In the President's selection of a new Justice, Republican opinion is irrelevant.

[Drysdale]

Yea, because we all know there was strong bipartisanship when W nominated SC justices.

Why,it would be the first time in history to even try and block any candidate would'nt it?

 

[Towlie]

Why,it would be the first time in history to even try and block any candidate would'nt it?

If you mean the first time before the candidate was even named, I don't know. It might be.

 

[applecorped]

I hear the nominee will be Robert Bork.

 

[Freddy]

They can try, certainly. I'm not sure this will reflect well on them, though, ... and Obama can just pull the "recess appointment" trick to force an outright Marxist on them to make sure that cases get decided his way.

That's a risky game to play, as the Republicans have already learned to their displeasure several times (e.g. in the extension of unemployment benefits). The business of government must still go on, and the President has the authority to make it go on in the teeth of legislative obstructionism. Furthermore, the more obstructionist the Republicans are as a minority party, the more the 'party of no' label will stick to them at the general election -- and the less cooperation they can expect if they should happen to win a Senate majority in 2010 or 2012.

But they can certainly try.

The thing is it would take all of the Republicans to filibuster. If Scott Brown, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are all willing to filibuster someone, then that nominee is in trouble anyway. Those three are not going to filibuster anyone who's well qualified, and neither will Lindsey Graham.

 

[Upchurch]

Yea, because we all know there was strong bipartisanship when W nominated SC justices.

Why,it would be the first time in history to even try and block any candidate would'nt it?

Well, thankfully, we don't have to worry about the Republicans filibustering the President's judicial nominations:

"They have gotten away with obstructing by exploiting the filibuster and denying Justice Owen a direct vote. Now, unfortunately, we must take action to ensure President Bush's nominees are getting the up-or-down vote they deserve." -- Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, 4/21/05

"...I think we should bind both Democrats and Republicans that presidential nominees for the judiciary deserve an up-and-down vote once they reach the floor..." -- Orrin Hatch, NPR, 5/19/05

"All we seek is a return to 214 years of tradition in allowing presidential nominees the courtesy of an up-or-down vote." -- Sen. Jon Kyl, Capitol Hill Press Releases, 5/18/05

"The time has come for the Senate to reestablish that tradition, to end these destructive judicial filibusters and to give all judicial nominees the up-or-down vote they deserve." -- Sen. Rick Santorum, Duluth News Tribune, 4/25/05

"...I felt they deserved up-or-down votes. It was not a popular action with my colleagues, but I didn't think it was right to filibuster judicial nominees then. And it's not right now." -- Sen. Trent Lott, 4/26/05

"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." -- Sen. Sam Brownback, 5/24/05

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Funny, Upchurch, I haven't even heard anyone in Congress using that phrase "up or down vote" since the Democrats have had the majority in Congress.

As you've been noting, the Republican position on this issue has been . . .expedient-- to say the least.

 

[daredelvis]

If Rhenquist got confirmed (Twice!) with his raciest history in Arizona, the bar is set pretty low.

Daredelvis

 

[Ausmerican]

America is not Europe. “European standards” have no relevance to us.

Cool lets base it on American standards then.

But should we base them on a person?
I guess the President would be the obvious choice then as he was chosen by the American people to represent them.

No? Perhaps on a city then? It should be a big city with a high standard of living comparable to anywhere in the world. Lets see two U.S cities made the top 30 list of best places in the world to live. Lets use one of them.

Would you prefer Honolulu or San Francisco?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Funny, Upchurch, I haven't even heard anyone in Congress using that phrase "up or down vote" since the Democrats have had the majority in Congress.

As you've been noting, the Republican position on this issue has been . . .expedient-- to say the least.

To be fair, I think the Democrats will be saying the same things, even though they've used filibusters before.........not to the extent that the Republicans have, but still.

 

[MattusMaximus]

 

[Accidental Martyr]

Am I to assume then, that anyone who did not vote for Obama does not "treasure the values that make America great"?

Yes.

