G.O.P. Weighs Political Price of Court Fight

[ericlp]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/us/politics/11supreme.html

WASHINGTON — The retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens presents a test for Republicans as much as it does for President Obama as they weigh how much they want to wage a high-profile battle over ideological issues in the months before crucial midterm elections.


I'm confused. What happened to separation of church and state. I hate to think that religious views are being battled over... Maybe it's time to bring an atheist on board to the supreme courts?



Lets see the GOP try to stop that.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/us/politics/11supreme.html

WASHINGTON — The retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens presents a test for Republicans as much as it does for President Obama as they weigh how much they want to wage a high-profile battle over ideological issues in the months before crucial midterm elections.


I'm confused. What happened to separation of church and state. I hate to think that religious views are being battled over... Maybe it's time to bring an atheist on board to the supreme courts?



Lets see the GOP try to stop that.

eh? ideological = religious to you?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

eh? ideological = religious to you?

He might be making a bizarre joke?

 

[cubeless]

eh? ideological = religious to you?

of course... that's a code word for their faithful, ya know...

 

[nageov3t]

it seems like it probably wouldn't be worth the effort assuming Obama doesn't nominate someone especially objectionable.

all of Bush's SC nominees got confirmed other than the especially objectionable Harriette Myers.

in the end, Obama will be replacing a liberal with a liberal. this isn't an appointment that's going to change the fundamental balance of the court (like, say, if Thomas got hit by a bus tomorrow)

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

it seems like it probably wouldn't be worth the effort assuming Obama doesn't nominate someone especially objectionable.

all of Bush's SC nominees got confirmed other than the especially objectionable Harriette Myers.

It's hard to know what he'll come up with. Maybe Mr. Reparations? That ought to cause a stir.

 

[ericlp]

eh? ideological = religious to you?

Mythology; whats the difference?

 

[Hacp]

The biggest issue with the court is if it will continue to legislate from the bench. Right now, out of all 8 justices, I don't like a single one. There is no one on the bench who is for limited government and isn't beholden to special interests like unions or corporations.

 

[Fern]

it seems like it probably wouldn't be worth the effort assuming Obama doesn't nominate someone especially objectionable.

all of Bush's SC nominees got confirmed other than the especially objectionable Harriette Myers.

in the end, Obama will be replacing a liberal with a liberal. this isn't an appointment that's going to change the fundamental balance of the court (like, say, if Thomas got hit by a bus tomorrow)

While technically true. Bush generally announced who he was considering. Then Harry Reid would then say as to who the Dems would filibuster and so those were dropped. So, it was worked out with the Dems in the Senate.

Agree, since this is a liberal seat anyway, I would think Obama could find someone that will only draw the type of meaningless objections we see in Washington's political theatre. I.e., a rather easy confirmation.

OTOH, with people like Rahm Emanual I wouldn't be surprised if they chose someone 'hardcore' so as to provoke a fight and fire up their Dem base before the Nov elections.

Fern

 

[Fern]

The biggest issue with the court is if it will continue to legislate from the bench. Right now, out of all 8 justices, I don't like a single one. There is no one on the bench who is for limited government and isn't beholden to special interests like unions or corporations.

Yup, the conservatives seem to be "Big Government" conservatives.

I'm still angry about that 'emminent domain' decision.

Fern

 

[Linflas]

Yup, the conservatives seem to be "Big Government" conservatives.

I'm still angry about that 'emminent domain' decision.

Fern

Kelo V City of New London was a 5-4 decision with the usual suspects lining up behind expanded government power: Stevens, Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer, and Kennedy. I don't see any Conservatives in that group of "Big Government" lovers.

 

[Greenman]

it seems like it probably wouldn't be worth the effort assuming Obama doesn't nominate someone especially objectionable.

all of Bush's SC nominees got confirmed other than the especially objectionable Harriette Myers.

in the end, Obama will be replacing a liberal with a liberal. this isn't an appointment that's going to change the fundamental balance of the court (like, say, if Thomas got hit by a bus tomorrow)

Is there a chance that he won't choose the most objectionable candidate that can be found?

