home

Media Assault Begins Over SCOTUS Nominee

By Last Night in Little Rock, Section Supreme Court
Posted on Thu Sep 29, 2005 at 05:31:13 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by Last Night in Little Rock

The Paleo-Cons have already started the media campaign for the next nominee to the Supreme Court. Tonight on CNN was an ad whining about Roberts' having to testify for 22 hours, and that the next nominee should get a "fair up or down vote."

For the first time in my lifetime, a member of the U.S. Supreme Court is younger than me, by seven years. The most senior member, not including late Chief Justice Rehnquist who served 33 years, is Justice Stevens, who, Roberts noted today hits the 30 year mark in December.

Is 22 hours of testimony too much to ask for a 30 year job commitment?

If I hear one more time from these clowns that the Senate is blocking "people of faith," I'm going to say something mildly inappropriate. I might even get pis*ed off. (We have to use * so word blockers won't shut us out. George Bush makes my 85 year old mother-in-law, who is a children's music teacher, curse like a sailor, but we'll save that for later.)

"People of faith" is a euphemism for "OK, we actually know this nominee is eminently unqualified, but we're appointing him (or her) because we know that he (or she) will do exactly what we want and mock an independent judiciary because we want a judiciary in the backpocket of the executive and legislative branches, but we're going to make it out to be a religious issue so you look like a bigot to distract the slackers in the media who can't think for themselves that we're not just appointing cronies with half a brain to a really important lifetime job."

Two words: Michael Brown.

< NOLA Chief Says Nagin Forced Him Out | A Good Week for America; Don't Ruin It W >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Media Assault Begins Over SCOTUS Nominee | 12 comments (12 topical)
    Re: Media Assault Begins Over SCOTUS Nominee (none / 0) (#1)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:30 PM EST
    Is 22 hours of testimony too much to ask for a 30 year job commitment?
    Heck, is 20 hours of actual work too much to ask for an 8 year job commitment? Bush seems to think so.

    Re: Media Assault Begins Over SCOTUS Nominee (none / 0) (#2)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:30 PM EST
    Is 22 hours of testimony too much to ask for a 30 year job commitment? Is a simple up-or-down vote for each nominee too much to ask from the Senate?

    Re: Media Assault Begins Over SCOTUS Nominee (none / 0) (#3)
    by DonS on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:30 PM EST
    Ras, be a mensch, not a jerk.

    Re: Media Assault Begins Over SCOTUS Nominee (none / 0) (#4)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:30 PM EST
    DonS, Actually, I'm quite serious. The Senate should vote, no filibustering, on each nominee put before it. If a simple 22 hours of testimony is Roberts' obligation, then voting is surely each Senator's obligation as well. It is what they're there for, after all. A Senator does NOT represent a party. He/She represents a state. When Senators who would otherwise vote on a nominee instead go along w/a filibuster, they are putting the cart before the horse by allowing their state's voice in the Senate to be made subservient to internal party discipline. Their state, whose chosen Senator (or Senators, plural, to be precise) would vote yes or no for a nominee, is thereby denied their dutiful representation. The obligation of each Senator to vote is certainly no less than the obligation of a nominee to answer 22 hours of q's. [or perhaps I should say, "to endure 22 hours of bloviating speeches and soundbites, from both R's and D's alike, thinly disguised as q's]

    Re: Media Assault Begins Over SCOTUS Nominee (none / 0) (#5)
    by DonS on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:30 PM EST
    Ras, the "constituitve" theory of legilators (you hire the person to be a representative, in all his/her capacity) has equally valid status as the "representative" theory (you merely hire a cipher to vote always according to virtual replication of constituent preferences). The filibuster is a significant part of American democracy, IMHO. Dixicrats defended it to the death during their time. Now their heirs find it objectionable. How convenient.

    Re: Media Assault Begins Over SCOTUS Nominee (none / 0) (#6)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:30 PM EST
    For the first time in my lifetime, a member of the U.S. Supreme Court is younger than me
    Sucks to get older doesn't it....

    Re: Media Assault Begins Over SCOTUS Nominee (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:30 PM EST
    Is a simple answer to a simple question too goddamned much to ask!!!??? If the nominee can avoid and evade, then the Senate can filibuster. Period.

    Re: Media Assault Begins Over SCOTUS Nominee (none / 0) (#8)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:30 PM EST
    DonS, Huh? Didja not know why they were called Dixiecrats? An Orwellian game of let's-pretend-they-were-Republicans can't change that. It's just name-calling in revisionist clothing. Remind me again which party filibustered a nominee recently "because he is Latino." This wasn't, like, some lone hanger-on or talk-show host or whatever who came up with that. This was the from-the-top party strategy: because he is Latino. Their words, not mine. Your pts on representative democracy are valid, but no moreso than mine about the relative obligations. Certainly, the Senators have an obligation to vote as much as the nominee has an obligation to answer q's. Gotta go now, the STC quota has kicked in again, so the last word is yours.

    Re: Media Assault Begins Over SCOTUS Nominee (none / 0) (#9)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:30 PM EST
    If the nominee actually answered 22 hours of questions, he might deserve a vote. 22 hours of questions with 10 minutes of answers, he can f*ck off.

    Re: Media Assault Begins Over SCOTUS Nominee (none / 0) (#10)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:31 PM EST
    I have no problem with a nominee testifying for 22 hours, as long as the questions are valid questions and not fishing expeditions. Of course, it wouldn't be 22 hours if the Senators would stop speechifying and just ask the questions, but that's about as likely as Hell freezing over. It would be interesting, however, to see the immediate release of every e-mail and every memo produced by our "public servants" in reference to the Roberts nomination. The Senators wanted every document that had anything to do with this man; don't we deserve to know why?

    Re: Media Assault Begins Over SCOTUS Nominee (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:33 PM EST
    Justpaul: I'll bite - give me some examples of questions asked of JR that you found to be "invalid" and/or "fishing expeditions". Granted, most of the senators I watched in the hearings seemed to be grandstanding windbags. I wanted MORE questions and less pontificating. However, once it became clear that JR had no intention of giving a straight answer to any question posed to him (other than those softball questions from the Reps), the senators realized that it works both ways. Besides, who could resist all those cameras and klieg lights!? With all the lawyers in the senate, you'd think at least one of them would insist on grilling JR on every nuance possible. I mean, C'MON!, this was effectively the senate's chance to conduct a deposition of JR as to his thoughts on EVERY aspect of the Constitution. Instead, I wince at the whining of Biden (from my alma mater, for what it's worth); did he learn NOTHING in law school!!!??? As to the Senate wanting "every document that had anything to do with this man", they are duly entitled - it's called "advise and consent" for a reason. If the nominee doesn't have a paper trail, how the hell can "advise and consent" be meaningful?

    Re: Media Assault Begins Over SCOTUS Nominee (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:33 PM EST
    jr-There is a tradition of advise and consent in this country, it has something to do with seperation of powers:
    The Senators wanted every document that had anything to do with this man; don't we deserve to know why?
    The Senators did not get one document that they requested, none, nada zilch. We deserve to know why. And we also deserve to know why the Senate put up with an executive that acted like a monarch, claiming powers that are clearly unconstitutional.

    Media Assault Begins Over SCOTUS Nominee | 12 comments (12 topical)