Last June, as the Senate was about to consider the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, Mark Tapscott reminded us of something the thenjunior Senator from Illinois, a Mr. B. Obama, said:
And here is what he said in 2006 on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” regarding Senate Democrats who were then considering filibustering President George W. Bush’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Samuel Alito:
“Well, I will be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values, you know.”
Can you imagine how commentators in the news media and left-wing bloggers will tie themselves in knots if a Republican Senator said a Democratic nominee to the Supreme Court was “contrary to core American values.”
Normally, I wouldn’t think it appropriate to filibuster the president’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, but, well, in judicial procedures, we often rely upon precedent. And a certain Democratic Senator joined his colleagues in setting one.
Republican Senators who filibustered an Obama nominee would just be following in that Democrat’s footsteps.
Just how appropriate it is to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee depends on the totality of circumstances.
Of course, a filibuster only comes up when a majority of the Senate seems willing to confirm an appointment in the presence of good reasons for rejecting a nominee.
If President Obama were to appoint someone dedicated to applying the laws, according to their clear and original meaning, using a set of neutral principles, filibustering would be appropriate only if there were concerns about the nominee’s character.
However, Obama’s first Supreme Court appointee attempted to pervert the law in order to support the racial spoils system — and screw some men out of jobs they had earned in the process. His current nominee to the ninth circuit, Goodwin Liu, has said this about constitutional jurisprudence:
Meaning, of course, that the original meaning of a law is irrelevant and neutral principles are meaningless.
If we look at Clinton’s Supreme Court nominees, they have booth ruled that governments may take private property to give to another private individual or entity, and that partial-birth abortion is a constitutional right.
Given all this, I’d say considering a filibuster of an Obama appointee is not only appropriate, it’s a duty.
Of course, as you note, turnabout is fair play. 😉
What’s good for the goose…
I always said it was wrong for Democrats to filibuster, and it was. But they set the precedent, and they will do it again. It would be folly to allow Democrats to use tactics against our exemplary judges that we refuse to use against their constitution-shredding activist hacks.
It depends on how awful the nominee is and on what issues she is awful. Unless the nominee is really really obnoxious (Diane Wood or Cass Sunstein) , the better strategy for Republicans is to tar her as much as possible and hang her like an albatross around the necks of vulnerable Dramacrat senators.
Democrat presidents do not appoint swing votes.
Can you imagine how commentators in the news media and left-wing bloggers will tie themselves in knots if a Republican Senator said a Democratic nominee to the Supreme Court was “contrary to core American values.”
Are you kidding? That would be tame in comparison to a whole litany of things that Republicans have said about Democrats in the past decade. Remember when Democrats didn’t support the troops? Remember how Sarah Palin likes to go to the ‘real’ part of Virginia? Remember how Barrack Obama is a socialist, or how he has a ‘deep-seeded hatred for white people?’
The Republicans will react hysterically no matter what, and no one will be shocked. Your shtick is as old as the hills.
Remember liberals manufacturing bullshit about Thomas, Bork, Alito, Roberts etc.?
Remember the whole “Roberts is gay” bandwagon?
Remember making Roberts’ wife cry?
Remember Kerry (who served in Vietnam) calling our soldiers terrorists?
Remember Kerry (who served in Vietnam) calling our soldiers stupid?
Remember Harry Reid declaring that the war in Iraq was lost?
Remember “General Betray-us”?
Remember Hildabeast calling Petraeus a liar before he even spoke?
Remember “We support our troops when they shoot their officers”?
Remember the spun LiveLeaks video?
Remember Murtha calling our Marines murderers?
Remember liberals going on a scorched earth campaign against Palin and Joe the Plumber while taking ZERO interest in the background of Il Douche?
Remember the manufactured “Kill him!” kerfuffle?
Remember the Duke Lacrosse Team kerfuffle?
Remember the manufactured stories of racist vandalism and nooses on college campi?
Shall I go on? The liberals will lie, manufacture bullshit to be “outraged” about and project their hatred and bigotry on everyone else. You’re shtick is bullshit and it’s the same bullshit over and over. It’s predictable.
Actually, no I don’t.
Liberals need to make up their minds about whether or not this is an insult or a compliment. I keep hearing both.
