GOP To Filibuster Thurgood Marshall

A clever headline from the WaPo - Kagan may get confirmed, but Thurgood Marshall can forget it:

"Justice Marshall's judicial philosophy," said Sen. Jon Kyl (Ariz.), the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, "is not what I would consider to be mainstream." Kyl -- the lone member of the panel in shirtsleeves for the big event -- was ready for a scrap. Marshall "might be the epitome of a results-oriented judge," he said.


[. . .] Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the panel, branded Marshall a "well-known activist." Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said Marshall's legal view "does not comport with the proper role of a judge or judicial method." Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) pronounced Marshall "a judicial activist" with a "judicial philosophy that concerns me."

[. . .] The problem with this line of attack is that Marshall was already confirmed by the Senate -- in 1967. [. . .] "I was a little surprised," said Goody Marshall. "He would've probably had the same reaction I did: It's time to talk about Elena."

If the GOP regains the Congress in November, maybe they will impeach FDR.

Speaking for me only

< Joran Van Der Sloot Receives Mysterious Woman Vistor in Prison | Political Bargaining And The Filibuster >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Terrific title. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 08:43:58 AM EST
    Segue:  Thurgood Marshall.  I just saw Lawrence Fishburne in George Stevens' play "Thurgood Marshall."  Had forgotten or never knew Marshall argued Brown v. Education twice before SCOTUS.  Vinson, who did not support ending school segregation, emphasized Congress had not passed a law banning segregation, so the Court shouldn't ban it first.  Then Vinson died and Warren became CJ.  Judicial activist!

    Speaking of regression, (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 10:20:53 AM EST
    the Republicans are calling upon God's general, William (Jerry, as Jeebus and other intimates refer to him) Boykin.  to discuss that military recruitment matter at Harvard.

    Nice of them to come right (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 10:24:35 AM EST
    out and condemn the most significant American Legal figure of the 20th century. Oh and the first Black SC justice- man that GOP minority outreach program must be booming right around now.

    Jeff Sessions (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 10:25:58 AM EST
    might want to tune his dog whistle its starting to become audible to the rest of us. "A well-known [civil rights] activist" indeed.

    It's about time (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 07:58:31 AM EST
    That Thurgood Marshall is quite the rabble rouser and it's about time someone filibustered him.  And I hope they DO try to impeach FDR.  Of course, that means we'll get Harry Truman, but he's a wimp. <snark>

    Democrats should return (none / 0) (#2)
    by observed on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 08:02:32 AM EST
    the National Airport name. It's current name is a national disgrace.

    Yep (4.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 08:04:27 AM EST
    I personally never refer to it as "Reagan".  I always say I'm flying out of National....

    True, and that airport (none / 0) (#7)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 10:17:11 AM EST
    was already named after one president, so it seems that by adding Reagan they subtracted from Washington--an act that would probably not sit well with Martha.

    Reverse Bush v Gore, while were at it (none / 0) (#4)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 08:16:49 AM EST
    Sessions probably would deplore Rehnquist's lack of judicial experience.

    I doubt it (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 10:27:06 AM EST
    Rehnquist was the right kind of activist in the 1960s the kind who kept "them" in their place.

    Wel, they're certainly interested in revisiting (none / 0) (#6)
    by steviez314 on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 09:24:35 AM EST
    that whole 3/5ths thing.

    LOL! (none / 0) (#12)
    by Zorba on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 11:19:19 AM EST
    Or maybe there's really not so much to laugh at- they seem to be serious.  When I read the article, the first thing I thought was:  "In other news, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions demands that the Civil War be re-fought."

    I was thinking (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by JamesTX on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 01:00:15 PM EST
    the same thing. They are serious. They are still trying to delete half of American history, and they are using any forum they can get to that end. Today it sounds funny. Tomorrow it will be law. They tend to get their way.

    It occurs to me (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Zorba on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 03:11:20 PM EST
    that the Republicans are getting more and more overt with their racism.  We've got Republicans dissing Thurgood Marshall.  We've got John Boehner pining for the "America I grew up in."  (Link)  You know, the time when segregation was everywhere, gays did not dare come out of the closet, Blacks, Jews, and other minorities were openly discriminated against, etc, etc, etc.  It's getting really scary.

    Of course, the (none / 0) (#15)
    by JamesTX on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 04:07:48 PM EST
    "America they grew up in" never really existed, at least not as the utopia which resides in their constructive memories. The utopia they remember was limited to privileged white males and their families who were able to afford to fence themselves off from the vast suffering masses who made their lives possible. Now that fewer and fewer of them are finding themselves within the cozy confines of that protected world, it seems to them that something "disappeared". The difference is they are now living in the America everyone else had to live in, and they aren't happy -- one bit. I don't blame them! I think it would be better for them to turn their anger toward the 10% of their class who managed to remain in control and who still live in the protected world, instead of blaming their peers for the fact that their old cohort left them behind.

    Ah yes, the Amurrica I grew up in, when (none / 0) (#17)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 10:27:15 AM EST
    in the 1950s, fewer women graduated from college than in the 1920s.

    They're doing everything they can to bring back that time, too.  Read the media about higher education for the great debate about how horrible it is that more women than men are in college today.

    Of course, some are women coming back to finally finish college, having been stopped before by various social forces.  So the studies conveniently ignore that far, far more men have college degrees today than do women -- and that the trend is not sizable enough to change that stat anytime soon.


    I knew I had been out of touch (none / 0) (#16)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 10:23:05 AM EST
    while out of the country for so long . . . but this post's header still was quite a stopper!