Why Lindsey Graham is the Guy Obama Needs to Please in Replacing Souter

if the GOP tries to use this kind of (unprecedented) tactic to block an appointment to the supreme court, Obama should use his recess appointment power to seat the justice — and every other nominee that the GOP has held up for every other position.

Like Specter, Souter is no loss to the conservative cause. Good riddance is what I say. Now we shall see more proof of Obama’s far left liberal extremism. The perfect storm of reawakening the sane people of this country is soon to be a reality. The liberal extremists will hopefully go cowering back into the holes they popped out of like a swarm of locust.

plukasiak, not that it would come to that but this is what would happen with a recess appointment.

“When the Senate is in recess, the President may make a temporary appointment without the Senate’s advice and consent. Such a recess appointee to the Supreme Court holds office only until the end of the next Senate session (at most, less than two years). To continue to serve thereafter and be compensated for his or her service, the nominee must be confirmed by the Senate”

Jay Newton-Small:
.
Why wouldn’t Harry Reid simply propose changing the Senate rules, a la the “nuclear option” threatened by Frist that got us the Gang of 14 in the first place?
.
Why would this rule –an extra-constitutional convention that virtually guarantees a minority “filibuster” right to block a nominee– be so sacrosanct to Harry Reid?
.
This looks insane from an outsider’s perspective:
.
Previously, Republicans threaten to change the rules; Democrats form a coalition to capitulate. A relatively unpopular Bush proclaims he possesses an overwhelming mandate to pack the Court to the right, and nominates accordingly. Two rightist SCOTUS nominees are through Judiciary Committee with no minority block; two rightist SCOTUS nominees are through the Senate vote without even the threat of a filibuster from Democrats, who weakly cast pointless show votes against the new Justices.
.
Now, when Democrats are within an appeal denial of a filibuster-proof legislative majority in the entire Congress, field a strong Presidency, and the Republicans are in “consolidate, retrench to the hard, loyal, minority right”-mode, “Rahm may want to put Graham’s # on speed dial“?
.
In what reasonable world does Harry Reid not at least appear to be capitulating to the popular President, his party and the American people, instead of the former Clinton impeachment prosecutor from South Carolina, Republican Lindsey Graham?
.
What information is missing from my analysis, Jay Newton-Small?
Why wouldn’t Harry threaten to change the rules?

If Obama comes up with a nominee opposed by the right
.
The right will oppose any Obama nominee, so by definition Obama will come up with a nominee opposed by the right.
.
Whatever happened to the chants of “up or down vote” that we used to hear?

Doh – I meant to close the “i” tag after the first quote.

Look at it another way: first Ed Henry, followed by the hapless Halperin, then an excitable Chris Cilizza and now JNS: why all this breathless reporting on a “fight” when a nomination isn’t even on the table. Where does all this froth come from? Why the rush to proclaim a great fight? You guys gin up a fight to the finish on every issue.

Pres Obama’s action thus far suggests that he is cautious, pragmatic and ready to fight if need be. But the press types seem to be ginning this as yet another “struggle”. And this is day 1.

If Pres Obama catches a cold are we going to be discussing pneumonia?

Would Harry Reid buck the system to help a democrat? Has he so far?

SZ: As William A. Jacobson points out in the final blog link I provided, Reid kind of shot himself in the foot with Burris by proclaiming the sanctity of the Senate rules then — words that will come back to haunt him if he tries to change them now. And, as Jacobson points out, this option will only come into play if Obama appoints a uber liberal nominee — some one the right goes to war on. The existence of the rule itself is a deterrent against such an appointment. JNS

I see that Mike Allen and Josh Gerstein have proclaimed a Court War, too. Bloody silly stuff.

bitterpill8: I agree with you, but the right is also desperate for a fight. Look at how much they hyperventilated over Sebellius and Dawn Johnson — hardly left wing nominees. They NEED it in terms of fundraising and morale. JNS

Right now the Republican base is like the crazy drunk teen-ogling uncle that everyone wants to just shut up and disappear for a while, because moderates are seeing the crazy and abandoning the GOP in droves.
Having Sessions or Hatch carry the this “American Taliban’s” water and pit themselves against Obama in a pissing contest over “activist judges” and code words for racism like “state’s rights” honestly sounds like the worst case scenario for the GOP.
I say they go for it.

a uber liberal nominee — some one the right goes to war on
-
The right has already declared war on spending during a recession, volcano monitoring, flu prevention, the stimulus package, Gov. Sebelius, loose tea, and God knows what else.
-
Of course they will mount a jihad. They’re an extreme, unserious party. That is what they do.

JNS: I see that fund raising and morale are now important to the 21 per centers. These guys are not serious, are they. Looks like they have been inside the tent for far too long. They need to get out into the fresh air.Are we looking at a 21 per centers Jihad?

Thanks for reponding to comments, JNS.
.
How are these two statements compatible:
.
This option will only come into play if Obama appoints a[n] uber liberal nominee — some one the right goes to war on.
.
the right is also desperate for a fight
.
I mean, do you really think the right would only “go to war” on an “uber-liberal” nominee? Unless “uber-liberal” means “less radical than Scalia.”

Reid kind of shot himself in the foot with Burris by proclaiming the sanctity of the Senate rules then — words that will come back to haunt him if he tries to change them now.
.
F@ck. F@ck!

Thanks so much for your response to commentary, Jay Newton-Small; it is very much appreciated.
.
I didn’t see that last update.
.
If you’d rather respond to other commentary, I understand, but I’m still missing something:
.
Reid’s words about the sanctity of Senate Rules would come back to haunt him
.
How likely is it that Reid’s clumsy attempts to stop a criminal governor’s appointment will be successfully used against him in the press? By whom would this stellar case against Reid be made, exactly?
.
this option will only come into play if Obama appoints a uber liberal nominee
.
Does Jacobson mean a nominee who is a left-leaning version of Sam Alito replacing another moderate like O’Conner?
.
Why would Obama and Reid doing what Bush and Frist did successfully in similar circumstances be wrong, either politically or on its merits?
.
The “right goes to war“, and Harry Reid is truly hamstrung by Roland Burris, plus Obama’s famous hard-ass Chief-of-Staff is compelled to send Lindsey Graham a bouquet of flowers and an “I love you” card? The Democrats meekly threaten a filibuster over Alito, and Republicans go on Meet The Press to calmly discuss the nuclear option?
.
Do you see how this reeks of some truly bizarre asymmetry, Jay Newton-Small? Do you see just how unreasonable this sounds to people outside the Beltway, even to neutral ?
.
Thanks again so much for your response, not just to me, but to other commenters as well –it is enlightening and clarifying.

when does Arlen officially become a member “of the majority”? Since he was appointed to the Justice Committee “by the minority”, can’t he retain his official “minority party” status indefinitely, while “unofficially” being a democrat?

Jay,
.
This kind of inside baseball reporting hurts America. It fosters the idea that this is the way it is and has to be and that’s that.
.
Why don’t you do a story on the best candidates for the job (not the most likely ones)? Why don’t you do a story on where the supreme court has headed, and where smart people think it could and should go?
.
Instead, all posibilities are reverse-telescoped into this procedural BS. You guys did the same thing with the stimulus vote, and helped midwife a manifestly worse bill (per basically every academic economist).
.
You are helping ensure a worse court with this kind of irresponsible reporting.
.
Side note: Graham is not a moderate, whatever his PR people may say.

Art Pepper:
Point taken. The 21 percenters will likely go to war with no matter whom Obama names. The question is: will the remaining few GOP Senate moderates like Lindsey Graham be coaxed into that war, and that’s where the degree of liberalism of Obama’s nominee comes into play. Get my drift? JNS

So, according to Senate rules, even if one party had 75 senators to the other parties 25, they think it makes sense to allow the minority on the Judiciary Committee (which, at that point, would be down to probably 6 or 7 members) a veto over a Supreme Court appointment. How screwed up is that? It’s bad enough that the country has to put up with the undemocratic requirement for 60 votes in the full Senate to get almost anything passed. Is this what the Framers had in mind? Since when does everything require a supermajority? And don’t get me started on my stupid state of California that requires a 2/3 vote of the legislature to pass the damn budget or raise taxes by even a nickel. We need someone to take the lead on returning us to the true democracy we were at our founding — which means majority rule except for fundamental matters like equal protection and constitutional amendments. We have lost our way.

Sorry, that’s “even to neutral folks?“

If the GOP insists on being playground-style oppositional Obama might just as well appoint whoever he wants. Giving Lindsey Graham veto power is not what we voted for.

Like Specter, Souter is no loss to the conservative cause. Good riddance is what I say. Now we shall see more proof of Obama’s far left liberal extremism. The perfect storm of reawakening the sane people of this country is soon to be a reality. The liberal extremists will hopefully go cowering back into the holes they popped out of like a swarm of locust.
.
Biblical imagery, implied racism, veiled threats against the majority of the nation, mindless reiteration of Obama’s political leanings, and grammatical errors.
.
A-
.
It would have been an A+ but he forgot to throw in a reference to socialism.

