Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Good call, Bert. This was the conclusion I implied in my article in the center column, Supreme Court: Empty Seat Conundrum.

Politics - Bush is seeking his historical legacy, while the GOP is seeking to hold onto their seats in 2006 and ‘08. Compromise - a nominee that both can call a win for their posteriors. As for the religious right, they will have to suckle on the hope of Rehnquist’s replacement.

How do the Dem’s handle a nominee the majority of the public find OK? Damned supportively, if they too want to suckle on the hope of gains in 2006.

I consider Ruth Ginsberg to be an extremist and possibly the worst SC justice ever nominated and appointed, Bush could never do worse then that. The beauty of winning the White House, the Senate and the House allows for the Reps to appoint whom they choose to the SC, I don’t recall Clinton ever consulting the Reps in his nominees (incidentally and though objectionable to many, Ginsberg was overwhelmingly approved without the threat of a filibuster). I am afraid the Dems will have to sit this one out.

Anyone who has been in government in any capacity knows the temptation of exceeding your mandate. There are so many good thing government can do, so many injustices it can address, so many people it can help, why not just do it? Because nothing exists in isolation. You probably do not have the whole story and you may not have the wisdom to address it if you do. Judges typically fall into this hubris trap. They are asked – required – to pass judgment on things they can’t know much about. That is why they should stick to the law as much as possible. It is not their job to seek metaphysical justice. Seeking justice though the law is challenge enough.

We need a justice who better knows his own limitations and those of the law he is interpreting (not making). This is the kind of guy I want the President to nominate. Activist (on either side) and judge are two words that should never appear together without “not” between them.

Poloticians on both sides would do well to find a common ground on a candidate whose mind is not clouded by their own ideology.

Bert:

Good article. I agreed with every part except Hillary for pres. I think any Democrat from a blue state has a big uphill battle.

Craig

Jay —

I’ve heard this indictment of Ginsberg many times, yet with little to back it. This isn’t a rhetorical question, as I’d really like to hear what you have to say: what decisions are you referencing when you say she’s an extremist?

As an attorney, admittedly a left-leaning one, I find it pretty funny when people call ANY left-of-center justice on the Supreme Court an “extremist”. I think most people with any sort of expertise on the matter would probably say that there are NO left extremists on the Supreme Court.

Like the American Revolutionary leader at Bunker Hill said, “Don’t fire until you see the whites of their eyes.”

Unfortunately or fortunately (depending on your point of view) the Democrats have spent all their ammunition firing at long range and now the real battle, the one for the Supreme Court, is about to begin.

Despite what Bert has said here, Frist will now have more than enough votes to trigger the “nuclear option”—if that’s what Bush wants Frist to do—because the Democrats have made sure of it.
If it doesn’t happen, it will be Bush’s choice and nobody elses.

The numbers don’t lie. If Bert proves right about an anti-climactic battle, it will be either be because Bush genuinely wants a very moderate judge or because Democrats will just role over for absolutely ANY Bush nominee, even if he/she is a far right ideologue.

Suggesting that there could be a battle of “Borkian proportions” is a huge fantasy considering the fact that Bork had to face a solid Democratic majority. There are 55 Republican Senators today. But Frist doesn’t even need 55 to break the fillibuster. He needs 50, perhaps fewer considering the number of wavering Democrats.

I don’t care how “well-funded” an effort from the left might be. The right, if they choose, will have a better-funded effort—but why should they even spend a nickel? They’re already holding all the cards. That’s what happens when you win elections.

Here are the cold hard facts:

48 are uncomprisingly for the nuclear option, 38 are uncompromisingly against it. One side is two votes short of their goal. One side is 13 short of their goal (12+1 is needed to avoid Cheney taking that little drive down Pennsylvania Avenue).

Republican Senators DeWine, Graham, Warner and McCain (all members of the “gang of fourteen”) have all given strong indication that they’d vote for the nuclear option if the Democrats try to fillibuster a Supreme Court nominee for ideological reasons. The other Republicans have been noncommital, and even Democrat Ben Nelson (who has to answer to his conservative consitituency in Nebraska) has indicated that he would break with the compromise if a fillibuster occured for reasons of “ideology” instead of say, gross personal impropriety.

And let’s not forget Arkansas Democrat Mark Pryor who is a a member of the gang of 14. He was one of two senate Democrats who voted no in 2003 for Tom Harkin’s statement that Roe v Wade “ensured an important constitutional right.”

Do you think that Pyror wants to be in in the position of casting a vote for Roe v Wade (which let’s face it, is what this is about) in the full glare of the media spotlight for his Arkansas constituency? Maybe he would. Not that it would matter.

If even two of the fourteen abondons the agreement, then it’s game, set and match for Frist.

And do you really think that Frist can’t pick off two of fourteen when seven are members of his own party? Wishful thinking won’t get the Democrats out of the box they’ve built for themselves in going along with the fillibuster compromise.

The fillibuster is a potent weapon, but the Democrats have foolishly fired away all their ammnunition to win a few battles and lose the war.

I have no idea why Bert sees the Schiavo case and the proposed constituional ban on gay marriage as the least bit relevant or encouraging to the Democratic cause.

The Schiavo case had to do with absurd Congressional grandstanding on a subject the Florida courts, not the US Congress, had power over.

Kinda like the congressional hearings on doping in sports and all kinds of matters that meddlesome politicians like to put their nose into in order to puff themselves up in front of their constiutuents. This is absolutely irrelevant to matters which are actually within the the powers of Congress, such as the appointment of judges.
The proposed Consitutional ban on gay marriage (another idiotic piece of political grandstanding) would require a two thirds vote—or 67 Senators. 67 senators was NEVER a realistic possibility (considering the number of Repubican senators who’d never have voted for that balony anyway). 50 is another matter.

