Monday, May 10, 2010
Every now and then a pol takes a shot that causes you to think, "nice one!" Mitch McConnell on the possibilities for filibustering Kagan:
“It's way too early to be making a decision about the issue of whether there should be a 60-vote threshold on the nominee,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said today on ABC News/Washington Post’s “Top Line.”
“I've never voted for a filibuster on a Supreme Court nomination. The president, the vice president, Senator [Harry] Reid and Senator [Patrick] Leahy have. But in any event it's way too early to be thinking about that. We just heard the nomination this morning and haven’t even begun the process before the committee of reviewing her qualifications.”
From what I have read so far, Elena Kagan looks like the least offensive nominee we are likely to get out of Barack Obama. If Republicans filibuster, they are going to strengthen the argument of the president's leftist base that moving to the center is a fool's errand.
I agree with Mitch. I'd like to hear Kagen speak under questioning before making up my mind about her.
I'm not in agreement with the notion that keeping Kagen off the bench will lead to a justice with a more leftist mindset. If the repubs can get 40 to stop Kagen, it seems likely they could get 40 for someone who is way out in left field. Furthermore, we going to be hitting election season pretty soon. If the Repubs make good gains, or appear likely to make good gains, the center will shift right, and Obama will be weakened.
We can't count on the election to help in any way. This will be done way before January. As for getting 40 votes against Kagen, many Republicans feel that it is the President's right to have whoever he wants as long as they are qualified.
In my opinion, not withstanding a big surprise, Kagen will be confirmed.
It is far from clear that the intent of the constitutional convention in establishing the "advice and consent" clause was to impose a requirement of an affirmation by a vote of the Senate on Appointments. Given that, I can see no rationale whatsoever in allowing the Senate to filibuster a Presidential Appointment. Damn John McCain and the gang of 7.
>> If Republicans filibuster, they are going to strengthen the argument of the president's leftist base that moving to the center is a fool's errand.
Good. Keep 'em over on the left. The happier the DailyKos crowd is the more likely Obama will be a one-term president. I don't believe the country can survive two terms of Obama coupled with a Democratic Congress.
McConnell is a jackass. So and so did it, so we can. That's bull. There have been plenty of Supreme Court justices in the past with little or no judicial experience. That's a crap excuse. No one with half a brain thinks that Kagan is equally as qualified or unqualified as Meiers was. Her nomination was a ploy by Bush to get Roberts and Scalia by the senate. Anyone looked more qualified than Meiers, even me.
She's clearly a liberal, but a rational one. The tin-foil hat crowd is already smoking.
There is also something to be said for NOT having judicial experience.
Just as there is something to be said for electing people to congress who do not have political or legal experience.
I'm all for fresh ideas...and think the Republicans will look foolish if they approach this with pre-programmed disdain.
I can actually understand such disdain. Obama is a very uninspired ideologue. Everything he has done so far in office has been done either to foster a leftist agenda or a personal agenda...and the country be damned.
Out of this is a candidate that seems, on the face of it, comparatively reasonable.
What's wrong with this picture???
Anon, you have to keep in mind that vicki goes for narrative first, facts later. McConnell didn't say so and so did it so we can, but it would be really convenient for Democrats if he did, so vicki tries to make it sound that way.
Then when they get together, they can all congratulate each other on how correct they are, without having to be bothered with pesky facts. I know. I used to run with that crowd.
"It is far from clear that the intent of the constitutional convention in establishing the "advice and consent" clause was to impose a requirement of an affirmation by a vote of the Senate on Appointments."
Unless the word "consent" has taken on a whole new post-modern meaning that is *exactly* what it means. How, exactly, would you verify "consent" without such a vote?
"Her nomination was a ploy by Bush to get Roberts and Scalia by the senate"
Scalia was nominated and confirmed during the *Reagan* administration. Thanks for proving once again, vicki, that your IQ is not within shouting distance of three digits.
Sure, you probably meant "Alito", but's what's the diff, they're both Eye-talian, right? It's all good because we know Democrats can't be raaaaaacist, just Republicans LOL. Not to mention crackpot conspiracy theory of the year, "Boooosh fiendishly nominated Miers so he could get Roberts and DeNiro, I mean DiMaggio, I mean Scalia on the Court".
I am not the biggest fan of Miers (I think it was Captain Ed who said "after all I've done defending the President about Halliberton, you nominate a cronnie like her?" or words to that effect).
However, she did have real life expience as a private lawyer advising real clients. Contrast that with Sandra Day O'Conner, for whom EVERYTHING was a balancing test. Try advising a client when every answer is "it depends."