JNS: Thanks for the clarification. I still think there is something wrong with the framing: “Obama will be in trouble if he appoints a liberal” vs “GOP minority will block anyone who is not their brand of radicalism.” Or does “liberal” just mean “opposed by the GOP”?
.
Also I think right/left is the wrong frame for the judicial branch.

“The question is: will the remaining few GOP Senate moderates like Lindsey Graham”
.
The ACU gave Graham an 82 last year and a lifetime rating of 89.79.
.
http://www.acuratings.org/2008all.htm#SC
.
That’s moderate?

PNNT: Speaks to my question at 2:34. Does “moderate” just mean the half-way point between the GOP and the blue-dog Dems? As the GOP tilts to the right, Specter and Souter become radical leftists?

JNS,
Please look at Lindsey Graham’s voting record before you accuse him of being a moderate. He has basically voted for every extremist policy during his Senate career, be it abortion, tax cuts for the rich, war, torture, you name it.
A large part of the GOP’s problems boils down to the fact that an extremely far-hard-right Republican like Lindsey Graham is “moderate” in his party. This does not mean they are “moderate” in any other sense of American politics. It would behoove you to use actual metrics (i.e. voting records) instead of self-labels when describing politicians.

Jay or someone else in the know, would you please answer this question for me? I would like to e-mail a complaint about Mark Halperin to Mark Halperin’s supervisors or Time’s customer service section. Where can I find the contact information–either an e-mail or a phone number? I want to express my displeasure with the Page page right NOW!!!

I think sz has a point when he questions the possibility of a political attack on Reid over Burris.
.
I think that since Obama has a recess appointment opportunity, there is a possibility that he may just short-circuit the whole thing if he can’t get Sotomayor’s name out of committee*.
.
JNS, it seems to me that the Dems are in a better position in every respect then the GOP was when they threatened the nuclear option prior to Roberts’ appointment, and have so many possible routes (at least these two) to work with.
.
In addition, as far as political impacts via the press (the political threat to Reid you hypothesized), it seems to me that that cuts both ways. The GOP brand is only identified with by 25% or so of the population, and the GOP is becomeing widely known as ‘the party of No’.
.
How about that? Seems to me they might just shoot themselves in the foot, again, again.
.
*I’m assuming that will be his pick.

The Republicans are going to filibuster this nominee regardless of who Obama nominates because their fundraising must be in the toilet right now. The RNC had a good quarter, but I imagine that is drying up. The Republican Congressional fundraising committees were getting killed before the Republican popularity fell off a cliff.
.
The nominee will get out of the Senate committee eventually, but not because of their qualifications or because Graham capitulated. Rather, the Republicans are going to fight until they extract enough cash from what remains of their base.
.
Maybe we can short-circuit this whole thing if someone writes them a big enough check. I suggest that Obama have the boys come to his office and tell him how much they need to get his nominee through. Then he can have Plouffe ask people like me to write some checks, and we’ll be on our way.
.
I have to say, one has to admire the Republicans in the Senate for being pure at heart. Everyone in DC knows that they are just playing a game to get people like rustyreturns to write them a check. To be fair, everyone also knows that Reid and Schumer are simply playing the same game to get gullible liberals to write them a check.

Art-my sense is that “moderate” is Beltwayese for “isn’t a complete jerk” nothing to do with how one votes.

Wonder though if Snow will toe the line?
.
She did have some pretty harsh comments about the GOP a little while ago. Have to look at the dynamics of the current instability of the GOP as this thing progresses.
.
The core is so far right of the moderates that, obviously, with Arlen having already setting precedent, they might go independent or worse*.
.
*for people like rusty, I mean.

PNNTO & pafro: In a party of 21% — yeah, he is a moderate. Especially on judicial issues, ie Gang of 14. JNS

JNS
.
I don’t think thats right. I don’t think the Judiciary Committee actually works that way in practice when it comes to Supreme Court justices. I know wikipedia isn’t always the best source but having said that here goes.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
.

The Senate Judiciary Committee conducts hearings, questioning nominees to determine their suitability. At the close of confirmation hearings, the Committee votes on whether the nomination should go to the full Senate with a positive, negative or neutral report.
.
Once the Committee reports out the nomination, the whole Senate considers it; a simple majority vote is required to confirm or to reject a nominee. Rejections are relatively uncommon; the Senate has explicitly rejected twelve Supreme Court nominees in its history. The most recent rejection of a nominee by vote of the full Senate came in 1987, when the Senate refused to confirm Robert Bork.

.
snip
.

Not everyone nominated by the President has received a floor vote in the Senate. Although Senate rules do not necessarily allow a negative vote in committee to block a Supreme Court nomination, a nominee may be filibustered once debate on the nomination has begun in the full Senate. A filibuster indefinitely prolongs the debate thereby preventing a final vote on the nominee. While senators may attempt to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee in an attempt to thwart confirmation, no nomination for Associate Justice has ever been filibustered. However, President Lyndon Johnson’s nomination of sitting Associate Justice Abe Fortas to succeed Earl Warren as Chief Justice was successfully filibustered in 1968.

.
Now maybe the GOP will try to hold this up in committee but it doesn’t seem like that’s the way its been handled in the past and in the end the rule you refer to is only about cutting off debate in committee. I suppose Republicans could try to continue debate in perpetuity in committee but considering how much smaller that group is it would seem a fools errand. But maybe wiki has got it all wrong. I don’t think so though. Maybe you can try to see has any Judicial nominee ever been held up in committee and never made it to a floor filibuster or vote.

Tristero over at Digby’s has a beautiful nominee suggestion, breathtaking in its implicit justice:
.
David Boies

The oral argument in Bush v. Gore occurred on December 11.[12] Bush’s oral argument was delivered by Theodore Olson, a Washington, D.C. lawyer and future Solicitor General. Gore’s oral argument was delivered by New York lawyer David Boies.

Also, JNS, with regards to your piece on torture investigations, why didn’t you ask anyone from the left about reasons why we should go through with them?

Thanks JNS -that’s why 10 degrees in Minnesota in January is “moderate”.

words that will come back to haunt him if he tries to change them now.
.
But none of the “up or down vote” words will come back to haunt the republicans?
.
IAC, I don’t think it will matter when the time comes. It’s too brazen. Hatch or Grassley will move the nomination along, if Graham won’t.

And Grassley’s up in 2010. That’s a safe seat at the moment, but after 18 months of Republican obstructionism and refusal to work for the country, it may not be.

Grassley has a smaller version of Specter’s problem. The increasingly strong grip that the religous right has on the Iowa republican party hurts him.
They cannot stand Grassley.

In a party of 21% — yeah, he is a moderate. Especially on judicial issues, ie Gang of 14.
.
That’s like saying he’s the most moderate member of the Phelps clan.

The title (Why Lindsey Graham is the Guy Obama Needs to Please in Replacing Souter) I’ve seen someplace before.

Oh yeah, Atrios (This Is Excellent News For Republicans) http://www.eschatonblog.com/2009/05/this-is-excellent-news-for-republicans.html.

Dave Broder pops up everywhere.

Even though the Republicans’ refusal to compromise on issues so far has been frustrating, I think Obama still wants to avoid a partisan bloodbath on this nomination.
.
Beyond that, I think many comments on this blog and others indicate a belief by many on the left that the country has shifted permanently in that direction–which I don’t agree with. Like it or not, we are more conservative in many respects than Europe and we are distinguishable from them–and this will always be the case. Fundamental shifts in opinions about economic and certain other issues notwithstanding, we are not entering a prolonged period of total Democratic dominance and it is naive and unrealistic to believe we are.

Get ready for the hypocrisy of the wingnuts on SCOTUS nominees.
.
http://firedoglake.com/2009/05/01/national-reviews-k-lo-suddenly-in-favor-of-white-house-consulting-with-congress-on-supreme-court-nominees/

jake
.
What does Europe have to do with the price of rice in China, let alone a judicial nominee?

I LOVE the fact that a writer for Time can repeatedly assert that a guy like Graham is a “moderate.” It is simply laughable. Being the least crazy person in an asylum doesn’t make you “sane.”
.
Positions like JNS’s are the reason that no one respects the journalism from the mainstream media anymore. Only in the MSM could Graham be a “moderate” while he is simultaneously appearing going on network television to call Obama a socialist.
.
BTW, is there ANYTHING that a Republican can say that would get them kicked off television?

That’s fine jake. You just stay with that. People really do believe, in their hearts, in the Republican programs that brought us to where we are today. So go out there and call for cutting taxes to the bankers, the hedge fund guys and the CEOs. Tell folks that the fact they can’t afford health care is good for them–it gives them an incentive to find a better job. Tell the parents of all those dead American soldiers that Iraq is no longer a looming threat to the Republic. Go on. Stick with the program. Tell parents that the free market dictates that toys be coated with lead. Oh, and there is no such thing as global warming, and that the way for kids to not get pregnant is to have no contraception access.
.
In fact,it’s pretty clear the problem was that the Bush/Delay/McConnell period needed to be tougher. So get those RINOs out of the party, and turn to your real leader Inhofe, Demint and Cornyn.
.
That’ll work.

