An Ideological Coup
by matt at 6:00 am on January 27th, 2006 in John Kerry, Supreme CourtSomeone wants to run for President again:
Sen. John Kerry will attempt a filibuster to block the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.
“Judge Alito’s confirmation would be an ideological coup on the Supreme Court.”
It seems Kerry decided to grow a spine at exactly the same time he stopped buying his speeches at Costco. After running an 18-month campaign for President in 2003-4 completely devoid of decisive stands and overflowing with longwinded Valium-style oratory, this is a most welcome development.
It’s hard to say whether Kerry is doing this to keep his 2003 promise, to score some points with Democratic primary voters who don’t exactly hold him in high regard at the moment, or because he believes that it is the right thing to do. I honestly have no idea why he is doing it, and although I mentioned to some people earlier that I fully expected a filibuster, it is truly surprising to see it coming from John Kerry. But whatever Kerry’s motivation, this CNN poll is out of line:
Politicians do things for political reasons every day. When was the last time CNN so openly questioned the motives of a Republican? Damn librul media…
I want to make a couple of points in advance of the mid-term elections that are now just over eight months away. Had Democrats running for the Senate in 2004 done better, John Roberts would not be chief justice of the Supreme Court, and Samuel Alito would not be tenting his fingers in anticipation of joining him. Democrats ran some great Senate candidates who lost close races to complete lunatics who happened to be much better funded. If a few more of them had won, we’d be looking at the same situation that Bill Clinton faced when he appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer. Then, Clinton was forced to accept input from Judiciary chairman Orrin Hatch or face the prospect of not seating justices. By virtue of his party’s wide Senate majority, this President must make no such concession.
Though the next Congress will not be in place in time for it to matter now, there will be more fights over judges and everything else starting next January. If you are fed up with how things are going, if you feel powerless, if you want to see change, there is only one option: work for Democratic majorities this election cycle. We’ll be making some recommendations on candidates and organizations that could put a few dollars or a few volunteer hours to good use. At some point, everyone needs to take responsibility for the situation in which we find ourselves. If you care enough to read this site every day, you should care enough to get involved. Not everyone has piles of cash laying around, but everyone can go door-to-door or make some GOTV calls. We raised a lot of money for John Kerry in 2004 with a fraction of the readership we now have. We’re going to do better this time around, if for no other reason than to allow our Senators to credibly wield the threat of filibuster.
Don Mynack wrote:
Wow, I don’t seem to remember the Senate filibuster against Ginsberg or Breyer. Maybe you can remind me when that occurred.
Posted 27 Jan 2006 at 7:27 am ¶
matt wrote:
>Wow, I don’t seem to remember the Senate filibuster against Ginsberg or Breyer. Maybe you can remind me when that occurred.
that’s funny, did i suggest that it did happen?
From Orrin Hatch’s autobiography:
I don’t recall this President consulting with anyone on his picks, much less taking names from the opposition.
Posted 27 Jan 2006 at 7:33 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
You’re comparing apples and oranges. Re-read the post, take some notes and you might understand why Ginsberg and Breyer were mentioned.
Posted 27 Jan 2006 at 7:36 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
This worked with Don yesterday, might as well give it another go:
Posted 27 Jan 2006 at 7:40 am ¶
save your energy wrote:
Save your time and energy. It is nothing you or anyone else will be able to do to change the way things are. My party is going to run this shit until Armageddon. Sorry for you and your weak ass party. It must suck to be in your predicament. You see Republicans are sharks, and we play to win with no regard for if you like us or not. With Democrats it’s all about popularity, incessant whining, and horrendous incompotence. Of course Kerry’s attempt to filibuster is 100% politically motivated. The fact that you even have to question that proves you’re a great fit for your party. Instead of raising money for John Kerry, you should purchase a bundle of kleenex for Democrats who will have snot running down their nose when Alito is finally confirmed. Life’s a bitch and then you have to live in it. Later.
Condoleeza Rice! President 08!
Posted 27 Jan 2006 at 11:47 am ¶
JimC wrote:
>save your energy Says:
If you guys think I’m a right winger, what is this guy? Sure, I want Sam Alito confirmed and sure I am disgusted by the double standard the Dems have taken with nominees (or is it a case that the Republicans are slow to learn the hardline tactics and thus missing the opportunity during Ginsburg’s nomination). In any case this latest hearing have set a new standard by which any President’s nominees will face.
In my opinion the judicial hearings should be a filter merely for radical extremists, anything less than that should get nominated…and if anyone thinks Alito is an extremist, then no conservative judge would do, which of course is crap….
Posted 27 Jan 2006 at 12:25 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>what is this guy?
obviously not serious.