 

[Tricky]

It has been suggested that the timing of this appointment hamstrings President Obama. With a potential majority-reversing election looming in November, he has got to try to avoid alienating the centrists. I would seem that whoever he nominated will not be as liberal as Stevens. And that's a big shame. The court is so unbalanced to the right that adding someone to the middle won't make much difference.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

It has also been said that Obama will not likely ever again have such a strong majority in Congress and should therefore not squander the opportunity to definitely keep the court in balance.

 

[Cain]

Gawd, I hope they try. And I hope Beeps comes back to express his opinion about it.

I love good partisan hackery.

Awesome.

As for the court, I think it's ridiculous the issue is even framed as a matter of maintaining a "balance." Stevens goes so we need to find someone with a similar personality and views?

Republican nominee Stevens is not the opposite of Thomas/Scalia/Roberts. Stevens replaced a true liberal icon, William O. Douglas. Douglas was the guy Gerry Ford wanted to impeach!

 

[Leif Roar]

I would seem that whoever he nominated will not be as liberal as Stevens.

Eh. Call me naive, but in my opinion the nominee's professional authority, skill and experience and his opinions and views on law is a great deal more important than whatever political opinions he or she might have.

For all the talk about "activist judges" in political discussions, based on what little I know about and have seen of the US Supreme Court it seems to be a very capable and professional court that sticks to its job of interpreting law and does not meddle unnecessarily in politics.

 

[Ryokan]

And how would you define those boundaries? Obama is painted as "far left" by wingnuts, but by european standards he doesn't even come close to centrist and would lean towards the right.

Lean towards it? No, he would be firmly on the right side.

 

[Meadmaker]

It has been suggested that the timing of this appointment hamstrings President Obama. With a potential majority-reversing election looming in November, he has got to try to avoid alienating the centrists. I would seem that whoever he nominated will not be as liberal as Stevens. And that's a big shame. The court is so unbalanced to the right that adding someone to the middle won't make much difference.

At the time he was nominated, Stevens wasn't as liberal as Stevens.

It's hard to say what will happen when someone gets into a position where they are their own boss.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

For all the talk about "activist judges" in political discussions, based on what little I know about and have seen of the US Supreme Court it seems to be a very capable and professional court that sticks to its job of interpreting law and does not meddle unnecessarily in politics.

Brown, do you want to take this one?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The selection of a Supreme Court nominee to replace Justice John Paul Stevens should in no way involve the anticipated response of the Republicans in Congress. In keeping with their usual stance on any position the President takes on any issue, their response here will prove to be predetermined by the identity of the nominator and will have nothing to do with the identity or credentials of the nominee, and will therefore not be an issue worthy of consideration. (Sadly, an example of this pervasive attitude has already been vividly illustrated on this forum.)

This is an important moment in Barack Obama's presidency and one of the most important reasons that those of us who treasure the values that make America great worked so hard to elect him. Let's all hope that by now, he's finally learned to stop trying to pet the snake.

When the Senate was debating the health care bill, the majority wanted to avoid an actual filibuster. (I wish they would have just let the minority ramble on for days, but that's fodder for another thread.)

However, this is different. Obama is in charge of the decision. It's not like Congress is picking this appointment and looking for cooperation before the vote starts. That means there has to be a vote, or a real filibuster, not just a threatened one. I hope they force the Republics to perform a real filibuster.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It has been suggested that the timing of this appointment hamstrings President Obama. With a potential majority-reversing election looming in November, he has got to try to avoid alienating the centrists. I would seem that whoever he nominated will not be as liberal as Stevens. And that's a big shame. The court is so unbalanced to the right that adding someone to the middle won't make much difference.

This presumes the nominee choice will actually be evaluated on her/his merits. I suggest no matter who is nominated and no matter how liberal or centrist the nominee is, the Republics will put on a massive campaign to paint the appointee as a radical racist socialist activist judge.


Want to take me up on a wager?

All we need are some objective measures of what constitutes such a smear campaign, and what we want to bet.