So “moderate” is whatever the GOP says it is? “The question is, which is to be master — that’s all.”

choska and commentators in general: I do believe that in my post I say that everyone else on the committee is more conservative SAVE Graham and then cite the Gang of 14. I’m not making some blanket statement that Lindsey Graham is a moderate on every issue, just in the prism of of the judiciary committee. Let’s all take a deep breath and focus on the topic at hand: the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The current Republican Judiciary Committee members are: Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Jon Kyl, Jeff Sessions, Lindsey Graham, John Cornyn, and Tom Coburn (Roll Call is reporting that Hatch or Session — both conservatives — are Specter’s potential successors for the ranking slot). Most of these Republicans are pretty conservative save Graham, who was a member of the Gang of 14 which, you may remember, came up with the solution to avoid the nuclear option on judges.
JNS

Moderate = polite no matter how you vote.
There is no other definition under the standards of the juvenile D.C. journalist class.

“Most of these Republicans are pretty conservative save Graham, who was a member of the Gang of 14 which, you may remember, came up with the solution to avoid the nuclear option on judges.”
.
JNS-Just to be clear here. Being a member of the Gang of 14 does not make you moderate. It makes you a member of the Gang of 14. Your actions make you either a moderate, liberal, conservative or an obstructionist, no matter what gang you belong to or for what reason.

JNS: Thanks for the reply. FWIW, I do think “insider baseball” stories have their place. It’s good to know why Congress is so dysfunctional, and the process stuff is not obvious to outsiders.

Fair enough Jake, though if you want to engage in that argument let’s define our terms.
.
Let’s stipulate that Obama gets everything he claimed he wanted in his campaign: some sort of expansion to health care that might include enabling people to buy into Medicare, a reduction of troops in Iraq with an increase of troops in Afghanistan, increased spending and attention on the environment and education, the development of high speed rail, an increase in investment on green energy and an upgrade in the electrical grid, a tax decrease on people making less than $200k with an increase of the marginal tax rate on incomes over $250k from 36% to 39%
.
My God, man. Can you imagine the heck on Earth that would result if these things came to pass. What kind of crazy country full of left-wing lunatics would vote for an agenda like that?
.
BTW, assuming everything above does comes to pass, how exactly are we more conservative than the Europeans if we have high speed trains, tax rates on the rich around 40%, clean energy, tolerance for gay people, a more circumspect use of military force?
.
I guess we don’t have porn on the tube and topless women in the NY Post, and we don’t wear funny shaped shoes, but beyond that I’m trying hard to understand your assertion that the Europeans are more liberal than Americans. They strike me as more tolerant and rational than the average American. Does that make them “liberal” or just reasonable?

Hatch worked very closely with President Clinton on Breyer and Ginsburg, does that make him more or less “moderate” than Graham?

Remember Obama joining the fillibuster bid against Alito. Gee, turnabout is fair play..wonder if anybody here has a problem with the Republicans acting the same way..The hypocrisy of the media on this one will be fantastic.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-141442394.html

JNS, and everyone else — you are ignoring one important fact.
.
As far as the Senate rules are concerned, barring the passage of a new organizing resolution (or at the very least Specter officially changing his voter registration, which Pennsylvania law prevents him from doing until June, and he can wait to do for as long as he likes) Arlen Specter is still thr ranking Republican on the Judicary committee.
.
Have any of you considered Arlen Specter staying Republican long enough to be that lone Republican vote?
.
We do live in interesting times…

President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
.
Dear Mr. President:
.
We look forward to working with you as you consider nominees for the federal judiciary. Unfortunately, the judicial appointments process has become needlessly acrimonious. We would very much like to improve this process, and we know you would as well. It is in that spirit that we write early on to suggest two steps your Administration can take to achieve that shared goal.
.
First, in the beginning of his Administration, your predecessor demonstrated his desire to improve the judicial confirmation process by nominating to the circuit courts two of President Clinton’s previous judicial nominees, Judge Barrington Parker to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and Judge Roger Gregory to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. It would help change the tone in Washington if your Administration would take the same bipartisan step. Because the last Congress sadly set the modern record for the fewest circuit court confirmations in a President’s final Congress, there are plenty of well-qualified nominees with bipartisan support from whom to choose. For example, Peter Keisler has been praised repeatedly by colleagues in both the public and private sector, Democrats and Republicans, and has earned accolades from major media observers, like The Washington Post. And Judges Glen Conrad and Paul Diamond both enjoyed bipartisan support and have outstanding records on the federal trial bench.
.
Second, as our Democratic colleagues have emphasized for the last several years, the process of federal appointments is a shared constitutional responsibility. We respect your responsibility to nominate suitable candidates for the federal bench. And as a former colleague, we know you appreciate the Senate’s unique constitutional responsibility to provide or withhold its Advice and Consent on nominations. The principle of senatorial consultation (or senatorial courtesy) is rooted in this special responsibility, and its application dates to the Administration of George Washington. Democrats and Republicans have acknowledged the importance of maintaining this principle, which allows individual senators to provide valuable insights into their constituents’ qualifications for federal service.
.
We hope your Administration will consult with us as it considers possible nominations to the federal courts from our states. Regretfully, if we are not consulted on, and approve of, a nominee from our states, the Republican Conference will be unable to support moving forward on that nominee. Despite press reports that the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee now may be considering changing the Committee’s practice of observing senatorial courtesy, we, as a Conference, expect it to be observed, even-handedly and regardless of party affiliation. And we will act to preserve this principle and the rights of our colleagues if it is not.
.
Because of the profound impact that life-tenured federal judges can have in our society, the Founders made their appointment a shared constitutional responsibility. We look forward to working with you to discharge this important duty in the best interest of our country.

.
Sincerely,
All Republican Senators
.
http://republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=blogs.view&blog_id=3c522434-76e5-448e-9ead-1ec214b881ac
.
Cc: The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
.
http://republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=blogs.view&blog_id=3c522434-76e5-448e-9ead-1ec214b881ac

Most of these Republicans are pretty conservative save Graham, who was a member of the Gang of 14 which, you may remember, came up with the solution to avoid the nuclear option on judges.
.
My analogy stands.
.
More to the point, the evidence that Graham is a flaming conservative remains valid.

Jay, you are going to need to come up with more evidence besides the Gang of 14 to support your assertion that Graham is a “moderate.” The Gang of 14 allowed people like Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen to ascend to the bench. Nothing moderate about that. Moreover, Graham has voted for every conservative position he could possibly vote for.
.
I will stipulate that Graham is a polite and personable person who has an easier to like user interface than Cornyn and Kyl. But being a reasonable person to speak with does not make one a “moderate.”
.
Let’s check back in a few months to see if Graham’s “moderate” view point enables Obama’s nominee to sail through the Senate.

I think a lot of you are missing an important point that’s inherent to the Republicans’ “America is a center-right country” argument: WHERE’D THE FRAKKIN’ CENTER GO?!?
.
Even if you concede to the “center-right” argument (which I don’t, necessarily), it still begs the above question. If they really revere the center-right, why are they chasing all of the centrists away? How does that make them MORE appealing to average Americans? Isn’t that a strategic flaw?

JNS -

I’m pretty sure I remember that Hatch simply disregarded the “1 minority member” rule when he was Chairman.

ilikechips
.
Unfortunately for you when Specter left he probably took the filibuster with him. Remember that since you were one of those cheering his exit when he vote for cloture after the nominee comes to the full Senate.

Did everyone forget about the Gang of 14? Clearly, if this nomination makes it to the floor, there will be no filibuster. You would need every Republican vote and the two ladies from Maine are very unlikely to use their political capital on such a vote. In addition, I still think you will get it out of committee. First of all, unless Obama nominates an uber liberal, Hatch would look stupid to keep it in committee given his statements when the Republicans were in charge. Second, given that Souter became on of the more “liberal” members of the bench, someone who is moderately liberal would not change the balance of the Court. If it had been Scalia or Thomas who was retiring, you might have had a different situation.

Barack Obama is a naturally centrist politician. I would be shocked if his inclination was to nominate anyone who was strikingly liberal, particularly wrt corporate/business issues.
.
That being the case, Graham can obstruct at his own peril. The GOP is faced with the same uncomfortable question that the Dems faced when Justice Roberts was nominated: “What is the alternative?”
.
Obama can nominate center-left candidates with impeccable credentials until the cows come home. Does Graham really think 3 or 4 rounds of WATB antics are going to hurt Obama more than the GOP?

BTW, is there ANYTHING that a Republican can say that would get them kicked off television?
.
choska,
.
That would be a “no”. The pundits know that the more outrageous their guest, the better their ratings. And, for the GOP, the mantra has been that “there is no such things as bad publicity” for quite a while.
.
I guess the only thing that might tip the scales would be a “winger” going on national TV and calling outright for the assassination of the President. That MIGHT do the trick . . .

JNS: I think sgwhiteinfla at #35 has got it right. The rule is “only about cutting off debate in committee.” Which is still important, but hasn’t previously led to a nominee NOT being reported out to the full senate, when a majority of senators supports the nomination. For instance, the Judiciary Committee vote on Alito was pure party line, 10-8. Apparently, the vote to end debate garnered at least one Democratic Yea (Feinstein?), and so a final committee vote on Alito was allowed. One might be able to rely on Graham or Hatch or both to vote to end debate, but then vote against the nominee.

