I remain unconvinced of the value of a filibuster - though I certainly don’t believe the hype about its negative consequences (What, Republicans may finally start saying mean things about Democrats?). But this factoid shows how spineless the Dems have become:
Had everyone who opposed Alito backed a filibuster, he wouldn’t be a Supreme Court Justice today.
It instead they voted for him before they voted against him.
Related
Cutting Edge John McCain
And this from the same post says it all-
“[Democrats] won’t be able to block any competent Bush nominee to the Supreme Court (should another nomination open up).”
I didn’t realize it was the Democrats job to block anyone’s nominee.
As Scalia and Thomas have tried to do
List for us the ways Scalia and Thomas have ‘hurt’ the country. Let’s see some actual examples of where people have been ‘hurt’ by their decisions.
You people need to stop talking in platitudes and start talking specifics. “He’ll be bad for the country!” “He’ll hurt America.” “He’s on the opposite side of all things we hold dear.” It’s really lame.
So let’s see some details already.
That last phrase should have been:
I didn t realize it was the Democrats job to block anyone s COMPETENT nominee.
Wrong again. Had everyone who opposed Alito backed a filibuster, the nuclear option would have been triggered.
i’m not understanding oliver’s posts on this issue. if the value of a filibuster is questionable, why filibuster alito? what’s the benefit? even sen. obama didn’t think it was a good idea.
Someone can be competent on paper and be an ideologue that will hurt America.
Someone can be competent on paper and be an ideologue that will hurt America.
Problem is, the left says that about any nominee whose views don’t coincide with those of Charles Schumer and Ted Kennedy.
David Souter was opposed by the very same left wing groups (PFAW, NARAL) that were feeding the questions Kennedy was asking of Alito.
You want different justices appointed? Start winning some elections.
Competent is only part of what makes a nominee good or bad. It’s *vital* to block a competent but dangerous nominee to the Supreme Court.
For example, Kenneth Lay was a competent, but evil and amoral, CEO for Enron. Competent means the person is capable of performing the job in question, but doesn’t guarantee that the person will perform the job according to my (or in this case, the Democratic party’s, or half the country’s) wishes.
Let’s bring this closer to your apparent home: Michael Moore is a competent filmmaker, but would a right-winger put him in charge of anything? No. Not because he has no skill, but because they disagree with how he uses those skills.
Hillary Clinton is, by all accounts, a competent senator, but most wingnuts would rather bite off their own tongues than confirm her to any governmental position.
So yes, it’s the Democrats’ jobs to block a competent nominee if they believe he’ll use his skills to hurt the country. As Scalia and Thomas have tried to do and now, most likely, Alito will do.
Problem is, the left says that about any nominee whose views don t coincide with those of Charles Schumer and Ted Kennedy.
You mean like how the right screams that every Democrat nominated for President is a socialist commie pinko, no matter if its Bill Clinton, Al Gore or John Kerry.
Had everyone who opposed Alito backed a filibuster, the nuclear option would have been triggered.
This is assuming the Republicans had the votes for it, and if they decide to go nuclear the worst they could do would be to appoint two right wingers to the Supreme Court.
Jay, the only reason ScaThomas’s votes may not have not actually harmed many americans is because most of those votes are in dissent (See Romer v. Evans, PP v. Casey, Lawrence v. Texas, Stenberg v. Carhart, US v. Virginia, Atkins v. Virginia).
I say it only takes a couple of more replies before we get to the inevatable false meme that “Republicans confirmed liberal whacko Ginsberg”. Oliver should have put an over/under line for us to bet on.
Kelo vs. New London. Oops. That’s probably not where you were going with that one, eh mjb?
Marty, I bet you can’t explain what new ground was broken by Kelo. C’mon, take a shot.
If the situation was reversed and it was a Democratic President nominating a liberal judge the republicans would have used every weapon at their disposal to bring it down. They would have fought kicking and screaming regardless of what the consequences would have been. And, per usual they all would have fallen lock-step in the party line to support any opposition. If the Democrats try something they’re called obstructionists or just cave and cower like pussies. If republicans do it they are standing up for their beliefs and doing “what is best…” blah blah whatever. I wish the Democrats would get more balls and fight for what they and their party believes in. I’m tired of the schoolyard bullies taking our lunch money. It’s time to start fighting back. Rock the boat I say…Rock the boat.
Quaker- Are you talking about the taking of private property for “public good” vs. “public use?” Or are you talking about the definition of “public use” when it relates to “public domain” seeming to expand to mean that the agreements between a government and a developer trump private property rights when said developer is using formerly private lands for something that could bring in more tax revenues to a city?
Where exactly are you going with that question?
spitar1 - I suppose that Justice Ginsberg slipped your mind ?
Exactly where I said I was going.
You brought up Kelo in response to an earlier comment. My question follows: What new ground do you think was broken by the Kelo decision?
Do you actually know? Or are you just flappin’?
Uh- yeah. That was my answer. With the Kelo decision, we seem to have ended up with an entirely new definition of “public use” when it comes to the “takings” clause. I only put it in the for of a question because I was wondering which part of the issue you were asking me about. Thus the “where,” as in which way, “exactly are you going with this” question.
It’s one of those decisions where the conservatives on the court stood up for the “little guy” over the government. (Wasn’t that one of Kennedy’s biggest issues with Alito?)
As I thought.
You don’t have any idea what precedents lie behind the majority decision. The majority didn’t create an “entirely new definition of public use.” In fact, they didn’t change the meaning of public use by so much as a particle.
The majority stood on a 50-year-old precedent to put the ball back in the hands of the state legislatures–exactly what conservatives argue should be done with Roe.
Thomas and Scalia took the activist route of taking power away from state legislatures and putting it in the hands of…how is it you people say it?…oh yeah, unelected lawyers!
In short, Kelo broke no new ground at all.