Carter decided to ignore the tradition in favor of fast-tracking women and blacks in the judgeships. With the old system smashed, a new system has evolved to the point of nominees needing 60 votes and giving rise to threats of the nuclear option.

From my vantage point, I do not see that anything positive has evolved from the destruction of senatorial courtesy. We have had an escalating judicial warfare that has led to near stalemate in the nomination process. The balance has been overwhelmed by the stagnation of always “checking” the president’s move. That is pure politics, not government.

The question now is whether any significant number of democrats will eschew the elevating platitudes and demand substance.

Substance has historically not done well for Democrats.

Witness their attempt to give wealthy children free health care by hiking a tax — the cigarette tax — that they themselves have screamed is “regressive” and unfair to poor people and minorities.

Or, phrased differently, they support healthcare for the rich by more heavily taxing the poor.

This is why, during the S-CHIP debate, they kept shoving wealthy children out in front of the camera, rather than posting numbers that would demonstrate exactly who their tax would affect versus who would be receiving the free healthcare.

As the adage goes, if someone has numbers, they give them — and if they don’t, they do everything they can to stay away from them.

Obama already demonstrated that he doesn’t do numbers (the “10,000 killed by a tornado in Kansas” debacle).

Nope.

I am wondering if Obama should become president, will he divorce Michelle and marry Oprah so that she could become the first lady?

I am amused that people on the right are just now figuring out that not everyone in the Democratic Party is in love with the Clintons.

We are a slow witted group. We assumed that every single democrat voted for Clinton in the exact same way every single Republican voted for Bush and worships every move he has made as president.

Obviously, the Republicans are holding back on who their candidate will be. The money is not flowing. There is a lot of caution in the air.

It looks like the democrats may have been picked up by a pied piper who will lead them all the way to the polls. The question now is whether any significant number of democrats will eschew the elevating platitudes and demand substance. Huey Long comes in all shapes and forms.

Yes, Obama’s main appeal is that he’s a good speaker and talks about things people are interested in. It seems genuine and not from a list supplied by political consultants. That is refreshing considering what we usually get from politicians these days. (BTW, I think Huckabee’s appeal in Iowa was similar…not the same but similar. He’s a very good speaker and was addressing issues that many delegates at the caucuses cared about very much. Candidates who have hit such a nerve might not get the nomination, but the eventual nominee ignores those issues and concerns at his or her own peril.

About Breyer and Ginsberg…Clinton picked them from a list supplied to him by Republicans (I’m remembering it was Hatch but I could be wrong) of potential justices that they would find acceptable. It’s no surprise that they had no trouble being confirmed.

If Obama is the master communicator of the Alinsky “pick the scab” radicalism, the “inspired” masses may be unreachable by reasoned debate.

Now, it appears that you blame them for playing hardball after upteen years of Democrat hardball. Or am I missing something?

Also, the Democrats aren’t doing the same thing

You’re absolutely right. The Republicans didn’t attempt to filibuster nominees with majority support. And the crisis goes to the Circuit Court nominations, not the Supreme Court. They had majority support of Republicans and liberals, but certain liberal SOBs decided it would be more fun to circumvent the US Constitution (surprise, surprise) for political gain.

Face it, Kevin. The liberals are GUILTY on many counts of throwing out the constitution when it suits them and play political games with the country.

And we’re supposed to reward these worthless SOBs by voting for them???? Nah. There’s a place for them in the fifth ring of hell. Well, them and any of their apologists who see fit to lick their twats.

*http://www.themidnightsun.org/?p=1613

No mainstream media coverage of all this, naturally.

He may soon have to return to the Senate floor to show a national audience his ability on issues and bi-partisian leadership.

He might actually have to author some legislation.

Senator Leahy (D., Vt.): “I have said on the floor, although we are different parties, I have agreed with Gov. George Bush, who has said that in the Senate a nominee ought to get a [floor] vote, up or down, within 60 days.” (Congressional Record, Oct. 11, 2000)

Senator Biden, (D., Del.): “But I also respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated ought to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor.” (Congressional Record, March 19, 1997)

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D., Mass.): “We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don’t like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.” (Congressional Record, Feb. 3, 1998)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.): “A nominee is entitled to a vote. Vote them up; vote them down…. If we don’t like them, we can vote against them. That is the honest thing to do. If there are things in their background, in their abilities that don’t pass muster, vote no.” (Congressional Record, Sept. 16, 1999)

Sen. Tom Daschle (D., S.D.): “As Chief Justice Rehnquist has recognized: ‘The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry it should vote him up or vote him down.’ An up-or-down vote, that is all we ask….” (Congressional Record, Oct. 5, 1999)

Too bad they’re not honest.

Meanwhile the liberals decided that nominees like Miguel Estrada and Pricilla Owen, with the support of the liberal Bar Association and several liberal JD officials were too “extreme”.

Who was it the liberals opposed because he was a Catholic?

I do agree that the key to Obama’s success is that he is the “new face.” For all the talk and the sappy Kennedy memories, he is the only new face on the scene. The same holds true for the Huck-A-Boom, I think.

And anyway, your comment hardly addresses the point made in the passage you quoted. For here, we’re talking about the attitude of various senators toward Supreme Court nominees. And instead of addressing the issue at hand, you just look for another excuse to bash Republicans.

At least on the level of Supreme Court nominees, the average Republican Senator showed more deference to a Democratic president than did the supposedly post-partisan Senator Obama to a Republican President.

Meanwhile, the Republicans wouldn’t let other Clinton nominees even pass through committee as a way of stopping Clinton from appointing judges to open positions. Republicans used the excuse of there being too many federal judges, but boy they changed their tune when Bush became president, saying that there was a “judicial crisis” of not enough judges.

Obama is thus considerably more partisan than two-thirds of the Republicans in the Senate during Bill Clinton’s first term…

Ah, but you see, Obama had good reasons. Because HE is a good guy who voted legitimately from the heart against evil Rethuglicans, blah blah blah blah….

In other words, I think the real significance of Obama is this: Old B.S. in new skin (so to speak). The Clintons’ time is past. Most of the cynicism about the Clintons has proved justified; turns out they weren’t a “Third Way” after all, just the same old lying hard-leftists. And everyone knows. Time to put the same old B.S. in a new dress – excuse me, a “fresh face” – that will require a new years-long cycle of painstaking exposure.