I guess the only thing that might tip the scales would be a “winger” going on national TV and calling outright for the assassination of the President. That MIGHT do the trick . . .
.
I doubt it. Said winger would “only be joking”.
.
I refer you to Jesse Helms’s commentin 1994 that Bill Clinton would need a bodyguard to visit a military base in North Carolina (Helms’ state). I submit that the media’s tolerance for wingnuttery was considerably less back then and yet Helms’ comment blew over pretty quickly.

I doubt it. Said winger would “only be joking”.
.
sqr1,
.
Or was “mis-quoted” or “quoted out of context” or “where’s your sense of humor”, etc. . . .
.
Knew ALL of these when I made the statement above . . . hence the “MIGHT” qualifier. Doesn’t mean they wouldn’t get a visit from the Secret Service, though.

Getting a free ride from the MSM and getting a free ride from the Secret Service are, I suspect, two different things.

What would be really great is if JNS could report on what Republicans have said previously about filibustering judicial nominees.
.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_05/017995.php
.

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ken.) said in May 2005, “The United States Senate faces an unprecedented crisis brought on by the minority party. Judges who have been nominated by the President of the United States to the federal bench have been held up by a filibuster and cannot get a fair up-or-down vote…. We must not let the minority party circumvent the Constitution, and take away the right of the President to have his judicial nominees voted on by a simple up-or-down vote.”
.
Kit Bond (R-MO)
“By resorting to filibustering judicial nominees who have the support of a majority of Senators, which began in 2003 by colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they are throwing overboard 214 years of Senate courtesy and tradition…The Constitution of the United States does not contain a word about filibusters. The Federalist Papers do not contain the word ‘filibuster.’ Rather, the Constitution lays out the standards for confirming judges. It does not require a 60-vote majority for confirmation. It requires a majority vote to confirm members of the Federal judiciary.” [Senate Floor Speech, 5/19/05]
.
Sam Brownback (R-KS)
“It’s important to note that the Constitutional option is still on the table. If one of the president’s nominees is filibustered at any point in the future, I will support the Senate leadership’s implementation of the Constitutional option. [...] All of the president’s nominees-both now and in the future-deserve a fair up or down vote, regardless of whether some members of the Senate feel they can be filibustered based on whatever they define to be extraordinary circumstances.” [Brownback.Senate.gov, "Brownback Statement on Judicial Nominees," 5/24/05]
.
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
“The United States Senate faces an unprecedented crisis brought on by the minority party. Judges who have been nominated by the President of the United States to the federal bench have been held up by a filibuster and cannot get a fair up-or-down vote. [...] I support a change in the rules of the Senate to allow for an up-or-down vote on judicial nominations. We must not let the minority party circumvent the Constitution, and take away the right of the President to have his judicial nominees voted on by a simple up-or-down vote.” [Bunning.Senate.gov, "The Duty To Vote Up-Or-Down," 5/29/05]
.
Richard Burr (R-NC)
“If anything, we are saying, for 214 years this institution, the Senate, had a gentleman’s agreement, and that agreement was that the filibuster would never be used for judicial nominees. For 214 years they showed restraint, even though the rule allowed them to do it because they understood that the process was so important to make sure the best and the brightest found their way to the bench. For 214 years a handshake was all it took [...] What happened for 214 years? This debate is about principle. It is about allowing judicial nominees an up or-down vote on the Senate floor. And I believe it is an issue of fairness.” [Senate Floor Speech, 5/19/05]
.
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) & Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
“We both wholeheartedly support discussion and debate regarding judicial nominees. It is important for each judicial nominee to have his or her qualifications examined, undergo thorough background checks and be asked tough questions. But it is also important that after a time of extensive debate, there must also be a time for a decision. [...] Like many Americans, we believe that our nation’s judicial system should be put above partisan politics and under no circumstances should either party obstruct the courts from doing their important work. In this particular case, the Senate must give each nominee a fair, up-or-down vote to fulfill its constitutional duty.” [The Atlanta Journal Constitution via Isakson.Senate.gov, "Filibusters obstruct the Senate's duty," 5/24/09]

.

John Cornyn (R-TX)
“I believe, about the process of reestablishing the precedent of majority rule that had prevailed for 214 years in the Senate, that would say any President’s nominees, whether they be Republican or Democrat, if they have the support of a majority of the Senate, will get an up-or-down vote in the Senate. Senators who believe these nominees should be confirmed can vote for them and those who believe they should not be confirmed can vote against them.” [Senate Floor Speech, 5/24/05]
.

Jim DeMint (R-SC)
“How can I advise and consent without the ability to cast a vote? Forty-one senators are preventing a bipartisan majority from carrying out the duty we were elected to fulfill. In 2003, Democrats used the filibuster to block up-or-down votes on 10 nominations – all had bipartisan, majority support. This was unprecedented. [...] We need to end the undemocratic blockade of judicial nominees, which is why I have urged Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to consider the constitutional option. Senators were elected to advise and consent, not to grandstand and obstruct.” [The State via Demint.Senate.gov, "It's Time for Votes on Judicial Nominees," 5/22/05]
.
John Ensign (R-NV)
“We must put an end to this mockery of our system before it becomes impossible to undo the damage. I am sure a lot of Americans believe this is politics as usual. It is not. Filibustering of judicial nominations is an unprecedented intrusion into the longstanding practice of the Senate’s approval of judges. We have a constitutional obligation of advise and consent when it comes to judicial nominees. While there has always been debate about nominees, the filibuster has never been used in partisan fashion to block an up-or-down vote on someone who has the support of a majority of the Senate.” [Senate Floor Speech, 5/11/05]
.

Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
“History has proven the wisdom of having the President place judges with the support of the majority of the Senate. That process ensures balance on the court between judges placed by Republican Presidents and those placed by Democrat Presidents. The current obstruction led by Senate Democratic leaders threatens that balance. It’s time to make sure all judges receive a fair vote on the Senate floor.” [Grassley.Senate.gov, "Talking Judges to Death," 5/8/05]
.
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
“‘There never was a filibuster of a majority-supported judicial nominee until a couple of years ago… It is inconsistent with the Constitution and with the Framers’ intent as documented in the Federalist Papers and the notes of James Madison.” [Portsmouth Herald, "N.H. voice key on filibusters," 5/19/2005]
.
“From a constitutional perspective, judicial nominations have the right to an up or down vote in the Senate, and the filibustering of these nominations is inconsistent with over 200 years of tradition in the Senate and distorts our system of checks and balances.” [Portsmouth Herald, "N.H. voice key on filibusters," 5/19/2005]
.
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
“All we are asking is the 214-year tradition of the Senate that judicial nominees not be filibustered be followed. That has been the tradition of the Senate up until President Bush became President. All we are asking is that every one of these qualified nominees who have reached the floor receive an up-or-down vote. That is all we are asking.” [Senate Floor Speech, 4/27/05]
.
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
“In all these cases, she had a majority of votes in the Senate for confirmation, but she is not on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals today. Why? Because her nomination is being filibustered by Democrats, and she has been held to a standard of 60 votes instead of 51. That is changing the Constitution of the United States. [...] It is not the rule that is being changed in this debate. It is the precedent of the Senate, for 200 years, that was changed in the 108th Congress, by requiring 60 votes for the confirmation of judges. And we are now looking to reaffirm the will of the Senate to do exactly what the Constitution envisions; and that is, a 51-vote majority for judges. Two hundred years of Senate precedent is being torn apart. Through Democrat majority control and Republican majority control over the years-the filibuster was not used as it was in the last session of Congress.” [Senate Floor Speech, 4/27/05]
.
James Inhofe (R-OK)
“But the Democrats, who cannot muster a majority to oppose him, are seeking, in effect, to change the Constitutional majority-vote requirement. By sustaining this filibuster, they are asserting that 60 votes, not 50, will be required to approve Mr. Estrada. If successful, their effort will amount to a de facto amendment to the Constitution. This outrageous grab for power by the Senate minority is wrong and contrary to our oath to support and defend the Constitution,” Inhofe said. [Senate Floor Speech, 3/11/03]
.
John Kyl (R-AZ)
“For 214 years it has been the tradition of the Senate to approve judicial nominees by a majority vote. Many of our judges and, for example, Clarence Thomas, people might recall, was approved by either fifty-one or fifty-two votes as I recall. It has never been the rule that a candidate for judgeship that had majority support was denied the ability to be confirmed once before the Senate. It has never happened before. So we’re not changing the rules in the middle of the game. We’re restoring the 214-year tradition of the Senate because in the last two years Democrats have begun to use this filibuster. [...] This is strictly about whether or not a minority of senators is going to prevent the president from being able to name and get confirmed judges that he chooses after he’s been elected by the American people. And it’s never been the case until the last two years that a minority could dictate to the majority what they could do.” [NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, "Judicial Wars," 4/25/05]
.
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
“Because of the unprecedented obstruction of our Democratic colleagues, the Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President’s judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote. I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate’s ‘advise and consent’ responsibilities to ‘advise and obstruct.’ [...]Given those results, many of us had hoped that the politics of obstruction would have been dumped in the dustbin of history. Regretfully, that did not happen.” [Senate Floor Speech, 5/19/05]
.
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
“Since the founding of the Republic, we have understood that there was a two-thirds supermajority for ratification and advice and consent on treaties and a majority vote for judges. That is what we have done. That is what we have always done. But there was a conscious decision on behalf of the leadership, unfortunately, of the Democratic Party in the last Congress to systematically filibuster some of the best nominees ever submitted to the Senate. It has been very painful.” [Senate Floor Speech, 5/23/05]

.
So JNS its real simple, just call all these Republican Senators and see if they stand by their words.