 

[nageov3t]

Is there a chance that he won't choose the most objectionable candidate that can be found?

Sotomayor wasn't particularly objectionable.

 

[ProfJohn]

OTOH, with people like Rahm Emanual I wouldn't be surprised if they chose someone 'hardcore' so as to provoke a fight and fire up their Dem base before the Nov elections.

Not sure it would work like that.

Someone 'hardcore' would most likely fire up the right more than the left because it would be another example of Obama thumbing his nose at the American people ala Healthcare.

Also, unless Obama is giving on 2012 he has to keep his reelection chances in the back of his mind with anyone he picks. If he goes really radical he hurts his chance in 2012.

My guess is that he goes with a moderate lefty. Someone who is clearly a left leaning judge, but not someone really crazy. Anyone to the right of Stevens gets through with a party line vote, but not much drama.

 

[Fern]

Not sure it would work like that.

Someone 'hardcore' would most likely fire up the right more than the left because it would be another example of Obama thumbing his nose at the American people ala Healthcare.
-snip-

I see your point, but after porkulous, cap-n-trade, HC etc etc, can the right get any more fired up?

Fern

 

[ProfJohn]

Well, if the fight takes place this summer it could remind people of why they dislike Obama and push them to donate and to vote.

I'd say the only way Obama goes crazy is if he is giving up on holding the Senate in the fall or reelection in 2012 and might feel that this is his only chance to make a real difference.

 

[Lemon law]

The Non Prof John delusion is and remains, "Someone 'hardcore' would most likely fire up the right more than the left because it would be another example of Obama thumbing his nose at the American people ala Healthcare."

In reality, firing up a 15% of the American voting public tiny minority may be a very good thing. Because sooner rather than later, the American people who are happy with health care reform will realize, the unhappier these extreme GOP radical rights nuts are, the happier the American people will be with their government getting positive things done. And if the remaining GOP moderates quit lock step supporting their total GOP nut cases, the better off the entire country will be.

Enough is enough, the tyranny of the minority is not helping.

 

[dmcowen674]

Yup, the conservatives seem to be "Big Government" conservatives.

I'm still angry about that 'emminent domain' decision.

That decision changed the U.S. forever that U.S. citizens are only renting from the Government and can be kicked to the curb at anytime.

 

[heyheybooboo]

That decision changed the U.S. forever that U.S. citizens are only renting from the Government and can be kicked to the curb at anytime.

Most States responded by passing laws that prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic development. So in a backhand way, Kelo was a success for private property rights.




--

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The Non Prof John delusion is and remains, "Someone 'hardcore' would most likely fire up the right more than the left because it would be another example of Obama thumbing his nose at the American people ala Healthcare."

In reality, firing up a 15% of the American voting public tiny minority may be a very good thing. Because sooner rather than later, the American people who are happy with health care reform will realize, the unhappier these extreme GOP radical rights nuts are, the happier the American people will be with their government getting positive things done. And if the remaining GOP moderates quit lock step supporting their total GOP nut cases, the better off the entire country will be.

Enough is enough, the tyranny of the minority is not helping.

The Lemon Law delusion is that he thinks that 15% of Americans are upset with health care reform that he knows little about, and that he knows zero about health care.

The truth is that I don't like Reps or Dems, but right now many independents don't like what you think is "good". Tell me, how is taxing people who buy premium insurance because they need it due to chronic conditions good? How about those who can use all their FSA and then some having it cut in half? Oh, those people aren't important, right? I seem to remember some on the right getting beat because they pointed out that the majority do have insurance. So it comes down to who you screw?

Oh yeah, this could have been avoided by reasoned legislation, but that wasn't important. Getting anything passed was.

Well this independent (who last voted for Kerry) is going rep this time around, and I despised Bush.

Congrats. You have now displaced them on the list of concerns and many will be picking them not because of any ideology, but because of the lesser of two evils, your incompetence in being able to formulate important legislation being at the top of the list.

