Human Events: The Way to Block Kagan

By: Caleb Howe (Diary) | May 12th, 2010 at 12:00 PM |

RESIZE: AAA

Kagan’s confirmation is inevitable, right? So says the CW. Human Events’ John Gizzi begs to differ.

While many conservatives say the Democrats’ 59-to-41 advantage in the Senate guarantees confirmation of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, one of the most renowned experts on Senate rules and procedures says “not so.”

“Kagan can be stopped, but only if Republicans in the Senate are willing to go all the way to do this,” said New Hampshire attorney Mike Hammond, who served as general counsel to the Senate Republican Steering Committee from 1978-89.

“But that’s a big if,” Hammond said, recounting how the Senate Republican leadership did not use the parliamentary tools it had at its disposal and thus, “punted on the healthcare issue.”

Hammond, a recognized authority on the rules and by-laws of the Senate, was frequently sought out by prominent conservative senators such as the late Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) and Bill Armstrong (R.-Colo.) on how to use parliamentary procedure as a weapon on the Senate floor.

Hammond spelled out in detail to HUMAN EVENTS a six-point blueprint on how to stop Kagan:

CLICK HERE TO READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE AT HUMAN EVENTS.

Tags: Kagan

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES | LOGIN TO COMMENT | REGISTER TODAY

http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

It takes courage to use those rules, and we doubt if the GOP has it.

It also takes courage to set up the justification, by “outing” (oops!) Kagan’s true political and legal/Constitutional beliefs. There’s enough of a paper-trail out there already to sit down and come up with a long list of questions designed to go the soul of her philosophy. She’s even arrogantly chastised other nominees in the past for never really telling anything about themselves in their senate hearings.

This new line of questionign could reframe the way judicial nominees are confirmed in the future. I suggest the GOP consider it.

We’re for hire, but so are much better minds over at Heritage, etc.
We can teach style, cant, gotcha moments..but alas, we can’t teach faking courage.

NeoKong

They don’t have the stones to play hardball on this.
They rolled over like a golden retriever on Sotomayor and media pressure will make some of the more squishy members go along just for a little positive T.V. time.
A lack of resolve is the weak link in Hammond’s strategy.

36, 37, 38 no votes….maybe.
41. Never.

Common_Cents
IJB

And, if Politico(? I think it was…) is right, there may only be 33 ‘No’ votes.

The “good” news? – One of the GOP “Yes” votes is likely to be Lindsay Graham, which is just another piece of damning evidence against the guy for the 2014 Primary (that is, assuming the SC GOP actually has the stones to go after this guy next time…).
http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

during the Senate’s “debate” such that it was on Obamacare. The Senate Standing Rules were not used to their full extent then. Any single senator could have mucked up the works. None did.

(BTW, I’m responding to Neokong’s “I’m with Vassar . . .” comment — I hit the Reply To This button but sometimes I find it doesn’t work (my guess is it doesn’t work if others have posted a comment before I have finished drafting mine and before I have hit the Post Comment button).)

After the “Christimas Eve Eve Cave-in,” I attended an Arizona Republican Lawyer’s Assn. luncheon at which Sen. Jon Kyl spoke. During the question and answer session, in response to my detailed question about how the Republican senators DID NOT employ every possible Senate Standing Rule to its fullest extent to slow down the debate on the bill and thereby use that time to continue to educate the American people about how terrible the legislation was, he, with a straight face, told me and the audience that they DID employ the rules to their fullest.

Discretion is the better part of valor, as they say, and that luncheon was not the place to call Sen. Kyl out on what can charitably described as a face-saving tap dance. A month or so earlier, I had the same kind of exchange with Sen. McCain — he, too, vehemently described how the courageous Senators were doing all the possibly could to slow down the passage of Obamacare. Horse hockey.

Keep in mind, the one time that any senator (Sen. Coburn) asked, according to the supposedly sacrosanct Standing Senate Rules, that an offered amendment be read, in the case of Bernie Sanders’ 700 page amendment, Sanders physically took away the bill from the secretary reading the bill, ending the reading, itself a violation of the rule (once a reading begins, it cannot be stopped).

Where was the thnderous outrage from the Republican senators? Did all the Republicans walk out in protest? Have a press conference on the steps of the Capitol? Demand that the Minion Media cover this unprecedented violation of the Rules? Where was the passionate fighting for the liberties of the American people?

