Run, Orrin, Run! They got your colleague, now they’re coming after you.
You actually weren’t the worst conservative in the world. You’ve been pretty good. But now, you’re just trying to save your ass. Like many other conservative Republicans. The hyper-conservatives are after you. You caved. You deserve your fate.
Which will be what exactly? To get pitted and pilloried by liberal douches on these here internets?
LOL… one could say that McCain and Hatch are reading the “tea leaves” LOL.
I may be a douche, but I’m no liberal. Orin is out of bounds here. He doesn’t get to pick the candidate, or determine what judicial philosophy that candidate should follow. That’s bullshit. The scope of his inquiry should be…is she a lawyer in good standing in all jurisdictions where she’s been admitted? Yes. Does she have any pending criminal charges? No. Does she appear to be batshit insane? No. Can she obtain a security clearance, if SCOTUS appointees are required to have one (I don’t know.)? If required and she can, then she appears to be at least minimally qualified for the job. And I don’t think there is even a constitutional requirement that she be a lawyer, but I may be mistaken.
She is not the person I’d pick for the job. I will likely strongly disagree with many of her rulings. But Obama won the election, and holds the right to chose the candidate he thinks suitable for the job.
Oakminster: Are you unfamiliar with the concept of presidential nominations and congressional approval?
Are you a professional asshole, or just playing one here?
Obama gets to chose the nominee. Senate gets to confirm that nominee. It’s intended to be a relatively straightforward process…is the person at least minimally qualified? Then approved. POTUS has no obligation to nominate the best available candidate. That would be me, and my phone ain’t ringing. POTUS is obligated to choose a candidate that can do the job.
It is not supposed to be some partisan pissing match where the minority party dissects everything the woman has ever written, and withholds confirmation because they don’t like her fucking judicial philosophy.
Well, actually, he sorta does. A potential Justice’s judicial philosophy (or potential judicial philosophy–to account for those who are not yet judges and the fact that a person’s judicial philosophy is subject to change and may be difficult to determine) is probably the most important thing that a Senator should take into account when deciding whether or not to confirm a Justice.
When you say “supposed to”–where are you getting that from? What’s the obligation on a Senator not to look at a potential Justice’s potential judicial philosophy?
Nope. I truly think he’s thinking ahead about his career.
I and the other posters here won’t have a say in his re-election. Many people in Utah will, and he’s catering to them.
I strongly disagree. Say Thurgood Marshall was alive again, and nominated. I disagree with his judicial philosophy, and many of his opinions…but I can’t in good conscience say the man isn’t qualified.
SCOTUS, or any appellant judge slot for that matter, ain’t that damn hard. You need to be able to read the briefs, write opinions, and conduct/review research. A third year law student could do it.
Ok . . .
So what’s “his fate”?
Brother Oak, you seem to be talking about what a Senator should take into account when deciding whether or not to confirm a SCOTUS nominee, and I and Monty are talking about what they can take into account.
They absolutely can take potential judicial philosophy into account. And if you want to argue that they shouldn’t, then that’s fine with me. But when you suggest that they have some obligation not to take that into account, to look at only whether they have a pulse and a JD . . . I think that’s odd.
Whadda you think I am, a pundit or prognosticator? 
I really don’t care whether he gets re-elected or not. I guess I would hate it if he gets beaten by a teaparty know nothing. I’d hate it if he get beaten by someone who is ultra conservative.
If he gets re-elected as his fate, then I’m fine with that. He deserves it, it that’s what his base decides. I hope they do.
I’m pulling it out of my ass, frankly. But I’m basing it on what I believe the intent of the advice and consent clause in Article II, Section 2, which provides in pertinent part:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
As I read it, there is no constitutional requirement that the Senate concur with a judicial appointment. They get to advise the President, but should not unreasonably withhold consent. A difference in judicial philosophy, where the philosophy in question is not demonstrably batshit insane, does not, in my view, constitute a valid reason to withhold consent.
My bad, then. Poor wording. I mean to be arguing what they should consider. I did not mean to imply that they are prohibited from considering what I consider irrelevant things.
Also may have been quick on the trigger in calling Monty an asshole. I don’t remember him normally being one.
To make it right, sometimes I’m an asshole, too.
We square, Monty?
Well . . . alrighty then. By saying “he deserves his fate,” you sure seemed to have decided that this decision of his would bode badly for him in the future. But now you say you don’t think that. Which means, I guess, that you are prone to talking straight out of your sphinc.
You’re a square asshole? What does your poop look like?
No more than you. Sometimes a phrase is just a phrase.