So JNS its real simple, just call all these Republican Senators and see if they stand by their words.
.
sgwhite,
.
Are you calling for a full-blown “Hypocrisy Watch” of the GOP over judicial nominees by Time and other MSM entities?
.
Heavens, that smacks of “accountability”! Don’t you know that’s un-American?

Cabresi’s article is pretty good except for this paragraph:
.
The one non-judicial candidate considered to be in the top tier of potential choices is Jennifer Granholm, 50, the current governor of Michigan. With a court full of Circuit judges, Granholm would make a mark as a politician, a throwback to the past when politicians, like Earl Warren or Hugo Black, were often chosen for the Supreme Court. And there could be political reasons for picking her; though he won it quite handily, Michigan is still a swing state, and Granholm would please unions, one of several groups Obama will have to contend with on his left. Labor and some civil rights groups have long complained that some Clinton appointees, especially Justice Stephen Breyer, are too centrist on business or national security issues, and they will pressure Obama for a reliably liberal voice.
.
Maybe time will prove me wrong, but I’m pretty sure that Obama will want someone with stellar legal credentials and compatable philosophies. I’m sure he is nowhere near as cynical and calculating as Massimo is willing to portary him. That’s simply projection in action.

SGWhite – As to your quotes above: Well played, sir. Well played . . .

The Republican Noise Machine is broken and all of this preemptive shouting of NO! right off the bat is going to seriously harm the GOP. It may bring in the page views and the fundraising dollars, but it will politically harm the GOP. The wilderness awaits.

The wilderness awaits.
.
With open arms, I DO hope . . . I know we’re anxious for them to make the trip.

I’d like to see Obama nominate a moderate that appeals to both sides of the aisle. That isn’t going to happen so I want a balls-to-the-wall liberal activist that will have the wingnuts frothing at the mouth. I’m sick of the wingnuts. I’m sick of RWer’s. I’m sick of their opposing everything that a President WE elected ran on and besides that…I’m in no mood to compromise with those looney toons. As a great philosopher once said “Run em’ the phuck over. Thump, thump”.

SacredH – Why isn’t that going to happen? Some of the names that have been floating around – such as Sonia Sotomayer – seem like they’d appeal to centrists . . . or do you mean that, since there ARE no Republican centrists, that compromise would fall on deaf ears?

I do believe that in my post I say that everyone else on the committee is more conservative SAVE Graham and then cite the Gang of 14. I’m not making some blanket statement that Lindsey Graham is a moderate on every issue, just in the prism of of the judiciary committee. Let’s all take a deep breath and focus on the topic at hand: the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Lindsey Graham and Jon Kyl lied to the Supreme Court. I’d say that makes him less of a moderate than Chuck Grassley, who to the best of my knowledge has not lied to the Supreme Court.

Because of Massimo’s father’s exquisite expertise on judicial and economic philosophy, he will be one of the better writers to watch on this issue, I hope. Unlike Mark Halperin, whose initial reaction was “White Men Need Not Apply.”

vastwastelander: That was exactly my point. There is no moderate that that would appeal to the now mythical Republican centrists. The republican idea of a centrist is someone that was prochoice in college but a raving anti-abortion, tax cut screaming, card carrying NRA member, Muslim hating evangelical for the last 30 years. They can’t compromise or else Rush will make them crawl on their kness and lick his shoes, so why even try?

OT–Sestak on Hardball right now responding to Matthews asking him if he will run against Specter “He fought healthcare in the 90s….He made this choice for survivability… Too many people have lost their jobs to worry about Arlen’s.”

Beautiful post, SG.

pouremecoffe gets a shout out on crooks and liars
.
http://tinyurl.com/cq7zv9

SZ afguy and vastwastelander I can’t really take credit, MediaMatters did all the work I just posted the quotes they rounded up.
.
As for Sestak its pretty obvious he was planning on running for that Senate seat and he is PISSED about Specter crossing over. Tweety is too by the way. Matthews has been harder on Specter for switching over than Joe Scarborough has been. I am wondering if he was still flirting with runnng or something because it seems personal whenever Specter’s name comes up.

You would think that the fact that Lindsey Graham and Jon Kyl lied to the Supreme Court would affect their perceived ability to block Obama’s nominee in the Judiciary Committee lest that ugly chapter be brought out for a fuller reexamination. Lying to a tribunal is grounds for disbarment or sanctions at the very least. At the least, it tarnishes their credibility. The fact that they lied in furtherance of the Bush Administration’s disastrous detention policies further erodes their credibility. In addition, their constitutional arguments were rejected, further diminishing their stature on constitutional issues.

SG -Sestak may be pissed, he didn’t come off that way almost the opposite, but he didn’t say anything I disagreed with.
He allowed that Specter may have changed his mind but he has “grave doubts”.
As for Tweety I couldn’t care less.

PNNTO
.
I wasn’t talking about this particular appearance for Sestak. I was talking about the fact that Sestak has been almost literlly EVERYWHERE since Arlen switched over to remind everyone that Specter was just running from an ass whupping. He has basically been the only person consistently complaining about the move. Even Bob Casey backed off a little bit after coming out concerned about the move. It wasn’t that Sestak comes off as angry. Its the fact that he isn’t going to let it go. I also don’t see anything wrong with it because I see it as a motivating factor for Specter to toe the line. But to me at least its clear that Sestak isn’t happy at all about Specter being a Democrat and I suspect that no matter what he still may challenge Specter next year. Did you notice tonight that he called President Obama out too?

LOMFL, losing control of my bowels funny: “Caitlin Thomspon has a podcast where she interviews Amy Sullivan and me about the GOP and congressional fallout from Souter’s decision.”
~
That’s some must-see sh!t folks. I’m going to go watch ducks copulate now.
~
And Graham is a moderate!? Sort of like Joe Klein is a liberal, right? Uh huh. God, this place is funny.

SG you have been much more sanguine about this Specter stuff than I have, and as the commenter I seem to align with most it has made me think harder about his switch, but I flat out don’t like this.
.
I just can’t believe that Penn Democrats can’t do better than Arlen. Ivy has had some interesting thoughts on this and I hope Ivy keeps posting as the race develops.
.
My baseball watching has kept me away from much cable “news” so I haven’t seen Sestak as much as you have. Still, his affect and message seems exactly right to me.

SG in full quote mode is a sight to behold. Congrats. Tweety came up with another “novel” idea: no quotas. Seems that we should go for an ex-pol – when some argue for a Hispanic. Funny: he can’t seem to get his hands around a Latina and a competent candidate. Anyway I don’t want his hand out anywhere.

My suggestion: Watch Hatch: he is reliable when it comes to breaking a log jam.

Shame on you jcapan!-we’ve all been too polite to snicker.

PNNTO: I live about 50 minutes from Pittsburgh and the western part of the state plays pretty well for Specter. If he does play ball with cloture and Obama makes a few campaign stops for him, he’s got the western part of Pa sewn up. I agree about Ivy-B’s political insights. They add a great deal to the discussion.
OT, but Barney Frank is on Bill Mahr tonight. He’s always entertaining.

PNNTO
.
I see the value of the situation but it doesn’t mean I think its a great situation. There is no doubt in my mind that Sestak or any of the other real Democrats would make a better Senator for our side but I also realize that by the time that materializes basically two years would have passed and most of the agenda would have already been voted on. The reason why I am not pissed about it is because Sestak can still run if he wants to next year and the truth is if Spector doesn’t get with the program he will get beat in the primary next year and still lose his seat. In the meantime we really don’t give up much other than some fundraising and promises to endorse him. He doesn’t get any chairmanships until after next year if then. We really can only gain for the next two years from Specter being a Dem, we don’t really lose anything. For me it all comes down to results. If Specter votes for cloture on big issues then I will say it was worth it and be cool with Obama and Rendell campaigning for Specter. If he doesn’t I and probably every other Democrat including you I am sure are going to call on Obama and Rendell to rescind their endorsements and back a real Democrat. Its all vote counting for me. If it works cool, if not get him out of there.

Sacred- I didn’t know you were a local, thanks for the info. As with Ivy I really look forward to your perspective.
.
SG you make a rational case. There is a period after the next 18 months and I just think Specter is not the best Democratic senator that Penn can elect. The bar should be higher than voting for cloture.
If the republicans nominate Toomey it will be a huge opportunity lost.

Adding-I consider that an open seat and would really like if the DC Democrats (BHO and Reid) would stay out of the primary.

