Sandra Day O’Connor has resigned. The battle for America is now underway.
… and FOX calls Robert Bork a “victim” at 10:52AM EST. Pravda never ran so smoothly.
MoveOn has an ad already.
» Breaking News
Analyst: Only 4% Of Video Games Make Profit
AAA: Thanksgiving Travel To Drop For First Time Since 2002
Star Trek Uhura Poster With Zoe Saldana
More Jason Bourne Movies Coming
Britney Spears Jet Sets To Germany
I will bet you a hundred bucks that the whole filibuster “compromise” (or, Democrats keep the right to filibuster as long as they don’t use it) is going to fall apart when Bush names a successor.
“The battle for America is now underway. ‘
Boy howdy! Grapevine has it that the Bushitler is going to nominate some senile ex Klans-man, who filibusterd civil rights. Can you believe it?!
What?
Never mind. Sen Byrd says he isn’t stepping down.
Dugger, Good Morning O
Congrats, you’ve filled your idiot non sequitir of the day quota.
Neo: You’re clever by half.
How about anti “dead baby”?
And who is “Man - on - Dog”?
I’m impressed, farris, you have the talking points down and Limbaugh hasn’t even started yet today.
Well, aren’t you a disgusting little man. Blame the victim much?
With his plummeting approval figures, it is going to be a tough call “it’s hard work” for Bush.
If he appoints a moderate with no pro-coat hanger decisions behind him-her, his base will howl and stay home in ‘06.
If he appoints a right-wing idealogue ,pro-coat hanger, the attention given through the Democratic filibuster will make sure that ONLY the base will vote for Republicans in ‘06. Women will come out IN DROVES to unseat RW Senators like Man-on-Dog.
Either way, it will polarize the country further.
Thanks for the compliment. I see you got your blast fax too, what with “pro-coat hanger” and your contention that conservatives and conservatives alone are responsible for “polariz[ing] the country”.
You’ve got to wonder if both parties saw this coming…
She’s been the 5th vote in so many majorities, her replacement appointment is going to be a whale of a battle…
You think it will knock the “I went to Aruba, and got myself drunk, raped and killed, because I was friggin’ idiot” pseudo - drama off the cable news?
newconsrloopy,
Republicans would LOVE for Dems to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee. Just ask Tom Daschle how well obstructionism works.
And coming on the heels of Kelo and the 10 Commandments nonsense, it couldn’t be happening at a worse time for Dems…
How about anti dead baby ?
Hmmm. Are you suggesting that certain Republican senators are “anti-dead baby”? Here are some pictures that attest to that right-wing ‘culture of life.’
And who is Man - on - Dog ?
Why that would be Rick Santorum (R-Pa), who is apparently more obsessed with sexual variety than most of us.
“Just as the President has a right to nominate without assigning reasons, so has the Senate a right to dissent without giving theirs.” –George Washington, on the Senate’s rejection of John Rutledge to the post of Chief Justice.
This country isn’t served well by having idealogues ( of any flavor ) on the highest court in the land. Any institution equipped with ‘last word’ should have a vein of moderation coursing through it.
A Bush nominee should be a moderate conservative ( like Justice O’ Connor ). Not only does it maintain balance on the court, but his/her nomination will sail through unimpeded, thus eliminating the need to drag this country through the muck of idealogues and filibusters when we clearly have more important issues: Iraq, deficits, pollution, terror, health care, education, poverty…
This is a battle we can clearly avoid ( to the betterment of our nation ) but I doubt we will.
and FOX calls Robert Bork a victim at 10:52AM EST. Pravda never ran so smoothly.
The man’s integrity and value as a jurist was called into question by a fat drunk from Mass. who got off the hook for murder thanks to his name.
I’d say Bork was a victim.
But fat drunks are right sometimes, Jay. Bork is a nutball who believes the country should be goverened by an unaltered interpretation of the Constitution limited to whatever it meant in 1789. Nothing more or less. He routinely bemoans the ill effect of the “social revolution” of the 1960’s. Of course, that would include changes in society’s attitudes toward minority rights, women’s rights, personal privacy, and the environment, to name a few.
Judge Bork is a scary guy because of one single statement he made that should have all freedom haters happy ‘the BIll of Rights is out of date.’
