American people right now, this is just going to come across as more partisan politics. Kristol is wrong. It won't help the Republicans, and if the appointee is seen as "credible" to too many Republicans, it won't satisfy the far left Democrats either. On the other hand, third party candidates will be able to use it to their advantage.

GMay said...

mccullough said: "1. 2. 3."

You don't think a 4th question about the consitutionality of the health insurance mandate would be in order? This might seem a little gratuitous to some, but the Dems have been playing that game for awhile and it's been very effective.

Right now it seems anytime the healthcare debacle can be brought front and center that it can only help the Republicans.

wv: enetaled - contained the whole story

A.W. said...

Lem

On your question about reliable conservatives...

Well, first, i am not sure Ford was much of a conservative. but i was a kid back then, so i don't know.

second, if you ask me, its as much about power as anything else. Living constitutionalism is a grant of power. I mean, my God, the surpreme court had helped destroy the nacent civil rights movement after the civil war. they helped revive it after WWII. They probably threw kindling into the entire sexual revolution after Griswold v. CT, and tossed gasoline on it after Roe. They have changed what cops say when they arrest you, they have ruled in a manner that has given thousands of jobs to lawyers with promises of free and competant counsel, and on and on the list goes. most of that isn't possible while following the constitution strictly (with the big exception of Brown).

Kansas City said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kansas City said...

Great post. I like Juan Williams because he is honest (especially rare for a liberal), but in intellectual arguments he gets taken to lunch every day. He sometimes wins on political or common sense points.

I was astonished at Ann's revealing posted comment:

"Obama's short-listed folks know exactly how to propound the most elegant explanations for liberal constitutional interpretation, and also how to shred the conservative theories."

That would, almost by definition, be true only to Ann's liberal ears. I have heard Breyer with his "active liberty" tripe and, while he is smart, there is no elegance or shredding associated with what he says - merely an argument for judges to legislate.

And, does anyone think Sotomayor could "propound the most elegant explanations for liberal constitutional interpretation, and also how to shred the conservative theories?"

HDHouse said...

well clint, did Obama filibuster Alito? no. Did the democrats filibuster Alito? no. hmmmmm

sooo your point is what? and will you remake it (whatever it is) if indeed the republicans "as promised" filibuster ANY appointment Obama makes...by gosh, I bet they would even filibuster that wag from Alaska if it were Obama who suggested it...but wait...she may not be qualified other than having a big "R" after the x-gov. part of her title...

ya'betcha.

Kansas City said...

HDHouse,

Come on. Get a handle on the facts. Obama absolutely voted to filibuster Alito.

This time, if he makes a far left wing pick, he gets filibustered. So what?

I'm no fan of presidents putting judges on the court whose vote you know beore the case is even argument, but that is the mess politicians have put us in and Obama will try to get seated as far lefty a judge as he can get away with.

Fred4Pres said...

How about Man-Bear-Pig on the Supreme Court?

Discuss!

Alex said...

It is a truism that Republicans pray for a bad economy so they can win elections.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

It is a truism that Republicans pray for a bad economy so they can win elections.

Is it? I'm praying for a giant meteor to take out Congress when they are in session. Just big enough to wipe them off the face of the earth, but not so big as to create massive deaths for innocent bystanders or global cooling.

------> joking people. Not really serious. You have to make these disclaimers or the liberals will take you serious since they have no sense of humor or irony. I just want a small meteor.

Fred4Pres said...

Stalking the wiley Man-Bear-Pig. Hint, hide out near the watering hole.

HDHouse said...

Kansas City said...
HDHouse,

Come on. Get a handle on the facts. Obama absolutely voted to filibuster Alito."

but KC man it never came to that. and, if you remember:

"A bipartisan majority of senators embraced the principle of a fair, up-or-down vote for judicial nominees and rejected partisan obstruction," Majority Leader Bill Frist said.

so up or down...or don't you believe in that anymore? or does it only apply to your party? which is it/

HDHouse said...

paul a'barge said...
Never forget.

Never forget that one of Sotomayor's clerks was a woman lawyer who represented some of the most heinous terrorists housed in Gitmo.

Never forget Robert Bork. Clarence Thomas."

you mean coke can Thomas and Bork who followed Nixon's orders? that Bork? ahhh Paul..name one terrorist and what he was accusted of...com'on Paul. You can do it....

what a twit.

ya'betcha.

A.W. said...

Alex

> It is a truism that Republicans pray for a bad economy so they can win elections.

Two responses.

1) bullshit.

2) given that liberals rooted for defeat in iraq, we can take your indignation with all the seriousness it deserves.

Methadras said...

Uh, democrats don't understand anymore what a Constitution is or how it's applied. Therefore the discussion will be very short.

Alex said...

I should restate. It is a truism that the political party out of party prays for disaster to befall the country so they can regain power. This applies to both Democrats and Republicans.

Alex said...

I mean out of power!

GMay said...

Alex preached: "It is a truism that Republicans pray for a bad economy so they can win elections."

Word up!

It's also a truism that Democrats raise the dead so they can win theirs.

AJ Lynch said...

DBQ:

As a conservative in a blue state, I recommend you avoid being counted. It could help your blue state lose a seat in Congress.

c3 said...

HD;
Bork who followed Nixon's orders

I'm recalling an unseemly episode in Justice Warren's background. Could it be...
this?

And that proves?

I don't know but throwing out words like "Nixon" will surely get a rise out of folks.

c3 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
HDHouse said...

c3...as intended. however to get a rise out of a fish you have to bait the hook

the republicans on this board..(well the rinos on this board)... are just swill that can't say no to any taunt..they think they get it...but, like Sarah the idiot..they are gotten ..no the getters.

poor hapless idiots....voids...fools. ya'betcha

Kansas City said...

Is HDHouse serious?

He claimed Obama did not fillibuster Alito, then when it was pointed out he did, then said it did not matter because a majority of other senators opposed him.

Look, to any honest person, Obama forefeited the ground to credibly criticize a fillibuster.

Republicns should use one if they think the nominee is so far left that he/she should be fillibustered. Then the politics and the election will sort out the issue.

Personally, I would oppose a fillibuster unless the nominee is way left.

Fred4Pres said...

Wretched tell us why we will likely end up wretched.

There is no future...

GMay said...

HDH: "c3...as intended. however... poor hapless... idiots....voids...fools. ya'betcha"

Translation: "I was... talking out of.... my ass...and still am...

Anthony said...

My personal feeling is that the president should be given wide latitude in his appointments. I am concerned that the person is qualified, which is most subjective of course. So long as he is not appointing Bernadette Dohrn to the court (or making her husband Secretary of Reeduction) I would vote yes. The only Supreme Court appointment I have been against was Harriet Meirs.

And while President Obama will not appoint someone I would appoint, he won and he is the president.

Ironically, when Senators Obama and Biden did not agree with my belief.