Wouldn’t it be nice if the right were interested in getting the best person onto the Court instead worrying about litmus tests on primarily religious-based issues?
If President Obama nominates Judge Diane P. Wood to the Supreme Court, conservatives plan to attack her as an “outspoken” supporter of “abortion, including partial-birth abortion.”
If he nominates Judge Sonia Sotomayor, they plan to accuse her of trying to “expand constitutional rights beyond the text of the Constitution.”
And if he nominates Kathleen M. Sullivan, a law professor at Stanford, they plan to decry her as a “prominent supporter of homosexual marriage.”
Preparing to oppose the confirmation of Mr. Obama’s eventual choice to succeed Justice David H. Souter, who is retiring, conservative groups are working together to stockpile ammunition. Ten memorandums summarizing their research, obtained by The New York Times, provide a window onto how they hope to frame the coming debate.
The memorandums dissect possible nominees’ records, noting statements they find objectionable on issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, the separation of church and state and the propriety of citing foreign law in interpreting the Constitution.
While conservatives say they know they have little chance of defeating Mr. Obama’s choice because Democrats control the Senate, they say they hope to mount a fight that could help refill depleted coffers and galvanize a movement demoralized by Republican electoral defeats.
Here are some of the cases to be decided on this summer. What kind of judge would you want deciding them?
The party of “No”.
Um, is that somehow different from what the Democrats have done it in the past? No.
Liberals Plan To Attack The Supreme Court Nominee No Matter Who It Is:
Same story, different day.
“Wouldn’t it be nice if the right were interested in getting the best person onto the Court instead worrying about litmus tests on primarily religious-based issues?”
Considering your posts in the past they have to pass your litmus tests so why shouldn’t others with different views have the right to do what you do?
It doesn’t matter what the GOP does. Conservatism in this country is dead. Once the banking system fails under the HUGE gov’t debt, maybe some fiscally conservative politicians will again be in control, of what ever wreckage remains.
How is it that the “Best Person” is already defined as a woman?
We “right”, are interested in having the best person in our court. Someone who is against “abortion”, which is murder, and someone who doesn’t want to give more rights to people with behavior problems, “homosexuals”
Is that so very difficult to understand?
Isn’t this just what the Dems did to Bush? Sounds a little like the kettle calling to pot black.
You mean they plan to scrutinize the nominee? You mean ask hard questions about the nominee’s judicial philosophy and various rulings?
So doing their damn job is attacking? Come on subby you have to try harder than that to sensationalize a story and drive up page views for dvorak.org/blog!
#7
Everyone is entitled to their personal views on abortion, but forcing an anti stance is not for you or the government to impose on anyone. As far as “homosexuals”, they are people who don’t deserve more rights, but the SAME rights every other law abiding person in society has. Why does the right care about people’s consensual sex lives? Geez!
#10…the right gets real freaky when the left gets their chance. While it’s largely the same, the venom will be much more potent when Obama chooses someone who isn’t a strict constructionist…code for their litmus tests.
The level of hypocrisy in government is almost amusing, and it would be if it wasn’t so pathetic and corrupt. Now all we need is the Democrats to publicly accuse the Republicans of being obstructionists and change the rules to keep them from holding up the presidents choice, and we’ll have a replay of Bush’s nominations.
Once again, I’m glad I live in Canada.
# 2 Mark T. said,
“Um, is that somehow different from what the Democrats have done it in the past? No.”
The difference? Republicans whine, whine, whine, Whine, Whine, WHINE, WHINE, WHINE until they get the nominee they want; it also applies when one of their politicians gets caught on TV as a big time crook and then they whine, whine, whine, Whine, Whine, WHINE, WHINE, WHINE to make sure the politician remains in his/her seat.
BUT Republicans BITCH, MOAN, COMPLAIN over and over and over and over when a Democrat is caught in the same situation and since they (Republicans) are louder they can get away with their complaints.
Alfred, too bad, the authors are dead and cannot be asked what they meant.