Yawn.

Shortly after that exchange with Sen. Kyl, I wrote about it here.

Read Quin Hillyer’s article, Thermopylae for Health Care. I wrote about Judd Gregg’s “Dear Colleagues” letter (and posted its text) here and why, without a dramatic upsurge by conservatives in participation in the Party at the grass roots, precinct committeemen level, the “courageous” Republican senators have no incentive to fight for our liberties.

How do we pressure our current senators to become courageous? The only way I know of is if enough of us conservatives get INSIDE THE PARTY by filling up all the empty precinct committeeman slots. Sitting in the bleachers and yelling at them from the sidelines won’t change them. Getting into the precincts and threatening to get out the vote on primary election day for another, more conservative Republican, might. But we’ve got to do it NOW!

We the people get the level of courage from our party’s elected servants based upon our collective action or inaction INSIDE our political party.

I’m sitting here listening to Rush. He’s talking about the “mood” of the people being opposed to everything Obama stands for and still there’s no one in Washington who has the courage to stand up to him. Earlier he got the “what can we do, Rush?” question. Rush’s answer: be the “go to guy” in your family on issues. Educate yourself on the issues!

Rush misses the boat. We need conservative Americans to GET INVOLVED IN PARTY POLITICS INSIDE THE PARTY ITSELF.

For Liberty,
ColdWarrior, PC (that?s ?precinct committeeman,? not ?political child!?)
Conservatives, UNITE! CHANGE the Republican Party and save the world by UNITING INSIDE the Party as precinct committeemen. NOW!

Richard Mullins

but it seems the WH is trying the new “Sympathetic” route for Kagan instead of answering the charges of willful destesting the law and Constitution. The biggest issues against her are on those points and not the sexual orientation. This is very common for Democrats when it comes to candidates and now it seems to be used for judges as well. Rejecting the WH’s new use of old tactics is necessary.

E Pluribus Unum

We will never win the fight if we will not engage the fight.

The lack of resolve in the GOP Senate Caucus is legendary. But if we (the right, the Tea Parties, the blogosphere, and little old grannies at the park) do not get all over the backs of our Senators to do it, it has zero chance.

But this war with the Democrats is the war for civilization itself. We engage every battle at this point, even if we know we will lose.

And I am so done with Cornyn. He is dead to me.
GT350

Would you really want to go nuclear on this issue?

A President is entitled to his appointments. Elections have consequences. And I agree that she’s not my first choice for the SOTUS, but the Left has more to lose than we do here. She’s replacing a die-hard liberal, so if she’s any more moderate, then she shifts the court to the right, even slightly. She can’t make the court MORE liberal (unless we discover something during her hearings).

She sounds fairly mainstream, or at least not as kooky as Obama’s other buddies: Van Jones, Ayers, etc., and Obama’s not check-boxing some weird racial or political quota. If anything, highlight her policy experience to stoke the “coulda woulda” anger among the FireDogLake crowd.

I say, play hardball with getting answers on her judicial philosophy. Insist on knowing how she would interpret the consititution. Have her explain past controversial statements. If her nomination needs to be delayed on those grounds, then I’m all for it.

But blocking her appointment just for the sake of blocking it? No, not unless you’re willing to hold it up until a Republican president can make the appointment, and that is 2013 at the earliest. That’s a long way away. And keep in mind, the next nominee might be worse. Think SCOTUS Justice Clinton. Blech.

E Pluribus Unum

It’s for you.
http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

GT350, you said, “I say, play hardball with getting answers on her judicial philosophy. Insist on knowing how she would interpret the consititution. Have her explain past controversial statements. If her nomination needs to be delayed on those grounds, then I?m all for it.

“But blocking her appointment just for the sake of blocking it?”

If (and that’s a big if) the Republican senators were to do all that you suggest, they would have ample evidence on display for the American people to to justify blocking this nominee.

The sad part is that the Republican senators will be milquetoasts.

I hope I’m wrong.

