Now we’re getting a guy that is enough of a Scalia clone to be called Scalito. I hope I can be forgiven for not dancing in the streets. This will give more power to the right, and given the level of corruption that power has already given to the right, that is the last thing this country needs. Should Ginsberg and/or Souter die prematurely, the last checks on power will die with them.
I didn’t wonder, because he was lecturing at a legal seminar sponsored by the Federalist Society. Should he have snubbed them instead? The fact that he was also playing tennis is incidental. Did you know he also probably took a crap while he was there? The nerve… and what disrespect!
What’s your point? Should we choose our SCOTUS justices based on the nicknames given them by their enemies? Or did you just feel the need to sneak in an ad hominem?
You grossly misunderstand the judicial philsosphy of justices like Scalia. He was the most vocal in criticisizing the Bush administration’s policy of indefinite detention of US citizens. An originalist justice is not the same as a politically conservatice justice.
IMHO the Federal Society is in fact legal. Their members are big fans of the unitary executive theory, and everything I’ve heard about this theory makes me think that those who advocate it are enemies of democracy.
Do you actually know anything about the Federalist Society? What is the basis for your assertion that its members are “big fans” of the unitary executive theory? A search of their web site for “unitary” gets eleven results, only one of which deals with the executive power.
It’s hard for me to get worked up about what disturbs you about Feinstein, considering it was the same reason the extremists in the GOP torpedoed Harriet Miers; she was not conservative enough, and would not rule the “right” way on their hot button issues like abortion and prayer in schools.
I know the Federalist Society is a bunch of rabid conservatives and libertarians seeking to stack the bench with their ilk. Lemme help you with a quote and a cite:
[quote]
According to Kelley, these congressional limits on the presidency, in turn, led “some very creative people” in the White House and the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to fight back, in an attempt to foil or blunt these limits. In their view, these laws were legislative attempts to strip the president of his rightful powers. Prominent among those in the movement to preserve presidential power and champion the unitary executive doctrine were the founding members of the Federalist Society, nearly all of whom worked in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan White Houses.
I see no difference. The President was afraid to allow an “up or down” vote on this nominee, for fear of confirming a candidate that did not meet the activist goals of his campaign donors. Are you saying there is a difference when the President does it?
Thanks for the link. You might want to read the paper that the op/ed writer you cited used as a source. Warning: 60 page PDF. It’s an interesting review of the unitary executive concept. BTW, your quote says nothing about members of the Federalist Society being involved in any recent activity on the unitary executive concept. The cite is about the post-Watergate struggle between the legislative and executive branches.
Do you have a cite for this? No, you don’t because it’s pure speculation on your part. Additionally, there were legitimate questions raised about her qualifications to be on the SCOTUS. There are no such quesitons raised about Alito.
I’m saying there is no evidence that he did. But, I’ve said many times that Bush doesn’t understand the difference between an originalist justice and a conservative political justice. This isn’t about Bush, it’s about Congress. As for GOP Senators scuttling a candidate they thought was qualified, but too liberal… the Senate vote on Ruth Bader Ginsburg pretty much tells the whole story. Having said that, if the Republicans acted as some Democrats are now, I’d lambast them, too.
John, you must be aware that Clinton submitted a list of potential SC nominees to the Republican Senate leadership prior to nominating them so that the Repubs had the chance to strike the most offensive (to them) nominees before a nomination was even offered. Ginsberg was one of the potential nominees the Repubs approved.
Bush has done NOTHING like this. He just pushes his nominees forward and to hell with the opposition. So your comparison is inapt, unfair, and considering that this difference has been described on SDMB many times, suspect.
Y’know, I’m tired of the talking point that the evil conservatives torpedoed the nomination of the sainted Harriet Meyers. Yes, conservatives were opposed to her. Along with everyone else.
Harreit Meyers was George Bush’s love slave. She was a minion. A lackey. A croney. A family retainer. A soldier. A yes-woman. A running dog. A bottom. She thought George Bush was the most brilliant man she ever met. She was Incitatus.
And she was unqualified. Yeah, she had a law degree, along with half of Washington. That doesn’t make her qualified to sit on the supreme court.
Bush only nominated her because she was going to be his puppet on the Supreme Court. Roberts and Alito are conservative, yes, but they are their own men, they aren’t lackeys or croneys.
Harriet Meyers would have been voted down resoundingly if Bush hadn’t withdrawn her nomination. You know it, I know it, the American people know it. The nomination was doomed. If the religious right had blindly supported her nomination, maybe Bush could have rammed it through with a 51-49 vote. Maybe. But probably not even then. There are too many Republicans in the Senate who don’t owe a thing to Bush, they want a conservative on the court not a Bush family servant. The committee hearings would have been a disaster, Meyers would have been humiliated. Bush withdrawing her nomination was the most compassionate thing he could do for his vassal, at least now she still has a career in public service.
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
John, you must be aware that Clinton submitted a list of potential SC nominees to the Republican Senate leadership prior to nominating them so that the Repubs had the chance to strike the most offensive (to them) nominees before a nomination was even offered. Ginsberg was one of the potential nominees the Repubs approved.
[QUOTE]
I don’t see what difference that makes. Ginsburg is every bit as “liberal” as Roberts or Alito is “conservative”. This is about politics, not process.
Suspect of what? If you want to accuse me of partisanship, come out and say it.
Well, if someone loves you and serves you without reservation, wouldn’t you think highly of such a person? Wouldn’t you tend to think they were pretty smart, given that they agree with everything you say? So Bush had an inflated view of Meyer’s qualifications. He thought everyone would think she was as wonderful as he did.
And he thought the conservative establishment owed him one…he gave them the conservative but independent Roberts, so now he got a patronage freebee. Except he didn’t understand that a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is too important to be given away as a patronage position, unlike, say, FEMA. No one cares when you staff FEMA with a crony, as long as no, y’know, emergencies happen, but who could expect one of those?
And he overestimated is role as a “leader” of the conservative movement. Bush may be a leader, but he forgot the old saw about how the leaders have to hurry to run out in front of the people they lead.
Bush could probably get away with someone who was marginally qualified, or someone who was an obvious crony, or someone who didn’t appeal to the conservative base…but not all three at once.