Well, keep in mind I’m only staking this position out in regards to the current situation. I would rather this be conducted in the pre-Bork fashion, when politics and judicial philosophy were surely a consideration but couldn’t be hashed out so openly because that would have been seen as unseemly.
In a fight with the other party over the Supreme Court, I see no benefit in adhering to the Queensberry rules while they’re breaking out axe handles. I don’t like it, but I’m not above it.
This nomination can be decided by the Democrats all by themselves. We are in no position in this particular case to obstruct anything. The worst we can do is withhold our assent - which, given the problems with this particular nominee and the issues at stake here, seems pretty well justified.
This nominee is hardly controversial. Her decisions are relatively mainstream, her statements over the course of almost 20 years on the bench include only a couple of things that could give anyone pause, and even then only if they try to chop them out of context and microscopically examine them for THINGS WE DON’T LIKE. She’s not being accused of sexual harrassment, she didn’t fail to pay taxes for a nanny or gardener, she hasn’t written a bunch of legal tracts expository of a radical or reactionary position, and her judicial demeanor has been impeccable. Heck, she was originally nominated for the bench by a Republican, for goodness sake!
And what the hell is “at stake” here? The court is currently split up such that four justices vote relatively reliably in a way that pleases elements considered “conservative” in our politics, with three of them quite “conservative,” four justices vote relatively reliably in a way that pleases elements considered “liberal”, with a couple of them fairly liberal, and a couple of them really moderates that are the tiniest bit to the “left” of center, and one justice who votes in a way that makes clear his views are somewhere between the two wings of the Court. One of the “liberal” justices is leaving, and being replaced by a nominee who is “liberal”, but not overtly so. What overweening principle of do-or-die nature is “at stake??”
Could you also summarize “what’s at stake”? It’s not likely that she’s going to force her fellow judges to reopen the New Haven firefighters case and reverse the outcome, is it?
Right. You do recall that Judge Sotomayor was recommended by Senator Moynihan at the time, and that Bush accepted this because he then was able to get other New York State federal judges through, among them Loretta Preska. Blue-slip considerations came into play big time here.
And while we are discussing stakes, how is it that Judge Alito was confirmed by unanimous consent as a circuit court judge but was opposed so strenuously by Democrats when he was nominated to the Supreme Court? Could it be that a Supreme Court appointment is more important?
Or are you saying that because the SC is more important, that all nominees should be violently opposed by everyone, regardless of their individual qualities or alignments (or lack thereof)?
I think we’re wandering afield of the more interesting point of whether it’s acceptable or desirable to use dishonest tactics to combat an established precedent of dishonesty. Moto seems to think yes, Bricker, myself, and others seem to think no. I’m inclined to disagree with you, Mr. Moto, because I think your argument boils down to “he did it first!” and it’s just unacceptable justification for performing underhanded actions as far as I am concerned. If this sort of conduct is so distasteful to you, why not be the change you want to see in the Congress? How else is the situation to improve except by adopting and demanding a higher level of discourse?
Or, to flip your argument around another way–you say that the Democrats don’t really need any Republican consensus to get Sotomayor through. Well in that case, what purpose does this “witholded assent” serve? Do you think it will modify Obama’s thought process in future nominations if he has the occasion to make any? I can see some pretty stark downsides to adopting this sort of rhetoric–namely, alienation of moderate voters or enhancing the perception of the GOP as a primarily obstructionist party, to give a few examples.
I apologize then - I was merely trying to deduce what your point could possibly have been, since this is the only possible point that you could have been making by pointing out that the SC is a more important position when asked what was at stake if not her politics (since she’s relatively innocent politically).
So I apologize for my mistake. In actual fact, you had no point to make with what you posted.
So, in other words, you have opined absolutely NOTHING about why this is a nomination with something extra “at stake.”
And regardless of why George H. W. Bush appointed her, you can certainly bet he wasn’t appointing someone he thought was a flaming liberal to the bench, regardless of what the senior senator from the State of New York wanted.
Try again, you failed this time. But please come back and play some more. This time, you might manage to make it relevant.
Right. I alluded to that above - I never claimed that these sort of things should ever be absolute. And please remember that opposition to Fortas was entirely bipartisan in nature, so your characterization of that event as GOP opposition for his political bent was mistaken to say the least.
Not really bipartisan. It was the GOP and Dixiecrats, same party as far as most votes went.
And like I said the Federalist opposition of Rutledge in 1795 was entirely political. The process has been political from the start, don;t blame the Dems for starting it.
The GOP also blocked two of Grover Clevelands nominations.
We’re always going to have partisan bickering. I think by now, since the trend’s been established, its not going to go away.
My main problem with the GOP are their lies and deception practiced by those who wanted to grandstand. I don’t give a damn if they want to question her beliefs or motives, but do so honestly. I give a damn when they accuse her of being racist for one comment she made that seemed to have invalidated 17 years of rulings. An honest Republican would have said “That speech was pretty bad, but it doesn’t mean you’re a racist. Anyone who says so is an idiot and a liar. While I don’t agree with your views, I don’t think you’re a racist. I’m not voting for you, however, because of your interpretation of the Constitution.”
Or, they could be acknowledging that she’s not overwhelmingly popular with the American people. CNN conducted a poll a couple of weeks ago that showed that “almost” half of people (47%) of people like her, 40% don’t, and the rest are unsure if they like her or not. In the face of such overwhelming love, you’re surely right that they’d draw people in if they supported her. Or not.