This is off topic but Dan Froomkin’s takedown of the Kraut was just too good not to pass along.
.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/torture/krauthammers-asterisks.html

How Froomkin keeps his job at that rag amazes me.

PNNTO: I live in the extreme eastern part of central Ohio. 10 minutes fron W Va and 20 from Pennsylvania. Lots of farm country and dying steel mills. People don’t have to lock their doors at night in my neighborhood. 15 minutes away and there are crack houses. There have been times when I haven’t passed a single car on my 8 mile drive to work.

I don’t understand why the right is so worried about Obama’s pick. I’m sure he will be as gutless on this decision as he is at pursuing war criminals, unless they aren’t American.

The fact that they lied in furtherance of the Bush Administration’s disastrous detention policies further erodes their credibility.
.
No, no. In the Beltway that enhances their credibility. If the president authorized it, that means it’s not illegal.

Sacred- Eastern Ohio, 10 minutes fron W Va and 20 from Pennsylvania. That is a hard area. The amount of political commercials (primary and general) you have endured the last cycle I can only imagine.

Caitlin Thomspon has a podcast where she interviews Amy Sullivan and me about the GOP and congressional fallout from Souter’s decision.
.
Won’t someone please think of the children?

This is meaningless. The senate majority leader has the power to move a nominee from committee to the floor without any vote taking place in the committee.

If it got bogged down in the committee Reid would just move it to the floor that is well within the majority leader’s rights.

Also it is senate tradition that nominees for the supreme court go to the senate floor. Clarence Thomas didn’t win majority from the commitee and went to the floor.

Judge Bork lost the committee vote but went right to the floor.

Alito had no senate support in the committee but went to the senate floor.

It is senate tradition that all nominees to the supreme court go to the senate floor.

Also the GOP has never tried to block dem supreme court picks. Ruth Bader Ginsberg got 96 votes and many of those gop senators are still there.

A lot of dems wanted to filibuster alito. Obama even took part in a vote against cloture against alito.

The dems stopped Miguel Estrada from being a dc circuit court judge by filibustering him. Estrada would have been the first hispanic justice but the dem special interest groups won.

The dem senators in the spring of 03 gathered in their weekly caucus lunch and all but one senator ben nelson said they would block estrada from being a judge. Ted Kennedy even brought up how he would use hispanics against him. Ted Kennedy was working with naral to block him. The dems were the true party of no voting in lockstep to block estrada. The dems would not allow a conservative hispanic.

This Judiciary Committee rule is really nonsensical. Democrats need to get Specter on their side and change this rule. I think he’ll go along for two reasons: 1. He said today that nominating a woman or minority is a good idea. 2. He would probably like to stick it to his old party, since they’ve done nothing but dump on him lately, and especially since his switch.

The Republicans should do what Obama did…support fillibustering of judicial nominees. I highly doubt the Obama slobbering lovefest MSM will even dare report this..” What was the most enchanting thing about your first 100 days.” Yea…I heard those types of questions from NY times reporters to Bush..

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-141442394.html

Well well, the far left liberal extremists are all jumping for joy today. Funny thing is that Souter IS a liberal. What is all the fuss?
.
Replacing one liberal with another, is simply that. Now if Obama places into nomination someone who is going to go for “empathy” as he calls it and starts the creation of a legislative judical branch, then he has a fight on his hands.
.
Why does Obama hate the constitution so badly? Was it his socialist / communist up-bringing?

Bush appointed two very conservative Supreme Court Justices: Roberts and Alito. The Democrats allowed their nominations to get through the judiciary committee. The Republicans should do the same.

No John..They should fillibuster…just as your Messiah supported against Alito..turnbout is fair play.

I’ll trade filibusters for trials any day of the week. It sounds like a fair trade. You filibuster us and we put your people on trial. Let’s play ball.

PNNTO: I do seem to recall a couple of campaign ads. About every minutes for a few months. It got so bad we wouldn’t watch any program unless it was DVR’d and we could scan through the slop.

Hell I honestly hope they do filibuster the nominee, at least for a little while. It will give the perfect opportunity to put out attack ads with their own words on the subject of filibusters repeated over and over again. It would be digging their holes just a little bit deeper. Remember that in most of their previous statements they said their standards of not filibustering judicial nominees applied to Democratic just as well as Republican Presidents. Talk about low hanging fruit.

[...] Online also comments: The current Republican Judiciary Committee members are: Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Jon Kyl, Jeff [...]

Reading the thread late – interesting.
.
SZ way back @ 36: David Boies – YES! Brilliant. I was mesmerized by him during Gore v Bush. Very Lincoln-esque. A perfect fit for Obama IMO.

Rusty said….
“Why does Obama hate the constitution so badly? Was it his socialist / communist up-bringing”?

….having read the Constitution a couple of times, I’ve been unable to find anything in there that prohibits “socialism”, or supports any particular economic system, such as “capitalism”. Come to think of it, there’s no mention of God, either, unless you count the “Year of our Lord” stuff at the end. I would think that a guy who I’m sure fancies himself as a “strict constructionist” would have a handle on all these inconsistencies…

It’s the weekend folks and if they don’t give us any more food for thought, is this buffet going to be the open thread we had last weekend?

Why not? I’m interested in an answer to a question I had a few threads back. Maybe someone can help me;
.
At what point is a murderer of a pregnant woman charged with two murders? It would seem to me that that would be a salient point in the whole abortion debate.

nhautamaki, I’m not sure if you are just stirring the pot or if you are actually curious.
Here are the relevant state case laws.
.
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm

nhautamaki: Good question. My own opinion is that it would be two murders if the fetus was able to survive outside of the womb. I’ve thought about that too. A question that has occurred to me is what if you are involved in a fender bender with a woman who is 2 months pregnant and she miscarries because the airbag deploys? Is it vehicular homicide or some version? The problem I have with defining a fetus as person at the moment of conception is that there are too many variables to consider. If genetic testing of the fetus shows serious problems with the baby, would the woman still be permitted to abort? There are many people born with serious defects who exist even if their quality of life is terrible. We don’t even consider terminating their life because they have those problems. The financial cost to society is huge in many of those cases and the parents literally have to devote the rest of their lives and financial resources to take care of them. When my son gets married and decides to start a family, if his wife turned out to be carrying a child that was going to have serious defects that would require them to devote the rest of their lives, all of their time and all of their money…if they asked me for my advice, I would advise them to terminate the pregnancy. I support a woman’s right to choose, but I personally am against abortion in many cases. I wouldn’t presume to claim that I have any right to make blanket decisions for others. There is no easy answer to this question. Like I said, good question.

.
Listing of possible nominees, by frequency of speculation in various media sources.

Quinnipeac (sp?) is taking a poll over the weekend on the PA Senate race and the results will be available Monday morning. Obviously they will be all over the news.
.
Paul, I agree with sacredh that Specter is popular in the Western part of the state – more so than in the east, I think. Many of us have had longer to get tired of him.
.
I think sgwhite has it right – the primary is a year away and if Specter doesn’t make some saves for the Dems, he will be gone. However, he has over six million in his campaign funds now, so if Rendell and Obama put their minds to raising funds for him, that will be a challenge to beat.
.
Saw Sestak last night on Hardball. He was a big Obama supporter in the primary, but couldn’t carry his district for Obama – it went for Hillary. There is a lot I like about him, but he also has a lot of work to do. I think he and Torsella will run in the primary, at least for a while, in order to get some statewide exposure for the next race.

Ivy_B Says:
Saturday, May 2, 2009 at 9:34 am
“Paul, I agree with sacredh that Specter is popular in the Western part of the state – more so than in the east, I think. Many of us have had longer to get tired of him.”
.
I do not know what you know about Western PA, but Specter has always been considered a turn-coat on how he votes. He lost the last election in my voting district, and Toomey beat him here.
.
Now if you are just calling “Western Pennsylvania” those counties in and around Pittsburgh, then perhaps. But, the vast majority of Republicans in Western PA reside outside of Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh is the Democrats 2nd biggest strong-hold.
.
Just to give you all some PA Historical / Geographical lessons on Politics.

Pennsylvania not heavy with big steel factories and coal mines–the northern tier of counties along the New York border, the central part of the state around the Welsh railroad town of Altoona, and the Pennsylvania Dutch country around Lancaster, an area referred to by political consultants as the “T”–remained the strongest Republican voting bloc in the East. Philadelphia became a heavily Democratic city, but in the suburban counties, the antique Republican machines stayed in control. The result was a key marginal state in presidential elections from the 1950s to the 1990s.
.
http://election.nationaljournal.com/states/pa.htm
.
And, it remains this way today.

Hmmm.
.
Then how do you explain this?
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/party-of-nobody.html
.
And this?
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/is-sestak-right-choice-for-left.html
.
We have alien abduction aficionados in our state too. Doesn’t mean they’ll get elected.

I’m looking for a good overview of Sotomayor’s likely stand on issues, and am having difficulty.
.
If someone has something informative about her, can you post a link?

fifty–Thanks for the 538 links. Franco Harris? News to me.

Ben Smith is happy to spread the oppo take on Sotomayor. All in all pretty thin gruel I think.The last point is pretty rich coming from people who love Scalia.