For Liberty,
ColdWarrior, PC (that?s ?precinct committeeman,? not ?political child!?)
Conservatives, UNITE! CHANGE the Republican Party and save the world by UNITING INSIDE the Party as precinct committeemen. NOW!
Brian Darling

No Senator with any self respect can argue that she has the experience necessary for the job. They also have no clue what she stands for. My great worry is that she is a Stealth Leftist and will be further to the left than Stevens. Remember, Stevens hated to be called a liberal and was appointed by a Republican President. Some worry that she may be too deferential to the executive branch. I bet that changes after President Obama is out of office.

E Pluribus Unum

Says who? Orrin Hatch is not the frakking Constitution.

“Advise and consent” was put into the Constitution for what purpose, do you suppose?

“She sounds fairly mainstream”.

Dude.

” the next nominee might be worse”

Yeah, and for that reason we should rubber-stamp a wholly unqualified and unacceptable person who has not one whit of respect for the Constitution. Frankly you sound just like most of our establishment Republican senators.

And we don’t like them, or what they are doing.

E Pluribus Unum

The above note was supposed to reply to GT350.

GT350

You’re right. Let’s shut down the Senate until Obama nominates Antonin Scalia’s long-lost college roommate and philosophical mentor. We know that’s not going to happen.

Her judicial philosophy is unknown, but it is unlikely to be more Lefty than Justice JPS. Meanwhile, there’s all sorts of gnashing of teeth on the Left about a missed opportunity. They’re screaming that a black-, hispanic-, pacific islander-, or Indian-American wasn’t selected. There’s not enough Muslims on the court, etc. Here is San Francisco, they don’t even know if she’s really gay, and if she is gay, she’s not a militant gay. This morning the SF Chron was hand wringing about “How will Obama force Gay Marriage down America’s throat if he won’t even nominate someone with a solid gay agenda?”

She has a thin record, and at best was a mid-level bureaucrat in Clinton Admin and at Harvard. She seems like she was a “go along and get along” type with the military recruitment ban…. I find that particular action repulsive, but she didn’t break any new ground. She really seems like someone who doesn’t make waves and is not a passionate advocate for lefty causes. If you’re going to replace Justic JPS, then we could fare a whole lot worse.

Besides, she might put some muscle behind the SCOTUS softball team. Is it OK to say that?

E Pluribus Unum

Do what you want, say what you want, believe what you want. I disagree that we give the Democrats any quarter. Ever again.

If (on a long shot, we all admit) we were to successfully filibuster the Kagan nomination off the table, we know to a moral certainty that Bambi will nominate somebody worse.

So we have that hearing. We air out to America the obvious anti-Amierican, anti-Constitution, anti-most-peoples-values stuff. Then we filibuster that one too.

If our guys do our job, it will force Bambi to have at least 2 very ugly fights over 2 months apiece at the minimum. He is more likely to lose the second one than the first one. The press will of course do their thing, but you HAVE noticed the Tea Parties and the poll numbers, the huge backlash against the health care takeover, right? You have noticed Democrats retiring, and losing primaries, right? We have some muscle in this matter.

Bambi can eventually nominate somebody that is merely center-left, or we can do this starting in January with 47-51 Republican senators. His choice.

GT350

SAM: I strenuously object? Is that how it works? Objection. Overruled. No, no, no, no, I strenuously object. Oh, well if you strenuously object, let me take a moment to reconsider.

JO: I got it on the record.

SAM: You also got it in the voters’s head that we’re afraid of the Softball Slow-Pitcher. You object once so they can hear you say she’s not an experienced judge. You keep after it and it looks like this great cross we did was just a bunch of fancy lawyer tricks. It’s the difference between paper politics and trial-

KAFFEE: Sam–

SAM: Christ, you even had the Judge saying Kagan was an experienced judge!

KAFFEE: Sam, she made a mistake. Let’s not relive it.
E Pluribus Unum

There’s a difference. There is no counter move to 41. There is no ‘overruled’. And there is no benefit to “getting it on the record”. The only benfit is keeping this inexperience, unqualified, and extremist leftist from a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. She’s only 49. This leftist slug might be on the Supreme Court for 35 years.

“Christ, you even had the MEDIA saying Kagan was an experienced judge”

Just doesn’t have the same ring, does it.

