So, the OP is arguing for silent rubberstamping by all senators?
Is that really your ideal in a senator?
I can’t speak for the OP, but I’d argue that the senators should limit their opposition to objective qualification, rather than ideological differences. That is, the President gets to pick the judges, and the Senate gets to agree or disagree. If the Senate withholds its consent unless the nominee is an ideological match, that effectively viscerates the Constitutional power of selection that the President has.
I absolutely agree that the Senate shouldn’t blindly accept any nominee for the same reason: this would visecrate the Senate’s Constitutional role.
I can’t speak for the OP either, but what bothers me is hearing Senators say Alito is well qualified but they won’t vote from him because of the effect he’d have on the court. There’s nothing sacred about the political balance of the court. If they want to use that logic, then what happens when Clarence Thomas retires while a Democrat holds the presidency?
Blalron
Oh yeah that’s a good one !!! 
Kerry has nowhere near the balls of our present Commandable In Chief who when his country wanted him in Vietnam, did his level best NOT to get sent to that country. However, his heroism in the battle of El Paso is legendary. :rolleyes:
You’d think Kennedy, for one, would’ve learned to shut his damn mouth about Alito. Didn’t he embarrass himself enough when he grilled Alito about the male-only club he belonged to in Princeton, and then it turned out that Kennedy himself had been a member of the Harvard Owl Club for the past 50 years??? The Owl Club, in case you couldn’t guess, excludes women from becoming members. Kennedy was asked about and came up with a real gem of a comment: “I’ve been paying dues to the club for 50 years but I’m not a member.” (Paraphrase). I love the liberal hypocrisy: Alito belongs to an exlusive club and he hates women. Kennedy belongs to one and…(crickets).
Mary Jo Kopechne, by the way, was unavailable for comment.
Kerry just wound up looking like his usual idiot self when he skiied up to the cameras in Switerland and demanded a filibuster. What a jerk.
Factual nitpick: The Harvard Owl Club is indeed a male-only association, just as male-only fraternities on co-ed campuses are. But the reason Kennedy was criticizing the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, to which Alito formerly belonged, is not because it was all-male, but because it opposed expanding enrollments of women and minorities at Princeton.
So the core issue wasn’t the gender distribution at the club in question; rather, it was the club’s ideological position concerning gender (and racial) distribution at the university.
I disagree. The Senate was given the power to advise and consent for a reason, and that reason was to prevent appointments to the Supreme Court that would be bad for the country. Doesn’t matter whether such appointees are bad because they’re incompetent or because they’ve got Neanderthal values, the Senate has a basic responsibility to say “no” if the candidate looks like a loser. If a Senator honestly believes that a candidate would be bad for America for ANY reason, then it is that candidate’s DUTY to oppose their confirmation.
John Kerry may simply be doing his duty.
Well, for the president conservatives and Republicans have the “unitary executive” theory, and for the Senate they have the “simpering courtier” theory.
Neither, apparently, was Alito, when he was asked to explain his position on the unitary executive and the right to privacy.
Do you believe that the candidate was selected by the President based only on his objective qualifications and not his ideology? I see no reason to have one standard for one branch of the government and another standard for the other branch. This is part of the balance of power.
If the candidate has indicated in prior statements that he is inclined to remove certain rights from a large segment (half) of the population – especially when that segment has only twice been represented on the Supreme Court of the land, never in the office of Chief Executive, and blatantly unequally in the Legislative Branch – then it is unthinkable to consider only his qualifications and not his ideology.
I believe that he was chosen because of this particular stance – in addition to his qualifications. Can you honestly disagree?
What good would it do to be well-versed in the law of the land if you thought that some of those laws should be overturned? Or what if you believed they shouldn’t apply to everyone? What if you believed some people are inferior? (These are just examples; I’m not saying that this is Alito’s thinking.)
You certainly have no problem ascribing political motives to Kerry’s call for a fillabuster. I think that it is well within keeping with his past record of acting on matters of conscience.
I wish I lived in Massachusetts so that I could be so proud of my senators. All I have are Frist and Alexander. (shudder)
There really does need to be a Godwin-style rule about Chappaquiddick.
If you have a problem with something Kennedy is doing, say it. Bringing up 30-year-old shit (repugnant though it may be) suggests that you probably don’t have that much of an argument.
