Sandra Day O'Connor Retires from Supreme Court
The Wahington Post article is here.
My prediction: Bush appoints a judicial activist of the conservative flavor. Democrats revolt. Stalmate-ity, I mean hilarity, ensues.
Politics Schmolitics
We are a group of friends and acquaintances -- a merry band of pranksters indeed -- who have been arguing about politics on-and-off, then really on, then a little off... since 1998. On email. But that meant literally thousands of emails a year. That was too many. So here's the blog dedicated to carrying on that spirit of political and pop culture argument and dialogue. You might think of us as "schmoliticians", because while we take politics seriously, we try not to take ourselves quite so.
Friday, July 01, 2005
My prediction: Bush appoints a judicial activist of the conservative flavor. Democrats revolt. Stalmate-ity, I mean hilarity, ensues.
Previous Posts
- Crying "Nuke"
- Can the US get its Mojo back?
- Stunning...
- Do as I say, Not as I do
- A new round on the cross debate
- Yes, We Can Find the Exit
- Back in Black (but no collar, please)!
- National Scandal in the 'Burg!!
- What's it like to be Iraqi in Baghdad
- Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Archives
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
3 Comments:
At least we know the corproate media will cover the Supreme Court opening with its trademark fairness.
Source for the info below: http://mediamatters.org
Between 10:30 a.m. and 11:45 a.m. ET, the guests on Fox News discussing O'Connor's retirement included:
Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT)
Robert Bork, former District of Columbia Circuit Court judge
William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard
Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard
C. Boyden Gray, former White House counsel for President George H.W. Bush (more on this guy later)
Not to be outdone, over the same time period, CNN's guests included:
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
Bork
Edwin Meese, former attorney general for President Ronald Reagan
Back to C. Boyden Gray, the following are clips from a Washington Post profile on May 24th. Remember, Fox News only identifies Gray as a "Supreme Court Analyst".
"Every Monday morning for months, veteran Washington lawyer C. Boyden Gray has plotted strategy via a conference call with the heads of groups that want to ease the confirmation of President Bush's judicial nominees. He has also spent many hours raising millions of dollars for the cause ... Gray was recruited for the task of fighting judicial filibusters two years ago by Republican Sen. Trent Lott. ... Gray formed the Committee for Justice with the additional encouragement of Karl Rove, Bush's top political strategist, and set about the difficult job of raising funds from corporate sources."
There's nothing wrong with being an activist on this cause, as this opening to the Supreme Court will have lasting impact for at least a decade. However, it would be nice to see the right-wing media (CNN, Fox News, MSNBC) balance this debate just a little. I somehow doubt the head of MoveOn or Emily's List will be identified as a non-partisan "Supreme Court Analyst" over the coming weeks.
Some of Bush's conservative base (Operation Rescue, National Clergy Council, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family) have publicly demanded that Bush keep his pledge to appoint conservative judges who are along the lines of Scalia and Thomas. In fact, they actually specifically reference Scalia and Thomas as models. Bush has shown in the past that he is very influenced by these groups. So, no doubt, he will appoint a nominee with a very conservative track-record, probably one endorsed by the conservative groups. Of course, the Democrats will protest and dust off the filibuster. The Republicans will accuse them of abusing Senate rules and dust off the nuclear option. Its going to be ugly, folks.
On another note, I don't agree with Democrats who want to question nominees about how they would vote on potential issues (like abortion or gay marriage). Historically, judges appointed to the Supreme Court often become more pragmatic, independent and less predictable, after they spend some time in that position. Why force them to publicly take a side on a hypothetical issue, making it harder for them to change their minds later?
I would guess b/c many politicos don't want judges to act in a pragmatic, independent fashion. They want them to be predictable and to walk down a very specific ideological and political path... their own path.
Post a Comment
<< Home