“Majority of Americans now ‘pro-life’“ poll says.
Yes I am prolife. My natural mother choose adoption vs. abortion. How can I argue against it?
# 5 Petrov – Conservatism is not dead. Look at the polls of people’s reaction to all the bailouts, intrusions into the market, loss of freedoms, etc. The GOP became BIG GOVERNMENT and have been punished for it. The Dems won because the Repugs could not lose. Excepting Obama now, Dems in Congress have just as crappy ratings as Repugs. We are splitting hairs as they are all crooks looking for power and money.
#18 – Angel: Take every word “Republican” and replace it with “Democrat” and vice versa. Same BS. different year.
“What kind of judge would you want deciding them?” Dick Cheney for Supreme Court! (Just kidding – no flames, please.) Seriously, I don’t want a strict constructionist but I would like a judge who leans that way. I don’t care about gender or ethnicity. There are nine positions there and they should be filled by the best candidates regardless of their physical or political attributes.
That said, what I rally want is a liberal Republican atheist transsexual halfbreed. Is that too much to ask?
John, you should play the “Real News” jingle….this is normal, you doofus! The libs have and will do the same to Republican choices, and in a far nastier way.
Ohhh Republicans don’t want a democrat in the supreme court?
Nothing like this has ever happened before! Scandalous I say!
/sarcasm off
#19:
“Alfred, too bad, the authors are dead and cannot be asked what they meant.”
But we have tons of their letters, papers, and other writings. And their dictionaries.
Seems pretty easy to reasonably figure out what they meant, and the process that got them there.
#9:
“Since someone brought up abortion (which the overwhelming majority of Americans believe to be a private matter that goverment should stay out of)”
Replace ‘abortion’ with ‘concentration camps,’ ‘Americans’ with ‘Germans.’
Poor logic. The majority isn’t always right.
# 9 heehee said, “Since someone brought up abortion (which the overwhelming majority of Americans believe to be a private matter that goverment should stay out of)”
Wrong.
It’d serve the GOP right if Obama nominated someone in the vein of Robert Bork.
#25, Paddy-O
Once again, you posted something you obviously didn’t read.
By 51 to 52 %. Yup, them’s numbers any moran, such as the Ayatollah can comprehend.
The rest of the article doesn’t agree with your “wrong” comment either.
Here are the numbers of the Gallup poll
Yup, looks like most Americans don’t think the Ayatollah or his mullahs should be sticking their turbaned heads into some woman’s womb.
Bwhahaha,
Go ahead, attack away! No one gives a shit what you think and you lack the power to do anything about it. The nominee could be Ralph Nader and he would get the nod.
The politicization of the courts, and the Supreme Court in particular, has led to an era where major government policy is dependent upon which party is in power at the time one of nine people die or resign.
If the courts stopped legislating from the bench, they wouldn’t be exposed to these political processes.
“Conservatives Plan To Attack The Supreme Court Nominee No Matter Who It Is”
Well, DUH!
The fragile alliance between the Movement Conservatives and the Neo-Conservatives has been all but obliterated by Bush and the overwhelming awfulness of his administration. The Republican party is imploding. Like a grievously injured dog, it keeps biting itself. All it can think to do publicly is criticize and complain, and they have been complaining about and criticizing Obama’s Supreme Court nominee since minutes after rumors about Souter started circulating, even though there is no nominee yet.
I think the President should spread the rumor that he will nominate himself (or maybe Michelle), just to see if he can make Boehner’s head explode…
I’m hoping that Obama picks Chelsea Clinton. That will give the Repukes something to really bitch about.
Second choice is any 17 year old liberal whose parents lived to be 130.
brm said,
“But we have tons of their letters, papers, and other writings. And their dictionaries.
Seems pretty easy to reasonably figure out what they meant, and the process that got them there.”
You would think so but even the most simple and short statements like the 2nd amendment (27 words) can be debated and re-interpreted seemingly forever.
One thing that will always be true is the the only group of people who will consistently benefit from the continued legal debate of any issue is lawyers.