Health care needed reform and your party decided to pick the usual and worst way to go about it.

 

[Double Trouble]

Yup, the conservatives seem to be "Big Government" conservatives.

I'm still angry about that 'emminent domain' decision.

Fern

I'm still ticked off about that one as well, but look at the 5-4 decision and who was on each side. It's a pretty clear indicator of which justices believe we are all just here to serve the government as serfs and which ones believe in individual rights.

A lot of people are saying "well, this won't change the makeup of the court, it's replacing a liberal with a liberal". I disagree. It won't change anything right now, but since justices are there for life, eventually it will impact things if he doesn't choose a good person.

To me this is a good measure of where Obama really stands. If you remove all the rhetoric on both sides and all the usual political bullshit, we still don't have a clear indication if Obama is more of a centrist and pragmatist or a leftist and ideologue. He's given lots of mixed signals. If he chooses an ideologue leftist for the court, then all the accusations of "socialist" etc are proven correct. If he chooses a good candidate despite what the radical wing of the party is pushing for, then he's showing that he's going to be more of a centrist.

The republicans have nothing to lose by going "all out" against a bad candidate either. They need to keep their base fired up and keep reminding them why the november elections are important in reigning in the left.

 

[Jhhnn]

The most amazing thing about the whole healthcare reform issue is that the legislation as passed is about as republican as it can be short of doing nothing at all, Romney care on a national level, but the Right just raves on and on, spreading fear and lies... Because they really don't care about anything other than Beating Obama!

It's their stock in trade, unfortunately, has been for a long time. In the wake of the last general election, their leadership made a conscious decision to steer Right, radicalize their base, despite epic failure to govern constructively on their part. Absolutely no admissions of culpability for anything that's gone wrong, no introspection, no re-evaluation, just rage and denial.

More of the same failed ideology- harder, faster and deeper, as if nothing had gone wrong the last time they ran things... nothing at all... If they just do more of the same, why, things will turn out different next time around, right?

When rational conservative voices, like Frum, attempt to invoke reason, they're discredited, vilified, purged, and the voices that turn their base into drooling idiots are elevated, praised, rewarded.

The general intention is to stop people from actually thinking, to get them reacting emotionally, to think with their small head rather than with the one on their shoulders... It's worked before, right?

The Scotus? They'll howl insanely if Obama offers up anybody not an establishment stooge, bet on it. If we really wanted to "balance the Court", we'd want somebody like Bill Douglas... I'd love to see such a nomination, if only to witness Righties pissing their pants...

 

[Jadow]

I love how Obama says he wants to find a judge like Stevens who puts the rights of the small man ahead of the rights of powerful interests.

The same Stevens who ruled in favor of a strip mall developer to steal the property of homeowners

 

[Jhhnn]

I love how Obama says he wants to find a judge like Stevens who puts the rights of the small man ahead of the rights of powerful interests.

The same Stevens who ruled in favor of a strip mall developer to steal the property of homeowners

Well, it wasn't like the Israelis taking from the Palestinians- he got paid for the property, anyway...

 

[Double Trouble]

The most amazing thing about the whole healthcare reform issue is that the legislation as passed is about as republican as it can be short of doing nothing at all, Romney care on a national level, but the Right just raves on and on, spreading fear and lies... Because they really don't care about anything other than Beating Obama!

Uh, there's nothing 'republican' about the legislation, other than it's as corrupt as republicans have shown themselves to be as well. Increasing government involvement and spending is not republican, neither is increasing taxes and forcing people to purchase a product they don't want. Just because Romney backed something (and hey, look at how well that's going for the MA budget!) does not mean it's a 'republican' thing. Far from it.

I'd love to see such a nomination, if only to witness Righties pissing their pants...

Brilliant. Put a crazy radical on the court for life, without any realistic way to undo the damage, just to "witness righties pissing their pants". It's that kind of stupidity that gave us the health care fiasco.