That’s my point. I believe this is the result of the GOP deciding to pander to their not so intelligent base. So far the Democrats have not voted against any moderates, but 31 Republicans could not bring themselves to vote for Sotomayor.
And I consider Breyer and Ginsburg moderates when compared with Marshall or Brennan.
Ginsurg is a moderate? What was the confirmation vote for Scalia?
BTW… Conservative, Liberal and Moderate are different types of qualifiers than is the term “qualified”. If a candidate is qualified, opposition to him or her is political.
What do you think the Tenth Amendment means?
Here’s a follow up question: Do states have the right to ban firearms under the Tenth Amendment?
ETA you clearly don’t have any Constitutional understanding of Roe. You appear to have the impression that Justices should rule according to some kind of personal ideology or philosophy and ignore the Constitution if it gives you what you want.
98-0. I won’t put Roberts out there as a moderate because he isn’t, but he had all the qualifications anybody could ask for. This looks like a double standard.
Nope. I’d apply the same rule for any nominee, when considering whether to confirm (support confirmation, since I’m not a Senator). And I’d vote to confirm Kagan–though I would not have nominated her.
The experience thing is overrated at this level of the game. Being a SCOTUS Justice is mostly reading briefs, voting on dispositions, managing law clerks, and writing opinions. Anybody with a law degree can do it. For that matter, anyone with some degree of scholarly aptitude could do it. Procedurally, she has very little chance to really screw up. I think individual justices sometimes rule on emergency motions, but otherwise, she’s One of Nine, with a full staff to help her find the office supplies, explain protocol, and help her with the robe.
“Moderate” is in the eye of the beholder. There isn’t any kind of objective measure for that label. “Qualified” can at least be measured against standards like academic achievement, ABA ratings, etc.
So, we have people who are at least nominally “qualified”. Then we have the political argument about who is liberal, moderate or conservative. What makes an allegedly “moderate” candidate any better than a “liberal” or “conservative”?
And if we all cheering for our own political side, what makes a conservative “brain dead” for wanting only conservatives on the bench but liberals “not brain dead” for accepting liberals and moderates? Seems to me that one can very well argue that conservatives know what they want and liberals don’t. Which group is “brain dead”?
Now, I wouldn’t call either group “brain dead”. But I recognize that one BS characterization is no better than another BS characterization. “Brain dead” is just a term to smear the other team with-- not a term that lends itself to reasoned debate.
To the best of my knowledge the only time an Associate Justice acts alone in a professional capacity is when issuing a stay (not necessarily of a death sentence) within the circuit that is his/her special responsibility. There may be something else, but it’s rare.
FWIW, I wasn’t calling all conservatives brain dead. I only said Republicans were going to vote against Kagan to pander to their brain dead voters (as opposed to their more intelligent voters.)
Since candidates more to the left of Sotomayor were confirmed with little opposition before, what sense does it make to oppose her unless you’re doing it strictly to oppose a President from the opposing party. I consider that kind of logic something that only brain dead voters would adhere to.
While Roberts was qualified, he was substantially more conservative than the nominees in the past, and he was replacing a swing vote. It made sense for someone to oppose him. But why would the GOP oppose someone like Sotomayor, who was as moderate as Souter, when Souter was confirmed 90-9? I think it’s because they can’t explain to some of their voters that an Obama nominee can be moderate. Or because they simply want to score some cheap political points.
Best typo of the day.
Yup. If she’s confirmed, there would be three Jews and six Catholics on the court. The Know Nothings must be spinning in their graves! 
They’re allowed to perform marriages individually. 
The American Family Association certainly isn’t dancing around it:
I think Senate Republicans will get around it by insisting that it’s not about her being a lesbian, but that she won’t answer questions about it. “We don’t care if she’s a lesbian! Really, we don’t! But why does she act like she has something to hide?”
Yeah, Curtis. What are you, a liberal??
And Diogenes – why don’t we hold off on answering that Tenth Amendment question until the Court answers the Second Amendment incorporation question from this term’s McDonald v. Chicago?
The Senate Republicans can vote against her for other reasons. If they make it clear it’s about her rumored sexuality, they’ll look like monumental assholes. It’s not a winning strategy for them. I do wonder if she’ll choose to say anything about it if this continues, because right now the options being presented are ‘she’s out and proud’ vs. ‘she’s in the closet,’ when in reality she probably just hasn’t addressed told the press.
Or holding signs and listening to Palin speeches at rallies.
Well, in fairness, I don’t see anything being made of her Jewishness by the GOP so far. Nor do I remember that being an issue for either Ginsburg or Breyer (the same could not be said of Louis Brandeis and the battle over his nomination in 1916, which got pretty ugly).
I find it hilarious that liberals who were prepared to use any and every means to gun down Robert Bork (successfully) and Clarence Thomas (unsuccessfully) are so concerned about the mean, nasty twicks the Republicans are liable to use against Kagan.
Earth to liberals: Kagan will sail through the confirmation process.
Bork’s opposition was based on his views and his record, not his appearance or his sexuality. What were you including under “any and every means”? :dubious:
If you want a false equivalence to go over here, you have to do much better than that. Much.
True, the modern reactionary view is that “they worship Jesus in their own way”.
Mo-nom-i-nee!
Do doo do do doo!
Mo-nom-i-nee
Do doo do do
Mo-nom-i-nee
Do doo do do do. Do do do. Do do do do do do do do do do.
MO-NOM-I-NEE
As to Kagan, I’m distressed that she has very little actual experience in the courtroom and that she has taken an extreme position on the limits of executive power. I don’t know enough about her yet, but those two things would make me very reluctant to support her.