Skip to main content

View Diary: SCOTUS: Actually, We've Already Won (350 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Consequences (none)
    of having 44 seats in the Senate and not having the White House is that you can discourage the president from picking the looniest member of the loony bin. That worked. Bush apparently considered, but did not choose, committed extremists for this nomination.

    Only confirm moderates? We don't have the numbers to make those kind of demands. If that gauntlet was thrown down, and a filibuster was attempted, we would lose the cloture vote. The 44-seat Democratic caucus contains DINOs like Landrieu and Lieberman, remember -- they will not vote to filibuster Roberts or any similar nominee. Neither will the RINOs like Chafee vote to filibuster -- IIRC Chafee has voted for nearly every Court of Appeals judge Bush has nominated, even though many are farther to the right than John Roberts.

    Should we make the point that Bush is placing a very conservative judge on the court, and that this is why Democrats need to work harder to win elections and why people who care should vote for Democrats? Absolutely, yes. But we do not have the leverage to successfully demand the appointment of another Harry Blackmun.

    This is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.

    by socal on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 11:56:32 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  So you fight and lose (none)
      You exhaust every remedy you have.  You fight.  You fight so that when the next election comes around and you want to say that you'll fight to preserve mainstream values, the people believe you for a change, because they saw you do it.

      And the Harry Blackmun comment is a strawman.  First of all, it's a strawman, because Harry Blackmun began his career so conservatively that he was called a "twin" to Justice Berger.  Secondly, Harry Blackmun ended his career significantly to the left of any sitting justice.

      I would tolerate a Lindsey Graham, or a justice like O'Connor, and we have every right to demand one.  We may not get one, but if we fail to demand one, then we deserve to keep losing elections.

      When did we become such damnable cowards?

      •  Lindsey Graham? (none)
        From what I know of Graham's record, he would be no better in terms of his Supreme Court votes than John Roberts. He is at least as conservative philosophically.

        There is a strong possibility Graham would be more dangerous because Roberts, I believe, will feel significantly constrained by stare decisis (as Rehnquist has -- e.g. Rehnquist's opinion for the court affirming Miranda) while a non-judge politician like Graham would, like Clarence Thomas, blow up every precedent he disagrees with if he can get five votes to do so.

        This is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.

        by socal on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 08:41:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site