Unless, of course, it’s just another bit of gilding on their manufactured outrage.
Oh good, you can make lists of things, mostly of which are totally irrelevant little myth-pieces for brainwashed Republican drones. My response was to Dan’s suggestion that the media would go ballistic if a Republican says that Obama’s pick is contrary to American values, which as we all know would not be even remotely outrageous or unpredictable in the current political climate. I know you’re probably really proud of your ability to pull non-sequitors out of nowhere and it probably gets you a lot of traction in the Republican circles you frequent, but I’m extremely unimpressed.
Liberals need to make up their minds about whether or not this is an insult or a compliment. I keep hearing both.
Unless, of course, it’s just another bit of gilding on their manufactured outrage.
It is neither. Obama shouldn’t be called a socialist because it is a factually inaccurate statement, like saying the the Sun revolves around the Earth, or that the war in Iraq has improved our national security. A socialist wouldn’t have come up with the healthcare bill that Obama did. A socialist wouldn’t be dragging his feet on financial reform. I would love more socialist representation in our government, but it just isn’t there, and the insistence by the Republicans that it is is simply a strategy to move the country further and further into radical right territory. By labeling someone as moderate (and possibly even right-of-center) as Obama a socialist, you’re redefining the political spectrum and enabling even more crazy right-wing hyperbole and hysteria. It’s a pretty neat trick, you’ve been doing it for years, and it’s what has brought never-before considered issues like torture, aggressive war and nation-building into the political debate.
Remember when Democrats didn’t support the troops?
Of course. That was when the Obama Party and its supporters were pushing and passing resolutions calling them “uninvited and unwelcome intruders” and encouraging the Obama Party base to attack them.
Your delusions are funny, Levi. You and your Obama Party spit on troops, call them murderers and baby-killers, vandalize and attack their buildings, and push laws calling them uninvited and unwelcome intruders IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY, and you whine and blabber about how unfair it is to say that you don’t support them.
Remember when Democrats didn’t support the troops??
The only time Progressives support a soldier is when one of them runs for office as a Democrat. Otherwise, they call them butchers, cold-blooded murderers, victims, “children,” or people who didn’t study hard enough and got stuck in Iraq.
Oh good, you have the super duper Wonder Twin power to spin bullshit into even more bullshit. You started the non sequitur, not I.
But he didn’t. He pawned it off on others.
But one would be doing his damndest to destroy the free market, take over private companies and dictate pay of employees of private companies.
/boggle
This bizarrely unreflective sentence – ruminating about how Obama might be “right of center” then complaining about right wing hyperbole – goes further to prove my pet theory of “political fish-eye lensing”. The further one moves away from the center, in this case Levi’s hilarious position in distant left field, the more distorted the idea of distance becomes. People in the center seem like radical conservatives, and people who hobnob with Maoists and Communists seem “moderate”.
Both sides have no place to be pious about on this issue, and I get tired of hearing this back and forth. Lets just be honest, both sides want to put up the guy they think will endorse their ideology. Liberals see the court now as activist in a conservative way and will want to balance it out for their own interests.
It will be a pointless fight, but it will probably be a fight. GOP want to use it as a way of rallying their base to come out and vote. Obama wants to use to paint the court as reactionary and thus needs a strong liberal judge to balance it.
Actually, he seems hell bent on creating a (at least) $50 BILLION dollar tax payer funded safety net so these institutions can still make their DNC donations even when they’re in trouble.
http://tinyurl.com/y5uvgn5
Where have we heard this song before?
They Senate is expected to “move quickly” on this. The budget, not so much.
But one would be doing his damndest to destroy the free market, take over private companies and dictate pay of employees of private companies.
How utterly boring. If Obama’s objective were to destroy the free market, then why hasn’t he done that yet? I’m still living and working in a free market and the change in Presidents hasn’t affected that one bit. We’re closing in on being 33% of the way through Obama’s four year term, and the free markets appear to be doing fine. And in reality, he’s only got a few more months to implement his radical agenda if we’re to believe that Republicans are going to take back control of the House. Why is he taking so long?
I mean just think about this for like two seconds guys.
Only to an admitted communist like Levi would Obama be seen as Centre right.
Then again, Levi’s shown time and again he doesn’t understand how the government works, so why should we be surprised?