[Oh, actually there is a counter move to 41. It's called the 'nuclear option'. But let's make them go there. See if it's possible for us to improve on the House +80 and Senate +10 success in November.]
E Pluribus Unum

“You cannot pass!”
sbpkwlg

When I watched the Democrats get mad and annoying over Roberts and Alito I brought it to my liberal friend’s attention knowing that one day it would be turned back on me and that is coming true. I don’t like Kagan, but what is the basis for not allowing a vote on her? Experience? Granted she does not have a lot, but the simple fact that she is not a judge does not disqualify her since previous judges have been including Rehnquist. In fact the two judges with no judicial experience were the only ones to vote in the dissent on Roe v. Wade. She does not have a lot of experience practicing law like Rehnquist did, but go back and look at Clarence Thomas. He was an Assistant Attorney General for 3 years, practiced law for a couple of years, was the head of the EEOC for a while, and then a judge for a year. Kagan practiced law for a couple of years, was the Assistant White House Counsel, and a law professor and dean for a while. While I have seen a lot of people complain about the time in Academia not being real world experience and I understand their arguments, it means there is a pretty good chance she does know some things about the law. Harriet Miers did not have a lot of experience, but wht caused her to withdraw was how people, including some Republicans, commented on her lack of knowledge of constitutional law. If Kagan doesn’t understand the law, it will come out.

I probably disagree with a lot of things she believes about the law and the constitution, but her judicial philosophy is also not a good enough argument. Roberts was a good judge and a smart man who deserves to be on the court and was attacked because of his philosophy. So was the only recent judge that was voted down, Bork. The Democrats made up all kinds of stuff of how allowing him on the court was going to turn back time on civil rights and all the other crap Kennedy said about him. Bork also was a good judge and a smart man that deserved to be on the court but was voted down because of people that disagreed with his judicial philosophy. I know that, as people have said here, we don’t really know what her philosophy is and that’s true. Even if we knew she was in the same mold as Stevens or Ginsburg, I think our turning her down because of that is like Kennedy and Biden voting down Bork because of how they portrayed his philosophy.

At this point the only thing people have against her that I have seen is that they don?t like some of her political opinions or her interpretations of laws. I will have to qualify my arguments by saying I am no expert on Kagan. I may be way off and missing some pretty obvious points and I admit that. So I guess this all boils down to what real grounds do we think we have to filibuster Kagan?
E Pluribus Unum

First, let’s get one thing clear, at the top. The reason to block cloture is that Senate precedent, routinely used by Democrats when in the minority, is that blocking cloture on judicial confirmation is acceptable if you can get your 41, if you think that judge is unacceptable,

So be it.

So, now to the merits. Her resume is embarrassingly thin for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court (and yes, I was adamantly opposed to the Harriet Myers nomination). So, that being true, what DOES show had better be stellar.

What we find is quite the opposite.

What we DO find in her paper trail is the Harvard Law School stunt she did in blocking military recruiters, against explicit instructions in the ongoing appellate case inre the Solomon Amendment. Think about the significance of her will being voted down 8-0. This means that she is demonstrably to the left of every single leftist judge currently serving. And we have some stinkers there. Along with either disregard or poor understanding of the law, this also indicates a hatred of the military.

We find her making statements to the effect that the government has the right to curtail free speech in very interesting ways.

I could stop there. Or I could go on. Do you need more than this? Is THAT the kind of person you could accept making 35 years worth of “impartial” judgments that in practice cannot be overruled?
aesthete

that Obama will nominate anyone more to the right of her? If so, who? The only realistic potential nominees I could see were uniformly more qualified, more intelligent, and more progressive than Kagan. I don’t know why Pres Obama chose Kagan over them, but I’d rather bloody him up with the nomination and have him go with an inexperienced blank slate, than have him renege on his choice and pick Woods or Sunstein instead. Supreme Court Justices last a lifetime. I think it’s in our best interests to put long-term considerations above short-term gratification.
E Pluribus Unum

It’s the THIRD pick that will show us something interesting.

I don’t know that Wood, et al are substantially to the left of Kagan. I think she’s full-bore left, and materially unqualified to boot.

You are right in that if they nominate an actual appellate judge, we lose the ‘she has no practical experience’ card. However, the flip side helps us rather than hurts. Woods has a paper trail a mile long, and it’s all bad.

And I absolutely dare Bambi to nominate Cass Sunstein. Oh yeah.