>I am disgusted by the double standard the Dems have taken with nominees
jim, i’m going to ask you politely to read the above quote from Orrin Hatch’s autobiography. if you wonder why you are met with hostility, ignoring it in favor of the above line is a big reason.
>In my opinion the judicial hearings should be a filter merely for radical extremists
alito and robert for that matter believe that the president is effectively king. that’s about as extreme as you’ll find out there. also, was harriett miers extreme?
Posted 27 Jan 2006 at 12:39 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
>alito and robert for that matter believe that the president is effectively king. that’s about as extreme as you’ll find out there. also, was harriett miers extreme?
How do you come to such an extreme conclusion? What statement, judgments have lead you to believe this? Ginsburg was more radical left than roberts or alito is radically right….
Posted 27 Jan 2006 at 1:08 pm ¶
screwtape wrote:
>You see Republicans are sharks, and we play to win with no regard for if you like us or not.
>If you guys think I’m a right winger, what is this guy?
I am guessing he’s about 14 or 15.
>Condoleeza Rice!
and a closet homosexual (nullus).
>In my opinion the judicial hearings should be a filter merely for radical extremists, anything less than that should get nominated
How would you know if Alito is or is not a radical extremist? The only question he answered in a forthcoming way was giving his name when he was sworn in.
Posted 27 Jan 2006 at 1:13 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
>jim, i’m going to ask you politely to read the above quote from Orrin Hatch’s autobiography. if you wonder why you are met with hostility, ignoring it in favor of the above line is a big reason.
This does not really mean much because it seems that Hatch was workign with the President acknowledging his right to appoint who he wanted but also giving him guidance on who would pass easily. This could mean one of two things
1) Ginsburg was not as liberal and thus more acceptable
2) Or the standard that I mentioned was being applied, that only radicals would be denied.
Ginsburg, I believe was lawyer or something for the ACLU which is pretty radical organization. She was obviosuly very pro-choice, which is very leftist, etc etc etc…
To me Roberts and Alito are less concervative than Ginsburg is liberal, but I hold that since Clinton was President and Ginsburg was not considered a radical extermist, then she deserved the overwhelming confirmation. So Roberts and Alito both deserve but won’t/didn’t get…
Posted 27 Jan 2006 at 1:16 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
>How would you know if Alito is or is not a radical extremist? The only question he answered in a forthcoming way was giving his name when he was sworn in.
Not true….he was more forthcoming than Ginsburg…or even Roberts for that matter…
Posted 27 Jan 2006 at 1:18 pm ¶
matt wrote:
jim, you’re proving everyone’s point here. maybe you don’t get that, but the combination of opinion as fact, complete conflation, misrepresentation and misstatement of Ginsburg’s record is just laughable.
oh, and the ACLU? do you know what they do? they stand up for freedom right here, in this country. i know you think iraqis have a bigger claim to freedom than we do, but we’ll have to disagree on that. then again, you were on the authoritarian side of the bright line…
Posted 27 Jan 2006 at 1:20 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>Not true….he was more forthcoming than Ginsburg…or even Roberts for that matter…
and your metric is?
Posted 27 Jan 2006 at 1:21 pm ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
This is like when a fat guy watches a Yankee game and announces, “we won,” like he’s on the team.
Posted 27 Jan 2006 at 1:32 pm ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Very leftist like Ted Stevens or very leftist like Arlen Specter?
Posted 27 Jan 2006 at 1:45 pm ¶
marc wrote:
At least he’s pressing for energy conservation. That’s more than anyone in the administration would do.
Posted 27 Jan 2006 at 1:46 pm ¶
Fernando wrote:
Seriously, I don’t know why he’s doing it either. It’s fucking pointless, and it only serves to make me hate John Kerry more, and makes me feel even dirtier for voting for him out of sheer desperation in ‘04. At I still have my Kucinich primary vote to keep me warm at night.
Posted 27 Jan 2006 at 2:32 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
>oh, and the ACLU? do you know what they do? they stand up for freedom right here, in this country. i know you think iraqis have a bigger claim to freedom than we do, but we’ll have to disagree on that. then again, you were on the authoritarian side of the bright line…
THE ACLU is a communist subversive organization bent on destroying this country, but that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong…
Alito VS Ginsburg
Also…
Posted 27 Jan 2006 at 6:28 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>THE ACLU is a communist subversive organization bent on destroying this country, but that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong…
right, because our civil liberties don’t need any protection. in fact, i’m not sure why we need civil liberties because our president gives us all the freedom we need.
apparently you have no idea how to read what hatch said, and how it relates to the political process.
how many witnesses were allowed to testify “against” roberts and scalito combined? just go ahead and duck this question like you duck all the others.