The only explanation I can find for the Democrats forfeiting their last advanatge like this is that after Bush’s re-election they had to demonstrate, for the good of their demoralized supporters, that they could still effectively stand up against Bush.

And they DID prove it, but in a way that now puts them totally at Bush’s mercy.

I really don’t care about all this. Let Abortion be banned. Who cares? This will just be a rallying call for all those idiots who voted for Nader. THIS is what you get for calling for Third Party Representation.

Let the WingNuts have the Supreme Court. Its about time the US became a Fundamentalist Christian Country anyway.

Is it possible that the president would choose a SC justice strictly on the grounds of the interpretation of the constitution? Maybe it has nothing to do with abortion, gays, or even legacy. Is it also possible that the democrats are almost irrelevant? They loose power at every vote on state & federal levels. The SC is like a last ditch effort to hold power. The American people vote for representatives & senators to pass laws. Those without power use a left oriented court to replace the legislative branch of government. Just a thought.

Perplexed

Aldous, I think it’s a giant misconception that overturning of Roe vs. Wade would result in abortion being banned (and I know you didn’t exactly say that, so I’m not nceccessarily contradicting you).

Ultimately, overtuning Roe vs. Wade would make abortion policy in this country a patch-work reflection of the popular will instead of some one-size fits all edict handed down by nine king-like (and very isolated) figures in their ivory tower.

How many Supremes could possibly get pregnant, I wonder? Why the hell do the rest of us, in this proud democratic society of millions, let nine old farts make that choice for the rest of us?

For the love of god, let’s vote on this state by state already and let Utah work themselve into an impotent fit because it’s legal in California and let California work itself into an impotend fit because it’s illegal in Utah. Neither could do a damn thing about the deeply held beliefs of the other, and then we could start talking about other things in relation to the Supreme Couts.

The reason this decision could never be allowed on the state level is because there are too many red states. How can the left force their will upon the rest of the country if the rest are allowed to make their own decisions?

Perplexed

Considering that Abortion happens most often in the Red States, I would say the Red States are just being hypocrites.

unkind K, First of all Ginsberg was one of the leading attorneys for the ACLU (Ithink we all know where they stand)before being appointed and secondly her most recent decision on the emminent domain issue will also indicate how she will vote. She is just too left-leaning for me as you are all worried of Bush appointing someone who leans to far right (we all have our worries). But let me put most of you to rest, Roe V Wade will never be over turned and quit getting your panties in a bunch about it and trying to scare the masses. As a Christian neocon, as we are seldom called, I am not thrilled with the practice of abortion but do realize it is necessary in some instances, therefore in my opinion Roe V Wade will stand. I only wish that abstinence was also taught as an alternative to teaching kids how to put on condoms. Abortion is a choice, as is getting pregnant. Let’s begin to teach our children that that decision is best made before, not after.

Jay

More or less as I expected. Thanks for your candor.

Aldous wrote…

“Considering that Abortion happens most often in the Red States, I would say the Red States are just being hypocrites.”

It would not be unreasonable to ask for a link to this nebulous statement. Moreover the “color” of a state changes priodically and the constant of abortion does not.

So, what we have here is a statement unfounded in fact and, I believe totally inane.

Why does everyone insist that the battle over the judges is only roeVwade?

What other hot-button issues are more likly to come before the SC soon?

Lets see…gay marriage,affermative action, 2nd amendment,states rights(covers lots of things),church and state,media shield laws,rehash of the Kelo ruling, vouchers,right to work states?

Pick any issue, its a hot-button for someone.

If the judges do their job, read the law rather that write it, it dont matter who gets in.

steve smith~

Forget Aldous’ link, it only makes good sense that they occur more often in red states seeing as how there are 85% more of them(red states that is)!HAHA

You are right Traci. Besides I am fully aware that 9 times out of 10 Aldous just throws out some completly unsupportive accusation of infintesimal value. I only respond to show that somebody actually reads his junk.

Traci,

Perhaps his reasoning is, if we reduce the number of red states, abortion rates will fall?

That makes sense, like lugnuts on a birthday cake.

Sanger wrote:

Republican Senators DeWine, Graham, Warner and McCain (all members of the “gang of fourteen”) have all given strong indication that they’d vote for the nuclear option if the Democrats try to fillibuster a Supreme Court nominee for ideological reasons.

What you’re implying here Sanger, is that Senate Dems would oppose a Bush nominee simply because of his/hers Conservative beliefs. Which is thoroughly refuted, seeing that the vast majority of his Conservative candidates so far have passed muster.

Filibustering someone because they will not interpret the Constitution as written or refuse to uphold our current laws - especially the ones they oppose - is not the same as objecting to them for ‘ideological reasons’.

Ive tried to post simple links, but it keeps giving the “Your comment was denied for questionable content” mes.
Is there a list of banned words?

linkman, send your comment in email to editor@watchblog.com for review. The manager will look to see if something is being blocked that shouldn’t be.

It was just a list of news stories from today.
What could be so bad that would get links banned?

There was a link to the Drudge Report. Must have been the reason.

linkman, so you are going to let laziness dictate your action and fall back on possibly false assumptions rather than follow directions to resolve the real reason for the link failure? So be it. You can lead a horse to water, but, you can’t make them drink.

David,

“You can lead voters to the polls, but you cant make them think”

Beagle, quite right. Political parties were invented to relieve voters of the onerous effort to think. Following instructions and miming is far, far easier than thinking. Kind of like cattle prods and Lippenzahner (sp>) horses discussed in the movie Crimson Tide :-)

I saw Crimson Tide and resolved I would never join another political party as long as I live. (Grin!!)