It would have been much better for Rehnquist to retire first or at the same time, as a conservative replacement for Rehnquist doesn't change anything. O'Connor is the fifth vote for legal abortion, which means the hearings will be all about one issue, and one issue alone. Abortion. The Democrats will not compromise or yield on that issue which means filibusters and character assassination. It means no replacement will be forthcoming anytime soon.
If you thought the Bork treatment is bad... you ain't seen nothing yet. This will be the ugliest fight to take place in the Senate for a long long time.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Temple Stark
Wow.
It could very well get ugly and make John Bolton's nominaton look like a walk in the park (while haranguing and browbeating the ducks).
But for all the wrong reasons.
For search engine purposes your headline isn't up to the job by the way. Should have had "Justice O' Conner retires; fight will be ugly" or something close to that with "O connor and "retires" in the lede.
2 - JR
So Bush can easily spare us the ugliness by nominating a moderate, pro-choice candidate, right?
3 - SFC Ski
If the Suprmeds can do for abortion rights what it's recently done for medical marijuana and property rights, they'll really be on a roll.
JR, anyone Bush nominates right now who isn't a card-carrying menber of the DNC is going to be stonewalled on general principles by the Dems.
4 - SFC Ski
Man, I can't type today, must be the jet lag, I meant Supremes.
5 - Tan The Man
It would be great if another woman is nominated.
6 - Nancy
Yes - whether there will be a bloody fight or not depends on whether Bush actually wants to nominate a viable candidate, or continue his tradition of bullying by proposing someone he knows will be unacceptable to the most people - and not just the most neocons. I suspect Bush just likes to try to force things on people because he thinks he can.
7 - JR
SFC Ski: JR, anyone Bush nominates right now who isn't a card-carrying menber of the DNC is going to be stonewalled on general principles by the Dems.
Prove it. Nominate a pro-choice moderate.
Until then, I get to accuse Bush of being divisive and pushing an extremist agenda.
8 - Nancy
I agree w/JR: not necessarily, Ski; but so far, the divisiveness has been on Bush's side, by proposing candidates he KNOWS will stick in the craw of anyone in the middle or left. That's a Rove move, to make anyone not on the far right look like obstructionist jerks, and unreasonable. Very clever, I'll admit, but after a little analysis, evident & revealing. I think it surprised the hell out of him (& Bush) when 7 Republicans joined 7 Dems to defuse the nuclear option. Rove gave Frist a considerable beating for not keeping better order & outing his agenda.
9 - John Bambenek
Temple -
Thanks for the edit.
All -
Bush was voted in by a majority of the population who wants certain people appointed to the courts. A nomination should not be chosen to appease the Senate MINORITY at the expense of the will of the majority.
10 - Nancy
This is true; but the majority he won by is so miniscule, he (& his supporters) keep forgetting he does NOT have a mandate. Therefore it is in his interests - and all of ours - if he TRULY wants a nominee to pass, that is - to choose someone who is qualified but also tolerable for the widest possible number of citizens; not someone so far to the right that the only ones jumping for joy are the neocons & religious reich who have taken over the GOP in recent years. Unless he just wants to pick a fight, that is. The proof of his intentions will become clear in his nominee, won't it?
11 - Bennett
50% in the first election (+, or -) and 51% in the re-election does not a mandate make.
With that slim of a victory, a reasonable man would realize that nominating judges acceptable by both parties would be the right thing to do.
12 - Bennett
What Nancy, are we soul-mates?
13 - Nancy
Possibly, but I've already asked Gonzo to marry me. Sorry....
Besides, haven't we lit into each other a few times previous to this? ;)
14 - Bennett
I don't recall any spats. But it's a damn fine coincidence... I've offered myself to JuJu's golden boy myself.
15 - Nancy
My understanding from reading his JuJu comments is that JuJu followers accept EVERYONE without prejudice! But can he afford to support all of us?
16 - Bennett
Not in the way we're acustomed, I warrant. S'okay though, we'll simply operate satellite Temples Of The Golden Tusk.