Sonia Sotomayor
.
-Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court would be very concerning given her hard-left record on the Court of Appeals, where she is recognized by practitioners as one of the more liberal judges.

-Judge Sotomayor’s personal views may cloud her jurisprudence. As Judge Sotomayor explained in a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color” in their decision making, which she believes should “affect our decisions.”

-Only just recently, in Ricci v. DeStefano, Judge Sotomayor was chastised by fellow Clinton-appointee Jose Cabranes for going to extraordinary lengths to dispense with claims of unfair treatment raised by firefighters. Judge Sotomayor’s panel heard a case raising important questions under Title VII and equal protection law, but attempted to dispose of the firefighter’s arguments in a summary order, until called out by Judge Cabranes. The Supreme Court has agreed to review the case.

-Substantial questions also persist regarding Judge Sotomayor’s temperament and disposition to be a Supreme Court justice. Lawyers who have appeared before her have described her as a “bully” who “does not have a very good temperament” and who “abuses lawyers” with “inappropriate outbursts.”

“Judge Sotomayor’s personal views may cloud her jurisprudence. As Judge Sotomayor explained in a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color” in their decision making, which she believes should “affect our decisions.”
.
Whatever happened to “justice is blind”?

Oh stupid rusty. It is the progressive ideals they want to corrupt a system that has worked very well for over 230 years. Progressives would like it to be a “living document”. Allow the court to legislate from the bench when they are not able to get laws enacted by Congress.
.
It is the same idea that using a “World-wide global set of international law” to have the Senate approve so-called “treaties” which will supercede the constitution. The unfortunate thing is most Americans have no clue as to the far left liberal extremists aka as “progressives” and how they want to destroy not only the constitution, but America as we have known it for the same 230+ years. Imagine that.

PNNTO:
.
Sounds to me she’s a kick-ass-and-take-names type who may just be a pretty good choice.
.
re Rusty’s dislike of the constitution as a “living document” which it should be:
.
“Oh stupid rusty.”
.
bingo! dingdingdingdingding!
Give the man a ceegar!

PNNTO:
.
Missed the Franco Harris thing entirely. Just read it from 4/30. I say, why not.
.
Give Harris some exposure in the primaries, get him a spot afterward (if Specter stays in the fold), and let him run for daylight in the next election cycle.
.
It’d be good to see someone who can put a hat on GOPers in a crunch.
.
Only he’d do the crunching…

” let him run for daylight” “put a hat on GOPers ”
.
Fifty, you just couldn’t resist could you?
.
I need to read a lot more about Sotomayor, but as I mentioned if that is the sum and total of the objections I’m not concerned.

I think Franco Harris is a great choice but I also think we might want to save him for something like Governer. Get him in the House of Reps for two years then try to let him run the state. Who knows if he does a great job maybe President one day. I met the guy and think he has a great personality but I also wonder if he has any skeletons in his closet that might come out later as tons of ex NFLers have. If you run him for the House first you get to see if any of that junk comes out and if so we can pull him back.

rustypooch,
.
Take a look at the Heller decision and tell me again with a straight face that Lord Scalia is using a “strict constructionist” argument to overturn 200+ years of jurisprudence. He actually references what type of guns people have prefered to protect themselves with for the last 50 years as a reason every individual has a right to own a handgun for protection in their homes. Strict constructinist my arse- he’s an ideological crusader who knows the outcome he wants and works backwards to make the facts fit that ideology. Heller is the most ACTIVIST judicial ruling in ages.
.
And one more note on the absolutely idiotic concept of strict constructionism, (you “conservatives” REALLY think the Founders intended every decision to be based on an attempted mind-reading of what the Framers would have said about an issue in the late 1700′s, even if that issue was not even foreseeable in that era??). Here is the “strict constructionists” least favorite amendment, the 9th: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” That should put it all to bed right there. People have more rights than are enumerated in the Constitution, like privacy as an obvious example. Stew on that, rustypooch.

That’s a good suggestion. He can keep Specter honest though in the meantime. He seems to be a pretty clean up and down guy, as NFL players go. Is he getting to be a hot commodity over there in Penn?
.
Wonder what Conrad Dobler’s political views are. Nevermind. Maybe he’s a better GOP candidate after all, considering…
.
The House definitely might be the place to start, and no, I could not resist!
.
I’m just sorry our Steve Largent chose to be a GOPer, and a rather rabid one at that for Oklahoma.
.
I think that if there’s no significant warts on Sotomayor, she’ll be the pick. Considering the Anita Hill affair, I think that depending on the kind of skeletons in her closet, she’ll still get a pass.

Specter has been branded as a turncoat. But that brand comes from the base of the republican party, not the moderates, independents and conservative democrats that Specter appeals to. The republican party is shrinking in Pa so if he isn’t popular with the most conservative elements of the republican party, it doesn’t matter to anyone else but them. Specter hasn’t survived this long by being stupid. He’ll change on enough issues to be acceptable to the democratic party while still throwing a bone to the moderates in Pa. He’ll draw the ire of the left (that would be me), but pragmatism comes first. The election isn’t until November of 2010 and the winner won’t get seated until January of 2011. That’s a long time to fight filibusters if Specter hadn’t switched. The more legislation that can get through the cloture business the better. Specter can vote to let the vote take place and then vote against it. That’s fine by me as long as the bills have a chance to be voted on in the first place.

piper1:
.
I don’t even think that ‘strict constuctionism’ is possible. Even then, the intent of the framers of the constitution 230 years ago is not directly discernable, and is subjective. This means that GOPers can pretty much read into the constitution what they want.
.
This makes ‘strict constructionalism’ no better than interpreting it as a living document. I wish I was more up to snuff on constitutional history, but as I remember, even the founders had percieved that the document might evolve.
.
As a matter of fact, the very fact that they implemented machinery to amend it makes me believe that that is so. If we didn’t have a ‘living document’ interpretation even as early as the 1860s, we would still be stuck with 3/5 of a man, etc. which were part of the contitution before the Civil War. Of course, there’s sufferage, too, which didn’t get resolved until 85 years ago. So, in my opinion, the ‘strict constructionalist’ is just a catchphrase with empty meaning because jurist of that bent has to do just as much interpreting as anyone who espouses the ‘living document’ model.
.
I think ‘strict constructionism’ is just a sham, behind which, the GOP could put their political spin on things. gloriusglo2′s points about our economic system not being enshrined in the contitution is a glaring example of the fallacy of this so-called point of view.

In all reality for some odd reason most of the former football guys who go into politics end up being Republicans. Didn’t Lynn Swann recently run for something as a Republican? And I know we all remember JC Watts. Dr Tom Osborne was also a Republican I believe there is even a guy here in Tampa that used to be a pro wrestler, Brian Blair, who you would think would HAVE to be a Democrat thats a Republican. I don’t really get it honestly.

sacredh:
.
I think Specter gives Obama a bigger footprint. One thing I’ll give Specter is that he’s not a Blue Dog, he’s more a sign that Dems are picking both sides of the centerline on the mainstream political road.
.
The only thing I don’t really like is Specter’s stand of EFCA. I think once things get better, economics-wise, the GOP will finally collapse. If Obama can’t get around a filibuster, he can do a recess appointment, then return to the issue later when he has more political captial to spend.
.
That 538 article kind of says it all.

sgw: Money. Pro athletes make a sh!tload. They want to keep as much of it as possible. For all the whining the republicans do about Hollywood and people in the entertainment business, they run far more of those people than the democrats do. Name recognition makes up a little bit for political savvy or ability. They actively court those people hoping that their former careers will provide give them a leg up. Once they’re elected they have to follow the party line or get tossed. They may have family that are solidly democratic, but they’ll vote however they have to to keep getting re-elected.

Paul-NNTO, thanks for the link, very interesting. I noticed that many of the states that have laws on the books about killing the fetus defined the fetus as alive from the point of conception, which would seem to be a small win for pro-lifers in those states. On the other hand, most of the laws also had a specific provision granting the mother the right to abort the fetus.
.
Seems a little contradictory. Abortion sure is a moral mess isn’t it!

“I think ‘strict constructionism’ is just a sham, behind which, the GOP could put their political spin on things.” Perty much, glad you mentioned the Amendment process too which obviously supports the living document theory. There is a profound arrogance inherent in believing one can read the minds of the Founding Father on issues they could not have dreamed of- and they the Founders were smart enough to know the world would change in ways they could not predict and the Constitution was designed to accomodate those changes while still providing a timeless framework.
.
I still do hope rusty the wonder pooch comes around to defend his pulled-from-thin-air ideology. I’m off to the Cubs game…

I didn’t get it either, sg. I’m thinking that there is a temptation, once one comes into a lot of money, to mingle with a crowd that they would have never otherwise mingled with, and whose views may not be compatible with who they were but more with who they are.
.
I think that it is selfishness that might rule the roost on political ID. I wonder if we could get someone like Moses Malone to speak on just exactly what he thinks of the GOP now. He was born in the same year I was, and was more than able to appreciate, even as a young man, the pregression of Civil Rights during that period of time.
.
I’ve seen arrogance on the part of some Black stars/athletes/musicians who are really just for the blingbling and care about nothing else*. Maybe being in the GOP is a status symbol? Maybe, once these individuals* get rich, the concept of being poor is an aversion – and to be avoided at all costs.
.
*this is a very extant train of thought in the ‘white’ community as well, and is a universal thing, I think.