Posted 27 Jan 2006 at 6:41 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
I meant to also, highlight
In those hearings, she did not answer some questions involving matters such as abortion, gay rights, separation of church and state, rights of the disabled, and so on
>how many witnesses were allowed to testify “against” roberts and scalito combined?
I don’t know, don’t care…that’s your job to find out…oh and nice “scalito” reference. Face it, he’s in…so really this whole thread is pointless…
Posted 27 Jan 2006 at 6:51 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>I don’t know, don’t care
i know you don’t. that’s why you’re a joke to us. not because you disagree, but because you’re clueless and don’t even care enough to make a good point. your standard of proof = god told me -or- because i believe. not good enough.
>Face it, he’s in…so really this whole thread is pointless…
does your piousness allow gambling?
Posted 27 Jan 2006 at 6:58 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
>does your piousness allow gambling?
Just to see who’s right, I say Alito will be confirmed and the far left wingers of the Senate will not muster enough support to cowardly fillabuster this nominee…
Posted 27 Jan 2006 at 8:29 pm ¶
matt wrote:
cowardly is nominating two judges who will try to gut roe, yet pretending that they haven’t made up their mind. if your president had more balls, he’d just come right out and say it.
Posted 27 Jan 2006 at 9:01 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Then the Dems would surely fillabuster, so what’s the use? This is the game, the game that has to be played. Besides, Bush won the election, it is his privalege to nominate whomever he wants and the minority party should only use the fillabuster in an case that would put someone completely unstable on the bench, merely having an opposing political view is not enough…but I guess the bench is the dems only *legislative* branch of government they have left, so desparation calls for unorthodox lowering of judicial respect for the nominees….but I wouldn’t expect anything less from the likes of Kerry or Kennedy….I find it truly amazing though that Byrd is going to vote for Alito, that shocked me…
Posted 27 Jan 2006 at 10:22 pm ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Jim?
Posted 28 Jan 2006 at 9:42 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
>Matthew Tobey Says:
>
>January 28th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
>pro-choice, which is very leftist
>
>Very leftist like Ted Stevens or very leftist like Arlen Specter?
>
>Jim?
Do you not doubt that the majority of the pro-choice spectrum lands on the left? There are always a few odd-balls…Arlen Specter is one of them, but at least he is still voting for Alito…
Posted 28 Jan 2006 at 10:22 pm ¶
matt wrote:
CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Jan. 20-22, 2006. Would you like to see the Supreme Court overturn its 1973 Roe versus Wade decision concerning abortion, or not?”
Yes, Overturn……25%
No, Not Overturn.66%
Just us radical lefties over here. Now shut up and stop talking out of your ass.
Posted 29 Jan 2006 at 12:53 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Actually, before Jim shuts up, I’d like him to admit that he was wrong to call pro-choice ideals “very leftist.” You were clearly wrong, Jim. Admitting it would go a long way toward giving you some respectability on this site for a change.
Posted 29 Jan 2006 at 1:18 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
>Actually, before Jim shuts up, I’d like him to admit that he was wrong to call pro-choice ideals “very leftist.” You were clearly wrong, Jim. Admitting it would go a long way toward giving you some respectability on this site for a change.
I didn’t say it was exclusively far left but the majority falsl on the left. Some GOP are just too worried about their posts and ride the fence…
Posted 29 Jan 2006 at 6:56 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
>CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Jan. 20-22, 2006. Would you like to see the Supreme Court overturn its 1973 Roe versus Wade decision concerning abortion, or not?”
Yes, Overturn……25%
No, Not Overturn.66%
Just us radical lefties over here. Now shut up and stop talking out of your ass.
I trust CNN polls as much as you trust Fox news polls, tag, you’re it, stinky lips…
Posted 29 Jan 2006 at 6:57 pm ¶
matt wrote:
Not that your little pea-brain faith-based mind could comprehend this, but Gallup (who conducted the poll) consistently has this President’s approval rating higher than most. Even if this poll were off by 15 points, it would still be a landslide. Past that, numerous other polls by other firms show wide margins in favor of the status quo. But then again, they don’t poll exclusively at your church.
We’re not going to turn this into a media bias debate no matter how bad you’d like to believe that Fox plays it down the middle and CNN is librul.
Posted 29 Jan 2006 at 7:08 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
>Actually, before Jim shuts up, I’d like him to admit that he was wrong to call pro-choice ideals “very leftist.” You were clearly wrong, Jim. Admitting it would go a long way toward giving you some respectability on this site for a change.
Get real, Matthew!
JimC ain’t never gonna shut up. (Not of his own free will, anyway.)
And he sure as heck ain’t never gonna admit he was wrong (I don’t think they’re allowed to).