Yes, he said that before his hearings and he was hired by the Heritage Foundation which, several years ago, had made some noise about a Constitutional COnvention which could, hopefully, do away with all those anti government personal rights.
Sorry, I mean to post a link to http://www.hickoksports.com/biograph/rigginsjohn.shtml
which mentions his “Sandy Baby” incident.
According to the Bush doctrine, anything that happens before someone’s 40th birthday is a “Youthful Indiscretion”. So no talking about Bush’s alcoholism, Byrds KKK ties, and Kennedy’s accident.
The issue here is whether we are going into the 21st century, or back to the 19th. Any nominee who will roll back civil rights for women, minorities, and gays is dead on arrival.
Hey Oliver -
What do you think John Riggins thinks about Justice Sandra O’Connor’s retirement?
Hog fans wanna know!
Good points, evergreen- he should nominate a moderate- he will be applauded by both sides and the country, and he needs that “political capital” now as he tries to explain to the country why we need more soldiers to die in Iraq.
On the other hand, if he does nominate a wingnut, Reid will filibuster, the moderates will not vote for cloture, and the electorate will grow more disguisted with the administration.
The “compromisers” in the RW have nothing to gain by supporting a far-right nominee, the far-right doesn’t vote for people like McCain anyway.
You mean a “fat drunk” who’s been elected over and over and overwhelmingly by the people of Massachusetts, and a loony tunes judge who wasn’t fit to wear the robes was stopped from screwing up America? Cause that’s what happened.
Point taken, McSwain.
I was limiting myself to the lunacy he espouses, not the lunacy he actually practices.
Hey Jay,
“The man s integrity and value as a jurist was called into question by a fat drunk from Mass. who got off the hook for murder thanks to his name.’
That’s beautiful. Brought a tear to my eye.
Dugger
I believed Bork lied to the Senate, actually.
During the hearings regarding his appointment, (a short breakdown of which is discussed in Leonard Levy’s book, Original Intent & The Framer’s Constitution) Bork had what some describe as “confirmation conversion.” Though inconsistent with his prior writings and theories, Bork “wishy-washily” and suddenly said he accepted civil rights, equal protection for everybody and free speech protection for more than political speech. Thankfully, the Senate saw through this ruse as Bork’s subsequent ruminations have shown he really had no intention of abandoning his ultra-conservative and highly questionable theories.
Quaker,
One quibble with your post. Bork’s theory isn’t even as pure as you suggest (though obviously your post was meant to expose the wrong-heasdednes of so-called “originalism). Bork’s theory of constitutional interpretation actually does recognize some individual rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. He calls these “core value” rights. Thus, for example, Bork believes you have a right to be free from electronic surveilance even though such freedom could not have been contemplated by the drafers of the Constitution. The most consistent element of Bork’s theory, like Thomas’ meanderings, is that they almost always lead to a modern Conservative political result.
Coincidentally, I just posted on “originalism” last night before the big news broke today.
Congrats, you ve filled your idiot non sequitir of the day quota.
Coming from the guy who compared Fox to Pravda…
Speaking of calling the integrity and value of a jurist into question, Bork unloaded on O’Connor on CNN today.
Among other things, he said she “had no consistent judicial philosophy” and that “she lined up with the liberal side” on cultural issues like abortion and affirmative action.
What a nice man.
Crooks and Liars has a link to the video.
Well, Pravda has more integrity.
I can just tell from the comments on this thread alone…it’ll be Bork.
Or Bolton. lol.
Good points, evergreen- he should nominate a moderate- he will be applauded by both sides
Huh? You think the religious right is going to stand for anything less than a confirmed anti-roe vote? They have been waiting for 25 years for this. There entire political strategy of supporting guys like Bush on every issue time and again has been based on eventually getting paid back with overturn of Roe
Quaker,
When Bork said O’Connor had “no consistent judicial philosophy,” he must have been referring to her vote on Bush v. Gore.
Ha Ha Ha
I went with my son to the movies. Did Bork get nominated to replace O’Connor while I was gone?
Oh, and Quaker, save the the self - righteousness for when I’m not around — I find that disgusting.
She walked out of a bar with three strange guys, on a Caribbean island (something I would hesitate to do, and I’m not an eighteen year old girl). Her girlfriend asked her if she was okay, giving her a perfect excuse to change her mind, or get away if she felt pressured.