Well, if the Chappaquiddick issue is relevant to what’s currently being discussed, I don’t have a problem with its being brought up. But I agree, if it’s just a tag that you automatically attach to all your references to Sen. Kennedy, it’s fairly lame and doesn’t help you make any point. (Similarly, if somebody’s actually talking about politicians and their personal military service, it might be relevant to mention the President’s National Guard stint. But tossing in digs about “Chickenhawk George” in discussions of totally unrelated topics is merely annoying.)
Which qualifications do you claim can be assessed “objectively”? What would the standards be - I presume the degree of fealty to the Bricker School of Constitutional Interpretation? Get real. :dubious:
As for the OP title, *why * Kennedy and Kerry keep speaking out, (A) That’s their damn job, and (B) They hope you’ll listen and possibly learn something. The rest of the country does eventually seem to catch up with MA (you could even cite abolitionism), but it really shouldn’t take so damned long.
Ahem, I live in a blue state, have never watched NASCAR, and there’s nothing wrong with my jaw.
That said, you and your fellow travelers should continue with the smug, self-important, “liberals are smarter and know what’s best for you” theme loudly and continuously for the next 2 3/4 years. Please do.
I may regret asking, but:
What have we “liberals” turned out to be wrong about lately? Or ever, if you wish - let’s see how far you have to dig.
As a Massachusetts resident, I am happy my senators are representing my viewpoint. I’m glad that they’re willing to take a stand rather than care about how they look (unlike other Senators). I would like a supreme court justice without as many ethical issues as Alito. How the hell can the man not remember being a member of CAP? As I have learned in my law classes, finding as many monkey wrenches to gum up processes could end up being a boon. As a third generation Massachusetts resident, liberal and pro-choice supporter, I am pleased time and again by how well my senators represent me. How do PA residents feel with Senator Man on Dog Sex? Or TN with Senator Insider Trading?
Are you saying that no existing laws should be overturned?
All laws do not apply equally to everyone.
Then what are you saying? I thought we were talking about Alito, not some hypothetical bigot that you’ve conjured up.
Maybe. Have you noticed any political analysts coming to that conclusion? I haven’t.
But let’s be clear about this. Politician acts politically isn’t exactly “stop the presses” material. While I think Kerry’s motives are largely political, I’m not necessarily saying that’s a bad thing. He is, after all, a politician. That’s what they do. He didn’t vote for Roberts, either. Roberts is probably the most highly qulified nominee we’ll ever see in our lifetime. I’m not sure how that can be ascribed to a matter of conscience.
Sorry that form of address offends you, Bricker. Kennedy is a self-righteous blowhard who needs to close his hawsehole. The man has no business standing in judgement of anyone else, period.
I never stated it wasn’t their right, Polycarp. Reread the OP and post #7. The point here is that engaging in a fruitless endeavor is nothing more than a waste of time. One would think that elected officials have better issues to which they can devote their time and talents than opposition for opposition’s sake.
I don’t buy the short memory theory. Kennedy is a boob, but I gave Kerry more credit than this. Grandstanding about something which can’t come to fruition isn’t the mark of a leader, IMO. For those who allege I’m being partisan, that dog won’t hunt. Every time my own two meathead senators (Magic Bullet Arlen, and the other “PA” guy who doesn’t live here) start yapping, I have to shake my head. Stupidity lives on both sides of the aisle, as they too often prove.
It should be noted that I didn’t Pit Kerry for being in Davros, Davos, or Dave’s Bar and Grille when he issued his statement. I also didn’t say anything about “rubber stamping” nominees, either. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer weren’t rubber stamped, and they weren’t subject to nonsense by the senate republicans, either. (97-3 and 87-9, respectively) Maybe there is merit to the comment about short memories-the two subjects of my OP seem to have forgotten the early 1990’s.
For God’s sake, the President is talking about Republicans.
No, he is still capable of clear thinking. Not like President YouthfulAlchoholAndSubstanceAbuseBeforeHeGotCleanAndSober, who has others do his thinking for him. At his worst, Kennedy is still capable of putting coherent thoughts and sentences together, unlike PresidentBrainCramp. Or should we just drop the name calling, and stick to the subject at hand?
Petty partisan wrangling? Partisan wrangling, absolutely. But seeing that the future Justice will be a lifetime appointment, and will be instrumental in decisions that will affect all of us for years to come, I hardly think that it is petty. You seem to think that Senators shouldn’t fight City Hall. Kerry, the anti-war candidate, took that approach when voting for the war in Iraq, and I believe that it was his lack of spine there that cost him. Glad to see the boy is growing a pair.