I am willing to risk having that fight, where Repubs take it to America’s public. What do we have to lose? Truly. This is a 49-year old radical leftist. The others are high 50′s radical leftists. It is difficult for me to imagine a substantial case in which Kagan would vote with the originalists, where Woods would not.

So let’s just make them send us another one. And another one if needed. We will get absolutely pilloried in the press, but we can and will shout our case to the public “ALL WE ARE ASKING IS THAT OBAMA SEND US A NOMINEE WHO BELIEVES IN LIBERTY AND THE CONSTITUTION”.
sbpkwlg

First as to cloture, I understand that both sides generally block many judicial nominees, which is annoying but the way things are. Yet that does not happen with Supreme Court nominees. Maybe you think it should since it is a bigger deal, but even with Bork they voted on him. Unless I am missing someone, if the Republicans did this they would be the first to cloture a SC nominee. Again, I realize both sides do it on lower court nominees, but this would be a first.

I agree that next to Roberts or Alito her resume is thin, but looking at Thomas, I am not sure he had much more relevant law experience. Again, I could be wrong or missing something, but outside of being a judge for a year, what more experience did he have?

As for the Solomon stuff, from what I understand she maintained the policy of the school after the first battle with Solomon in the 90′s that the military had access through the Veterans Association but not through the Office of Career Development. When the 3rd Court of Appeals said Solomon was unconstitutional in 2004, she barred all recruiters from campus, but when the 8-0 decision was given out, she allowed them full access to the OCD, which they did not have before. So from the basic research I have done, you can say her interpretation of the law was shot down, but I didn’t see where she went against the instruction of the court. Also, yes, she very well may be to the left on this issue of every single judge on the court, but that goes straight back to the argument against Bork. Kennedy took some of his views and twisted them and made them into something that got people riled up and voted down a perfectly good nominee. Just because she was to the left of the SC does not mean she is not qualified. It means I wish Obama was not there to nominate her, but that does not disqualify her. I also think that it is a little much to say she hates the military. Right or wrong she was acting under the argument that what the military was doing in don’t ask don’t tell was discrimination. The military still had access to the school through the Veterans Association and you have no evidence that she hated the military. Especially since that implies she hates the troops which is honestly something that at the very least you can’t say, but which I doubt is true. Just because she did not want the military to recruit there because she felt the military discriminated does not mean she hated the military. As a Baptist that believes in the idea of hate the sin and not the sinner, I don’t think its a stretch to say that she can hate what the military does without hating the military. Maybe she does hate the military, but those actions give no indication of it.

Is this the kind of person I want to be making judgments for 35 years? Not really. Is this someone that I feel it has been shown she is unqualified for the position she is nominated for? Not really.
E Pluribus Unum

Could not keep their party lined up. Regardless, the jump from filibustering the crap out of

Just because she was to the left of the SC does not mean she is not qualified.

Look, I already explained that. She’s unqualified due to lack of any significant relevant experience. A caveat against that would be that her OTHER experience shows compelling evidence that she is of excellent character and capability. She fails on that as well.

You are spending a phenomenal amount of effort trying to make a defense of a sad, sorry excuse of a candidate(“hating what the military does without hating the military”) (“well, Thomas only had ONE year as a judge”).

Just have your fun. She’s a leftist hack from Harvard, with utterly no qualification. She should be blocked, and Obama should be roundly ridiculed and mocked for throwing up such a person for such a lofty position.

itdiehard

jelly fish. No spine! No spine has evolved in millions of years of evolution and They are toxic to a lot of things they touch. Republicans take on new slogan. Repeal.. Repeal.. Repeal.. There are thousands of law that need repeal.. Get back to smaller and limited government.
teapartypatriot

Let’s be realistic – the republican contingent in the Senate includes snowe, collins, graham and mcconnell. Given that bunch of rino reprobates, NOBODY should expect much good coming from the Senate republicans.
http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

It would be nice if the rest of the R’s learned this lesson rather than assist evil in the name of going along to get along because they’re worried about their image.
Brian Darling

Is a former Senate staffer and an excellent resource for the Conservative movement. Senators should listen to him. Great Op Ed by Gizzi.
Adjoran

1. We do NOT have the full party on this. Collins, Snowe, and Graham at the least will vote for her, probably also Brown and others.