And somehow I almost have the beginnings of a sneaking suspicion that achieving respectability on this site is not one of his life’s ambitions.
Posted 29 Jan 2006 at 7:29 pm ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Good luck trying to incite a CNN vs. Fox fight in this place. Like Matt said, the important part of that poll is the Gallup part. I like CNN more than I like Fox about the same way as I like a punch in the nose more than a kick in the sweets.
Please try again, JimC. Pro-lifers live to the right of the middle, while a majority (hard left, soft left, moderates, independents) support the right to choose. You oughta embrace it; it makes you part of some downtrodden minority.
As long as Jim supports a Saudi genocide and believes that all muslims are devil-worshippers, I think this will be moot.
Posted 29 Jan 2006 at 9:37 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
>As long as Jim supports a Saudi genocide and believes that all muslims are devil-worshippers, I think this will be moot.
You’re off your meds….toke another one…
I never said we should kill all Saudis, I never said all Muslims are devil worshippers, you’ve trwisted my commetns to be inflammatory….but that’s to be expected.
Posted 30 Jan 2006 at 6:30 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
No, but you said we need to kill all fundamentalist Muslims, and a majority of Saudis are Wahabbists. Try again.
Also, here’s a memory refresher:
“You people show your immaturity by your thinking we can make peace with radical Islam. THEY DON”T WANT PEACE!!!! Ask Israel!!!!”
“I beleive they are simply fallen under the control of a satanic based religion and don’t know any better.”
Posted 30 Jan 2006 at 7:34 am ¶
JimC wrote:
And you translate this into kill ‘em all, well that figures, with all the dung you’re spoon fed and forced to accept as tasty.
My point was that we cannot let them lull us into thinking we are safe or into thinking they are not seeking our destruction. This does not mean nuke first ask questions later. However, we should not give them much rope and should keep the pressure on them to either declare openly their position or quash the terror organizations that carry out their desires.
And for the Muslim question, I think many religions are under the control of Satan’s lies, not just Islam, so what of it? Does not mean we kill them all nor foresake them, those who are not following their Father in heaven are following their father on Earth which is the devil….say what you want, that is my belief. I was in the same place before I was saved….
Posted 30 Jan 2006 at 9:07 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Dude, you are all over the place. I still can’t bring myself to think you’re in favor of anything less than a genocidal holy-war. Must be all that spoon-fed dung (um, nice one?).
Also, when you say “they” are seeking our destruction, you know you’re talking about like a billion people, right? Yes, I know you’re not talking about all Muslims. Most Muslims are fundamentalists though.
Posted 30 Jan 2006 at 7:44 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
I have never supported wholesale erradication of Muslims. However, we must face the reality that radicals exists in nearly every major muslim population and therefore we must be resolved to take the fight to them, that’s all I said.
In fact, I think *most* Muslims are like you and me, rather not be fighting. However, they are taught from birth that the Koran is law and a hatred of Jews and those who support them has been instilled in the minds of a large population of Muslims. In my opinion, peace will never occur with Islam. But we must try, and *we must also fight the radicals* even if it is a risk that we create more, for they are taught to look for weakness in their enemies and pounce on it…
I’ve seen those insurgent videos of sniper attacks and IED’s, they scream Allah is great, as they attack. For them it is a Holy War, we must realize that….
Posted 30 Jan 2006 at 9:56 pm ¶
screwtape wrote:
> I have never supported wholesale erradication [sic] of Muslims.
Just retail?
>I’ve seen those insurgent videos of sniper attacks and IED’s, they scream Allah is great, as they attack. For them it is a Holy War, we must realize that….
You’ve never seen our documentaries where one of our guys prays to jesus H before he machine guns a bunch of people? To an outsider, the distinction is minimal, if noticeable at all.
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 4:55 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Well, maybe to you you would not see the difference, however, to me it is clear, praying for protection from the enemy before leaving on patrol is nothing like screaming Jesus is great as you are mowing people down or blowing a truck full of people up…maybe you need to learn more about our enemies and more about us …..
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 7:15 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
>I think *most* Muslims are like you and me, rather not be fighting.
>they are taught from birth that the Koran is law and a hatred of Jews and those who support them has been instilled in the minds of a large population of Muslims. In my opinion, peace will never occur with Islam.
First of all, I don’t know how those two points can live in the same brain, let alone the same paragraph. Second of all, the words “think” and “opinion” show up there way to many times for this to be worth anything. Third of all, don’t you think the diametric opposition of your faith with Islam makes this whole issue a conflict of interest for you? Fourth of all, don’t respond to this; I’m bored with it.
Posted 31 Jan 2006 at 7:24 am ¶