17 - Nancy
'Sjust as well, I suppose...I'm not really mentally or verbally agile enough to keep him happy all by myself. But I make a dandy cheerleader!
18 - Margaret Romao Toigo
John Bambenek wrote: "Bush was voted in by a majority of the population who wants certain people appointed to the courts."
The majority that re-elected Mr. Bush did not all vote for him for the same reason.
Remember, terrorism, national security and the war in Iraq were the priority issues for most people in November of 2004, with the economy and health care falling not too far behind. Clearly, most people felt that Mr. Bush would do better with regard to our national security than Mr. Kerry.
The only voters who could truly be described as having voted for Mr. Bush because of Supreme Court nominations were those 4 million religious conservatives who stayed home in 2000 (because they felt that Mr. Bush's stance on the abortion issue was weak) but came out in 2004 to vote against the recognition of same-sex marriages and because Mr. Bush took a stronger position against abortion than he had in 2000.
Those 4 million people think they're in the majority and they think they speak for most Americans, but really they are nothing but a small, vocal minority of extremists who would be happy to turn back the clock on all of the social progress of the last 50 years or so simply because they lack the courage to resist temptation and lead moral lives in our modern world. They do not see how true repentence is not possible without free will.
19 - Matt
Well said, Margaret.
20 - Matthew T. Sussman
I nominate Mills Lane. Maybe it's just me talking.
21 - Victor Plenty
Can't nominate Mills Lane until Thomas retires. This time around the only acceptable candidates will be female.
(Yes, I know that's not written into the Constitution anywhere, but the nominations do seem to be settling into the unspoken pattern of having one seat on the Supreme Court for a black man, and two seats for women.)
22 - JR
Bush was voted in by a majority of the population who wants certain people appointed to the courts. A nomination should not be chosen to appease the Senate MINORITY at the expense of the will of the majority.
Those same voters did not see fit to give Bush a large enough majority in the Senate for all his nominations to sail through. That OBVIOUSLY indicates that the voters wanted to force Bush to make some concessions in his appointments, specifically on the issue of abortion.
The ball is in Bush's court. Now does he want to avoid the ugliness or does he want to thwart the will of the majority and hurt America by fostering further divisiveness?
23 - Nancy
??? Why does a particular nominee have to fill only a particular SC position? I didn't know anything about that. Still don't. Someone please educate me? Thanks.
24 - PseudoErsatz
"...a small, vocal minority of extremists who would be happy to turn back the clock on all of the social progress of the last 50 years or so simply because they lack the courage to resist temptation and lead moral lives in our modern world."
This statement positively stumps me, unless you are referring to moral relativists instead of conservative extremists. But the rest of the statement would not make sense, because moral relativist would see no reason to resist temptation and would conduct their moral affairs in a way that seems right in their own eyes. But then again, moral relativists would see things like abortion on demand, sex without consequences, the growth of marriages of convenience to the individual of their choice, the emasculation of fatherhood, the blurring of gender differences, the destigmatization of out-of-wedlock births, and the increasing role of Government as Parent as 'social progress', so part of that statement makes more sense indeed for them. Regardless, I think you got the intended meaning a little twisted around. Perhaps you meant:
"...a small, vocal minority of extremists who would be happy to turn back the clock on all of the increase of moral license of the last 50 years or so simply because they perceive that society lacks the courage to resist temptation and lead moral lives in our postmodern world. They do not see how true repentence (sic) is not possible without free will."
The way you had it written was illogical, because it is widely circulated that this tiny group of vocal extremists (that ironically are viewed as defining the whole of conservatism) are just dandy at controlling their own bodies and downright rabid in wanting to control yours at the same time; Thus, this group could not logically have trouble resisting temptation and leading moral lives. I did like your last line, though.
25 - JR
PseudoErsatz: ...it is widely circulated that this tiny group of vocal extremists (that ironically are viewed as defining the whole of conservatism) are just dandy at controlling their own bodies and downright rabid in wanting to control yours at the same time; Thus, this group could not logically have trouble resisting temptation and leading moral lives.
Wait, are we talking about those women in the "I regret my abortion" T-shirts?