Zuzu’s post and some of the comments reminded me that I meant to write something about this at some point. While the Supreme court is an important reason to want a Democrat in the White House and a large Democratic majority in the Senate, it’s not the only court to consider. George Bush has spent the last seven years depositing festering little turds throughout the Federal Judiciary, with none of the fanfare that accompanies Supreme Court nominations. They are movement conservatives, their views and interpretations are by definition appalling, and they aren’t going anywhere for a very long time. Not to be overly dramatic, but one does tend to wonder if the republic can survive another four years of these types of Judicial appointments.
I realize most people who read this site are already aware of this phenomenon, but a little reminder never hurts.
Good point. A little reminder of the stakes here is a good thing.
Of course, the Democrats control the Senate Judiciary Committee. Let’s start holding them responsible for their failings rather than threatening voters with the Supreme Court (which, one could argue, is already irredeemably conservative now that Kennedy has pretty much gone over to that side rather than functioning as a true swing vote).
Of course you also hold the Senate Judiciary Committee responsible. Who says you dont. But if you have a Democratic President feeding the Commiitee good nominees, it becomes a lot easier to appoint … good judges.
Or we can continue on the same path we’ve been on, with a Republican president forcing neanderthals onto the courts. How’s that working out for us? Why on EARTH would we not want to change the dynamics of this situation? That’s just … well, it’s not a very well considered outlook. Do we want a different political dynamic? Do we want someone who’s not batshit crazy in the White House? It’s a simple question with a simple answer.
Or we can continue on the same path we’ve been on, with a Republican president forcing neanderthals onto the courts.
There’s no “forcing” being done. The Democrats don’t have to let these jokers out of committee. Do you get that part? Orrin Hatch perfected the art of avoiding floor fights and filibusters simply because he refused to let Bill Clinton’s nominees out of committee.
That the Democrats are afraid to exercise power and control is not the responsibility of the voters.
Of course I “get that part”. Do you imagine this dynamic is going to change under a McCain adnministration? Do you imagine he’s going to appoint non-neanderthal judges? Don’t you get that part?
I’m curious….do all or most of these judges have to be confirmed by the senate? If so, I’ll take my chances with a democratic senate which will do its job.
Given that he had to be persuaded to vote against Alito, I wouldn’t bet those little turds won’t keep coming. A democratic senate will just have to be the gatekeeper.
The problem with expecting the Democratic Senate be the gatekeeper for Republican judicial nominees is that the person making the nomination is the person in the best position to known what the nominee’s true views are. Pretty much everything John Roberts said in his confirmation hearings suggested that he thought Roe v. Wade was settled law and that he would respect stare decisis, and nothing in his prior judicial history suggested that that wasn’t the case, other than the simple fact that he was a Bush appointee, and therefore probably a stealth anti-abortion candidate. Saying that it’s okay to let a Republican be the one to nominate the judges because Democrats will be the gatekeepers is tantamount to saying that Democrats in the Senate should block all Republican appointees who couldn’t just as easily be appointed by a Democrat, and that simply isn’t happening.
“If so, I’ll take my chances with a democratic senate which will do its job.”
Uh huh … worked real well so far right? And what, your point is that that’s a reason to vote for Mccain??? Or to not vote? Why? Don’t you know which side your bread’s butterd on? It ain’t the Republicans, unless you got lots of money and like bombing shit. I just don’t understand why voting against your own interests, or not voting to prevent a presidency that will clearly rule against your interests, is good sense. Who gioves a shit if Hillary (or Obama for that matter) loses the primary? There’s bigger fish to fry, and I just don’t get how rational people keep losing sight of that.
festering little turds. How apropos. And don’t forget the entire executive branch has been stuffed with these quislings. Yet another reason to vote for the democratic candidates this fall including the presidential nominee. Holding one’s nose seems infinitely preferable than subjecting the country to continued rethug influence.
zuzu: The problem is at some point judges have to be confirmed. We can’t have empty courts all across the country unless you’re happy with poor people charged - but not convicted - of crime festering away in prison because of huge backlogs. Stalemates can’t be a permanent form of governing. The president, via the Constitution, initiates the process. So President McCain sends a list of judges to the SJC who in turn say no. So McCain sends another list, then another, then another. At no point is Pres. McCain going to give up and send the names of liberals for confirmation. At some point public pressure builds to just confirm some damn judges. And as our jails are filling up with poor people unable to afford bail even a lot of liberals start saying “confirm the bastards.”
Refusing to confirm is a legitimate tactic. That’s all it is. It can’t be used for the long haul without dire consequences, which leads us back to the idea that maybe not doing everything possible to prevent McCain from being in charge is the best course of action.