2. EVEN IF we could filibuster Kagan, who would Obama pick next? Someone we KNOW is hard-left, just check his short list. Does anyone seriously think we would be able to mount TWO filibusters in a row? If so, put down the bong and step slowly away from the computer.

3. If we effectively shut down the Senate as suggested, WHO will get blamed? Who ALWAYS gets blamed?

~~~~~~~

We are on our way to a big victory in November, and there is nothing the Democrats can do but hope we shoot ourselves in the foot along the way.

Please, DON’T DO IT!

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

I can think of reasons not to filibuster Kagan, but the idea that standing up to Obama will cost us seats, is not one of them.

Bill S

In fact, I’ve been re-thinking my original opinion on this one. I’m still not convinced that we should go all-in on an anti-Kagan war, but handing Bambi another loss might actually be worth it in the long run. As Brian Darling pointed out to me earlier today, it’s not a sure thing that Kagan would be better than someone like Wood. We simply have far too little evidence to prove or disprove.

aesthete

would be in her ability to convince other Justices to agree with her, particularly Kennedy. In that, Kagan would be much better: she’s been terrible in her few appearances before the SC, and I would much rather have an unconvincing wild card justice than one who has proven that she can win over other Justices on the Seventh Court.

aesthete

Obama confirm her, for the following reasons:

1) No matter how much we protest or block, Pres Obama will never appoint a Heritage scholar as a Supreme Court Justice. We are not going to get any rightward movement for nominations on Obama’s part — none.

2) Kagan is completely unexperienced. This may seem like a negative (and it is), but as Napoleon put it, “never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” Kagan will have many missteps as SC Justice as a result of her inexperience, and will not be respected by swing justices like Anthony Kennedy.

3) Following that train of thought, Kagan’s few appearances in the SC have shown her to be an utter failure at winning over Justices. Even the liberals on the Court had no respect for her when she tried making her arguments as Solicitor General. I expect that she would be thoroughly unconvincing when stacked against Scalia or Thomas in a way that Stevens wouldn’t be.

4) All other potential nominees are several degrees worse than Kagan: most are smart and would have a higher chance at snagging the swing justices, some are more liberal in their jurisprudence, and all would have a better chance at pushing their form of judicial activism on the rest of us.

We should by all means attack Kagan and use the opportunity to point out the problem with liberal activism, but Obama has given us a golden opportunity: by trading in a towering liberal intellect for an inexperience and unpersuasive judge, we will have a Court more in favor of limited jurisprudence.

GT350

Couldn’t agree more.

“We should by all means attack Kagan and use the opportunity to point out the problem with liberal activism, but Obama has given us a golden opportunity: by trading in a towering liberal intellect for an inexperience and unpersuasive judge, we will have a Court more in favor of limited jurisprudence.”

I think she is unqualified and not worthy of the position. But if Obama wants to use this opportunity to put in a weak candidate, I won’t stop him. The White House is talking about her “ability to create consensus” and “leadership skills” at Harvard Law. I say BS… She “managed” 42 so-called employees, none of whom had to listen to her due to their own egos and lifetime employment. An evening shift manager at McDonalds has more managerial responsibility every day than she did at HLS.

Let’s say we block the appointment, and she withdraws in disgrace. In other words, a Harriett Myers. Did Bush’s defeat with Harriett Myers cause him any incremental political problems? I think the Myers nomination was the least meaningful battle fought during the Bush years,

http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

I don’t buy this “consensus builder” meme the White House is putting out there. A phony mediator/consensus builder, already knows what they want, and tries to get others on their side. (Nothing per se necessarily wrong with this as long as you’re forthright about it.) However, the so-called “consensus-builder” ala Obama (and presumably Keagan) will not compromise anything to the other side.

For better-or-rose, a genuine consensus builder will give up parts of their position. But I think the implied meaning behind the White House’s characterization of Keagan is that she can get Kennedy to come on over to the lefties’ side, but not vice-versa.

http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

And I give Kennedy enough credit that after all these years, some newbie isn’t going to arrive on the scene and suddenly win him over.

http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

In my opinion there seems to be the assumption that every single democrat will vote for her. Better to have a fight and fight out. Better to lose while rubbing the face of the administration into the faces of the voters on every issue until the elections roll around. Better to win and watch the meltdown that will re-re-expose the administration as pathetic whiners who shouldn’t be in charge of a kiosk much less the *leaders* of the US.