Up until that point, I blame her for being a volunteer. Later on, she became a victim.
Zappa: You and evergreen are correct and incorrect.
Most liberals will nver call a conservative of any stripe a moderate.
Most liberals will not call any Bush non - divisive, unless he chooses a liberal.
Once again, the battle will be in the media.
ABCCBSNBC and CNNCNBCMSNBC vs. FOX and the right wing blogs.
My brother was ranting about Ted Kennedy….”that melon farming son of a bitch, that drunken bastard” while drinking shots of Jack.
Yeah, I said, but how many of you holier than thou pricks have lost three brothers in service to your country? The oldest one died in the war….the next one was assasinated and the next one, too….Ted has more courage than anyone in the Bush family because the entire Kennedy clan has been marked for extermination. No wonder he drank. How the hell could he face tomorrow knowing he was next?
As far as murder goes, come on, he wasnt even close to OJ or BObby BLake in his intent…at the worst, it was negligent homicide, not premeditated murder. THere are some people who theorize that Ted was drugged and Mary Jo was drowned before the car went off the dock…some figure he was kept alive to be persecuted…Hell…Who knows?
Oh yeah…we’re talking about BOrk…what a miserable prick and that beard, Jesus, what the hell is that about. I do know that people like Bork should be kept off any court. He never met a civil right he didnt figure needed a take down. Like most conservatives, he would be more comfortable with a King than with democracy. A monarchist is not a good defender of the peasant’s rights.
And another thing……ah, hell, nobody is paying attention, anyway.
Is it Merry 4th of July or Happy 4th of July?
Well, Pravda has more integrity.
Cute.
Some just call a spade a spade Frankie…Let’s say that he nominates someone say like Richard Posner or Lindsay Graham…I would consider them to fall in the conservative, but not radical activist range.
But we will probably get Cornyn or even worse Josh Asscroft…and then I will be right - there wont be a moderate - and you will not have a chance to prove me wrong…I could be shocked and wrong here…but I doubt it.
Are you trying to say “She was askin’ for it”?
Nice.
The man s integrity and value as a jurist was called into question
There’s no question about it–Bork was and is a hack and a bagman.
Look, Bork’s on record as advocating poll taxes and literacy tests for would-be voters. He opposed civil rights legislation and said the Constitution didn’t protect either sppech or privacy.
Gosh…that is so sweet…Frank is saying that it is ok to kill and rape if the woman does something stupid. Gosh…speechless..
Or is that not what you are saying?
I would blame it on the people that raped and killed her. Regardless if the woman was being thoroughly thoughtless.
And HOW are you so sure that this is the case? You are quite the specutater…
Zappa: I’m not repeating myself. If you and Quaker don’t know what I meant, get a dictionary, or a book of English Usage, or a tutor.
I’m sick of semantic games.
OK — One more time
All right, again
What the hell, ome more time
Any questions?
No, you’re doing fine all by yourself.
From a South Carolina paper
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid on Tuesday threw out Graham s name as one of four Republican senators who would be outstanding Supreme Court members.
Neother of these are descriptions I would call moderate. I told you.
Are you struggling mightily to make me a villain?
Stupid.
When people are acting in a thoroughly thoughtless fashion, they’re not “asking for” anything — they’re just acting in a thoroughly thoughtless fashion.
What do you say?
Blame it on poverty? A lack of education? The Republicans? Bush?
It’s not like she was bopping down the street and got clubbed over the head.
When I hear that the three guys took her home safely, and she was killed by someone else, I’ll call her a victim.
Until then, I stand by my statement.
From a CNBC Interview
with regard to partial - birth abortion:
Judge POSNER: No. Oh, no. No, no. I think it is–I think it is true that much of the force behind the efforts to ban partial-birth abortion are from people who want to use it as a kind of evidence for what a terrible thing abortion is. Because late-term abortions are, you know, messy and ugly, so dramatizing that helps the–you know, the people who are hostile to Roe vs. Wade. That doesn’t mean the decision is in any sort of danger. It has obviously strong judicial support and strong popular support.
with regard to decriminalizing marijuana: So the real decision that has to be made is do we want to devote law enforcement resources, prison space and so forth to dealing with this mind-altering substance when there are so many illegal alternatives, you know, that we don’t prohibit. We may regulate or discourage, but we don’t criminalize.
