SCOTUS appointment thread

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Celtigo,

Ahhh... Rehnquist now I remember what you are talking about.

[Slyfinger]

TBD is either trying his hardest to be the Stephen Colbert of the board, which would make many of his posts quite funny... or he's absolutely serious when he says stuff like that and is trying his hardest to be the new Dirjj of the board, which would make many of his posts quite pathetic.

Thank you for making me spit peanut butter M&M's all over my keyboard.

TBD

Making Scot facepalm is an epic achievement. I'd be proud.

[The_BlauerDragon]

Thank you for making me spit peanut butter M&M's all over my keyboard.

TBD

Making Scot facepalm is an epic achievement. I'd be proud.

Actually, they all have it wrong... though the face palm is something to be proud of, for sure. I was only meaning to lament the fact that we will no longer be able to debate her nomination so thoroughly (and vigorously). Now that it all appears to be done and over with, we'll just have to wait and see if she proves to be as radical and detrimental a judge as I think she'll be. That's all. Perhaps the scenario of a heart attack was a little much, but I couldn't think of a better reason why she would be removed and another nominee would need to be brought forward for us to debate.

Oh, and for the record, I do acknowledge the horrible tradition of racist/sexist political figures pushing racist/sexist doctrine, I do find it disgusting, and I do not think that the race, gender, or sexuality of the perpetrator (or the target) makes it any more or less disgusting.

[Shryke]

Any new nominee would be subject to the exact same thing.

This sort of procedure that's SUPPOSED to be for vetting has just become, as someone put it, Kabuki Theater.

[TheLoneliestMonk]

Making Scot facepalm is an epic achievement. I'd be proud.

Not only did he get him to facepalm, he got him to quote Charlie Brown!

Good grief! :rofl:

[LCOTNW]

Link

Just for the sake of noting that the Judiciary Committee voted 13-6 in favor of confirmation. Partisan vote except for Lindsey Graham. Full Senate vote expected next week.

[TrackerNeil]

Link

Just for the sake of noting that the Judiciary Committee voted 13-6 in favor of confirmation. Partisan vote except for Lindsey Graham. Full Senate vote expected next week.

Bah...who expected anything but a basically partisan vote? Republicans have little reason to support anything Obama does, because if it goes right they're no worse off and if it goes wrong they can crow. In any case, from 2001-2006 the GOP had little taste for bipartisanship, so they shouldn't expect it to be on the menu now. If they want to play the constant opposition, let's ram through appropriate legislation and judicial nominees for as long as we have 60 Senate votes.

[Trencher]

Bah...who expected anything but a basically partisan vote? Republicans have little reason to support anything Obama does, because if it goes right they're no worse off and if it goes wrong they can crow. In any case, from 2001-2006 the GOP had little taste for bipartisanship, so they shouldn't expect it to be on the menu now. If they want to play the constant opposition, let's ram through appropriate legislation and judicial nominees for as long as we have 60 Senate votes.

That's nothing. They could have filibustered like the partisan Democrats did to Miguel Estrada. Why did they filibuster? Because he was a Latino and he was being primed for a SC position. Dems certainly don't want minority conservatives in high positions. Leftist organizations like People for the American Way, NARAL, the Alliance for Justice, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the NAACP, and others that work closely with Senate Democrats to promote Democratic judicial nominations and derail the Republican ones, freaked out over Miguel Estrada. Representatives of those groups met with Democratic Senate staff and one of those staffers wrote a memo to Democratic Sen. Durbin, informing him that the groups wanted to stall Bush nominees, "They also identified Miguel Estrada as especially dangerous," the staffer wrote, "because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."

What I love is the weak response of Sen Hatch. Was he outraged at the racist behavior of the Dems? Nope. He was just concerned about the memo being leaked. Way to play softball Orrin.

[sologdin]

at the racist behavior of the Dems?

it's not racist to oppose a judge who is fucking nuts; estrada is just a mestizo bork, after all.

the latino references in the durbin memorandum were about the effect of the appointment on voters. let's be honest: the only reason bush messed with a latino lawyer for the CADC was to get the attention certain voters who tended to ignore him.

[TrackerNeil]

That's nothing. They could have filibustered like the partisan Democrats did to Miguel Estrada. Why did they filibuster? Because he was a Latino and he was being primed for a SC position. Dems certainly don't want minority conservatives in high positions. Leftist organizations like People for the American Way, NARAL, the Alliance for Justice, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the NAACP, and others that work closely with Senate Democrats to promote Democratic judicial nominations and derail the Republican ones, freaked out over Miguel Estrada. Representatives of those groups met with Democratic Senate staff and one of those staffers wrote a memo to Democratic Sen. Durbin, informing him that the groups wanted to stall Bush nominees, "They also identified Miguel Estrada as especially dangerous," the staffer wrote, "because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."

Well, duh, but I'm not sure that's racism so much as smart politics. The Democrats didn't want a Republican president to appoint the first Latino to the Supreme Court because they don't want that kind of outreach to a growing demographic effort to succeed.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

Yes, of course, our Courts should be all about politics.

[Elrostar]

Wait, isn't that what they currently are? I mean, isn't that why people opposed Sotomayor's nomination? I can't think of any reason to oppose her based on her judicial qualifications. She has an outstanding record, and if anything seems to be quite a conservative justice (in the legal sense).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Elrostar,

Wait, isn't that what they currently are? I mean, isn't that why people opposed Sotomayor's nomination? I can't think of any reason to oppose her based on her judicial qualifications. She has an outstanding record, and if anything seems to be quite a conservative justice (in the legal sense).

Yes. Which is why I, and other conservatives (not all I concede in advance), are supporting the Sotomayor nomination. She's qualified. That's enough.

[TrackerNeil]

Tracker,

Yes, of course, our Courts should be all about politics.

As long as our judges are made through political means our courts will be about politics. That's just reality.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Which doesn't mean we should like it. Further, that's why I try very hard to be consistent in my positions regarding Supreme Court nominees.

[TrackerNeil]

Which doesn't mean we should like it. Further, that's why I try very hard to be consistent in my positions regarding Supreme Court nominees.

And I applaud that. As to liking it...well, I think that Senate confirmation should ideally help to ensure that the president can't just nominate any old political hack to a lifetime appointment. He/she must choose at least a moderate hack.

[makotohanabi]

The Senate just confirmed Sotomayor 68-31 to the Supreme Court. 9 Republicans joined 59 Democrats (Sen Kennedy absent for medical reasons) to confirm her.

story here

Senate vote from C-Span