53_3
.
Did you notice that Charles Barkley has now disowned the GOP? For years he said he would try to run for governer of Alabama as a Republican. Now I don’t know if he was just bullsh*tting or not but he doesn’t have anything good to say about them anymore thats for sure.

53_3: I agree. The whole point of Specter switching is to keep his political career alive for him and to give Obama’s agenda a chance to hit the floor for a vote for us. Specter is not my first choice by any stretch of the imagination. The whole thing for me comes down to political reality. He uses us and we use him. It’s not pretty and it’s not something that falls into “if I had my druthers category”, but whatever works is what I’ll settle for. 538 is great. I wonder why more republicans don’t take a lesson from it? I guess nobody likes reading their obituary when nobody has anything good to say about them..

BTW Specter is hitting the Sunday Shows tomorrow which I am sure isn’t that much of a surprise. But I bet you David Gregory treats him as hostile after several times giving him softball interviews over the years.
.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/the-sunday-show-line-ups-4.php

sacredh
.
I don’t know. I have known several pro athletes in my time and they were all solid Democrats who gave a lot back to their communities. A few b*tched and moaned about high taxes but many of them were all about social safety nets and being pro choice. Maybe its the the Republicans just look for pro athletes more to recruit for office. I give you a prime example right now. Derrick Brooks was released from the Bucs this year and may very well retire. Well this guy would be the PERFECT Dem to run for a House seat and maybe in a few years the Senate. He is a family man, he gives back tremendously to the community, he is on the board at his alma mater of FSU, hell he even opened a high school down here if you can believe that. And it isn’t a private school either. He has teamed up with the old owner of the 49ers Eddie DeBartolo to do some great things here in the community. But I bet nobody has even attempted to get in his ear and try to get him to run for higher office. I know one thing, if I was the person making those kinds of decisions I definitely would

sg:
.
I never understood any Black participation in the GOP. Really. I guess that Barcley was willing to overlook most of the b*llsh!t until someone like Rush comes out with ‘be quiet and stay in the background’ on Micheal Steele.
.
At that point, those crazies stop being “entertainers” in the minds of people like Barcley, who has never been known for a huge amount of empathy. I don’t think many of the Black GOPers are very strong in that department. Maybe a hard life brings hard attitutes. I think Barcley’s psyche is part contrarian, part “highsider”*, and part of the sentiment toward being poor I described in my earlier comment.
.
*[note to others] This is an old-school term for someone who knows you, but due to circumstances, like moving up in the world, doesn’t really want to know you anymore.

I really do wonder if being a GOPer was thought of as bling. It could explain a lot. The problem is, I think the current state of affairs where the moderates are being purged has to be giving those like Colin Powell pause.
.
I think there are some, like him, who might be in it to reform it from within, but after what happened to Micheal Steele, and his steady erosion of power* since the flap with Rush, might also be wondering what their next step should be.
.
*I saw an article today where Micheal Steele might be stripped of the financial responsibilities he has, but I can’t find it.

53_3
.
Here you go.

sacredh:
.
I think there’s no difference between the Specter thing and Liebermann, really. Except that I like Specter better. We will use him and he will use us. That’s the old “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine” mentality. No surprises there, or shouldn’t be.
.
On your very last comment:
I think it is really one of the most interesting social psychology problems that exists. This is fertile ground for study. In the past, people could be uninformed because they lack education (the indiginous populations of South America), were in a class with fewer rights (the Untouchables in India), or lived in a society where no views were acceptable except the ruler’s (Soviet Union).
.
We have a new situation where people can remain ignorant because they choose to immerse themselves in media that supports their preexisting point of view. It is very strange. They simply won’t got to something like 538.
.
I’ve pointed out the absurdity of how Republicans maintain the myopy about their political use of intolerance and hatred by either painting these people as “fringe” or “entertainers”, thus absolving themselves of any responsibilty, or to simply ignore the input of the target group (the Black Community) while telling each other they’re not doing anything wrong.

“Here you go.”
.
?
.
Anyway, got to go to the store. Enjoy the rest of the day, all!
.
tty
.
offl

I was posting the link to the Steele story. Ill try again
.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/29/rnc-divide-grows-over-finance-battle/

53_3: You bring up a good point about people choosing to immerse themselves in media that supports what they already/want to believe. I work with some right wingers and they’ve gone off the deep end during the last 12 months. Right up until election night, most of them were confident that McCain was going to win. The polls didn’t matter. Newspapers didn’t matter. They were getting all their info from RW radio. Even when RW radio started saying it looked bleak, they started coming up with crazy scenarios that would result in McCain being President. They were more exicted by the possibility that McCain would die in office and Palin would be President. Needless to say, there are some pretty glum faces at work. They’re now convinced that Obama will be impeached before the 2010 elections because “nobody is going to stand for what he’s doing much longer”. His high poll numbers don’t matter because “they’re only polling democrats and even all of THEM don’t like him”. It almost seems like they’re even starting to discount RW radio a little bit because they’re not hearing what they want to hear. I’m looking forward to the elections because they’ve already bought all the ammo and most of the weapons at the gun shops. If they start reporting off and staying in their basements I’m going to get a sh!tload of overtime pay.

[...] Democrats, GOP, Government, Obama administration at 10:59 am by LeisureGuy Bad news, I suspect. The report from Jay Newton-Small: Both sides of the aisle spent all week lamenting/celebrating Arlen [...]

Shorter Update 2–never mind

Reading papers today I’ve noticed some mentions of then Senator Obama’s two nay votes during the confirmations of Justices Roberts and Alito. Our friend Lindsay Graham has stated “I hope the Senate will treat his nominees better than he treated Bush’s when he was in the Senate.” As a Senator he was entitled to cast his vote against confirmation, in the same way as Senator Graham is entitled to. Obama has stated that he voted against those two Justices, because he felt they would consistently side with the powerful against the powerless. I’m willing to speculate right now that at least 20 GOP Senators vote against the President’s nomination citing fear of judicial activism, regardless of who is nominated. (Unless he nominates Robert Bork that is).

I’m willing to speculate right now that at least 20 GOP Senators vote against the President’s nomination citing fear of judicial activism, regardless of who is nominated. (Unless he nominates Robert Bork that is).
-
Nope. United front. 40 nays (and yes I’m willing to bet a beer on it).

yutsano, I’ll take you up on that beer.
.
There are still a couple of GOP Senators that represent left-leaning constituencies (Sens. …… R-ME).
.
If he nominates a Hispanic American there are a number of GOP Senators representing states with large Latino populations (Martinez, McCain, Hutchison). They’re not going to want to p off a large block of voters.
.
If he nominates a woman it’s going to be hard to argue against appointing them, especially after the SCOTUS sausage-fest during Bush 43. Conservative fundamentalists like Sessions, Inhofe and DeMint could vote ney and keep a straight face when justifying it, but not all the GOP caucus could.
.
Some of the old-school GOP Senators (Grassley, Lugar) are going to find it difficult to reject the parochial ways of the past and will probably find it difficult not talking to Leahy, Biden or whoever does the GOP outreach.
.
I could well be wrong, but I suspect that whilst the airwaves may be dominated by the wingnut wing of the GOP, the Senate still has a handful of honest GOP legislators. They’re staking out a hard stance at the moment in order to warn the WH off of nominating anyone too out there.

They’re staking out a hard stance at the moment in order to warn the WH off of nominating anyone too out there.
-
Aye, there’s the rub. The goalposts on “too out there” have been moved to such a ridiculous proportion thanks to Limbaugh et al that the enforcement of party discipline will trump any sensical conclusions the Republican Senators can draw up themselves. The only way you might get the beer is if Snowe and Collins buck their party again and agree to confirm. Or Obama makes an extremely safe pick that makes really no one happy. I dunno, it just seems to me the obstruction has gotten that bad.

At some point some GOP senators are going to have to choose between pleasing Lush Rimjob and their own political survival. I can’t believe they think their losses since 2006 are some sort of anomaly and that the electorate hasn’t shifted. flacidcasual makes an excellent point that there are GOP senators in states with large Hispanic populations. Rejecting a qualified Hispanic is going to be a political poison pill. They can do it, but they’ll die at the polls.

“Rejecting a qualified Hispanic is going to be a political poison pill. They can do it, but they’ll die at the polls.”
.
sacred:
.
I’m glad you figured out what they will do.
.
Remember, they have five toes on each foot!

[...] as Democrats might prefer.  And Specter’s conversion may, thanks to arcane Senate rules, spell trouble for Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)And Then There Were Fifty-Nine…Pennsylvania [...]

[...] Graham Pans Sotomayor Posted by Jay Newton-Small | Comments (0) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This Seems the President will have to find another GOP member of the Senate Judiciary Committee to vote for Sonia Sotomayor. [...]

[...] Why Lindsey Graham is the Guy Obama Needs to Please in Replacing Souter [...]