Let’s talk about strawberries, instead, guys. This bickering is thorougly pointless.
I’ll go first: strawberries are yummy. I especially like them when they’re freshly picked. I also like them with vanilla ice cream or frozen yogurt on a hot day like today.
Okay. Who’s next?
QUAKER! Then Frank. Then whoever. GO! STRAWBERRIES! DISCUSS.
Empty seat at SCOTUS - O’Conner retires
And the war is joined. Two immensely powerful forces meet in the political equivilant of toe to toe nuclear combat to fill the seat. What great entertainment this will be. Warning: Don’t misunderestimate the Chimpster, again.
And now would be a perfect time for you to play with my steel balls =:-}
Frank: I like strawberries
Quaker: You’re not evil, are you, Frank?
Zappa: Yeah, sounds evil to me, too.
Frank: I like strawberries
Quaker: You’re not evil, are you, Frank?
Zappa: Yeah, sounds evil to me, too.
Frank: I like strawberries
Quaker: You’re not evil, are you, Frank?
Zappa: Yeah, sounds evil to me, too.
Thank you, Vincent…
They were all disloyal. I tried to run the ship properly by the book, but they fought me at every turn. If the crew wanted to walk around with their shirttails hanging out, that’s all right, let them! Take the towline - defective equipment, no more, no less. But they encouraged the crew to go around, scoffing at me and spreading wild rumors about steaming in circles and then ‘Old Yellowstain.’ I was to blame for Lieutenant Maryk’s incompetence and poor seamanship. Lieutenant Maryk was the perfect officer, but not Captain Queeg. Ah, but the strawberries! That’s, that’s where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes, but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, and with, with geometric logic, that, that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox did exist. And I would have produced that key if they hadn’t pulled the Caine out of action. I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officer. (He pauses - looks at all the questioning faces that stare back at him, and realizes that he has been ranting and raving.) Naturally, I can only cover these things from memory..
This is the part that is odd Frank:
“When I hear that the three guys took her home safely, and she was killed by someone else, I ll call her a victim.”
But it if was the three guys then she was asking for it?
Not evil - just wrong.
Strawberries are good - but I prefer them with whiped cream on shortcake.
Back to SCJ picks…
Ok - Allyson Duncan or Ed Prado - too liberal for you?
Do you have a wish list?
Nobody “asks for” evil to be done to them. How thick are you and Quaker, for cryin’ out loud?
But if you don’t exercize simple prudence, I’m not going to be terribly sympathetic. Evil? Villainous? Wrong? So sue me.
Allyson Duncan
Promising, but Thomas Sowell comments thusly:
Then there are the judicial candidates with a “conservative” label but who lack the toughness and integrity to stand up to all the pressures and temptations to go along with ideas that will win praise in the media and among the law school elites who favor liberal judicial activism…
Another [such candidate] might fool enough conservatives and appease enough liberals to get confirmed without a big political fight but our children and our children’s children would end up paying the price in decisions as weak, vacillating — and dangerous — as those which Justice Kennedy has rendered.
Ed Prado
He looks OK — but I think Sowell’s assessment (above) applies to him, too.
I, of course, am looking for strict constructionism, and an end to Roe v Wade
So, guys, are we exchanging insults or talking about judges? My favorite would be Judge Roy Moore, recently of the Alabama Supreme Court.
Or perhaps Representative Ron Paul. Either one might actually care more about the Constitution than some of the current SCOTUS members.
Your words, Frank.
Quaker, you’re right — I’m wrong…
Wrong, I tell you!
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa…
Will you ever forgive me?
Now, for Pete’s sake, will you drop it?
Liberals gird for Supreme struggle
The democrats have a beautiful trump card left to play on judicial confirmations. The Terry Schiavo card. Thanks to the Republican congress and particularly the leadership acting like total idiots on the matter, they gave America a picture of the kind of Judge Republicans are looking for, one that will allow a runaway congress and the government to intrude into the basic tragedies of our lives.
In other words they are looking for a radical in place of a moderate.
It does not matter who in nominated by President Bush. As Sen. Schumer said, they will fight anyone appointed. The Dems will claim that anybody that does not agree with them constitutes an extraordinary circumstance.