Just rolling over though? Because it’s hard?

No.

aesthete

Obama will nominate someone. His nominee won’t be anything close to a strict constructionist. He currently has a majority in Congress. Most importantly, his nominee is an inexperienced cipher with no ability to sway other members. That’s a huge win for those of us expecting Cass Sunstein or Diane Woods to be the nominee. There is no way to win this fight, only ways to lose. I’d prefer not to give Obama the chance to nominate Woods or Sunstein. We should bloody Obama up by playing up the anti-military connection, and her anti-First Amedment positions she took as Solicitor General, as well as her general inexperience, but we should ultimately confirm her: an inexperienced cipher is the best we could hope for from this Administration.

http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

from some of the cases coming before SCOTUS? You need 5 to win. 4-4 won’t be a loss, but it’s not a win either. Of course, it depends on perspective. If faced with a certain loss, I’d generally take the “tie.”

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/04/elena-kagan-and-recusal/

conservativecrusade

and I tend to lean towards this is a designed ploy to bring bad press to the republicans. Why you ask…

We know none of his minions will reject anyone who he has chosen. Every single one will vote yes.

He knows repubs will be wary of any of his choices, this lady included. If he can make the world believe the republicans were against her from the start based solely on experience, sexual persuasions, that she is a woman, etc he will win and look like the guy who desires the most equality.

He will try to paint republicans as protagonist against anything he does, good or bad. This will sway some some undecided voters.

She may be the slaughter lamb.I doubt he has any real intention of getting her to the bench. Unlike the rapping Bush took for old Harriet, he will do his best to turn this into a positive for him. He will twist her quitting as being due to the constant bashing of the right, not he less than stellar experience.

He most likely also knows that if by luck he gets her on the bench, her true liberal nature will soon show. Obama does not pick moderates to high positions, we should not assume this was the rare exception. He knows it matters little if she gets to the bench because if she gets there, he added a liberal activist and if not, republicans are just a group of people not interested in getting things done for the good of the country, but just interested in fighting everything he does.

This is a move on Obama’s part. We can only sit back and watch for the real reason he has vetted this unknown woman to the highest bench in the country. But be assured, it is a ploy and there is a reason. Obama knows how the upcoming elections will go, he knows how the country feels about him and his cronies, and he knows he has to do something to make us look like the problem so that he can deflect attention from him and his party in order to save seats in the two upcoming elections.
wdevinney

I know this is going to be a very unpopular post, but I think Republicans should grill Kagan, vote against her if they think it’s appropriate, but they should allow a floor vote and not employ procedure to block her. The President is Constitutionally entitled to nominate a Justice with the advice and consent of the Senate. The voters elected a Democrat President, and majority-Democrat Senate. They get their nominee; a minority party should not use procedure to block a nominee except in extreme cases, which I don’t think Kagan is. I wish she had judicial experience, but her resume passes muster. If she had held comparable positions in the Reagan administration and been dean of Chicago law school, I would probably be enthusiastic about her nomination.

If the Republicans had a majority in the Senate, fine, allow the vote and reject her, and let the voters throw them out if they disagree. Otherwise, our Founders never contemplated a minority party rejecting a Supreme Court nominee.

When Bush had a Republican Senate, we became incensed, rightfully, when Democrats refused a floor vote on some of Bush’s judicial nominations. It was wrong then, it would have been wrong for the Democrats to do it to Roberts or Alito, and it would be wrong for us to do it to it to Kagan.

Just my two cents. Let the rippin’ begin, but leave just leave my mom out of it.

conservativecrusade

ripping our own based solely on a different opinion. Problem with your assessment is that this is not a normal appointee. If you were talking about one of his czars, maybe ok. But this will be a person who is in her position long after Obama is gone, and the power she will wield is absolute.It is sort of like saying Obama can take out a loan on the country for 10 trillion, delay payments till he is out of office, use the money he took for personal advancement, stick us with the bill, and us say he can do so because he is president. This appointment must be fought if she is deemed to be liberal or an activist, regardless of a perceived right to nominate. It is the job of each respective party to defend their voters wants and to defend the constitution from liberal activist.

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Human Events: The Way to Block Kagan

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL