November 04, 2004

Stacking the U.S. Supreme Court.

Loading the Court with more reactionary judges like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia may not be as easy as Dubya and his advisors think.

Any prosepective nominee has to be confirmed by the US Senate, and before that approval can come, the nominee needs to get the nod of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Today, the chair of that committee — Republican Arlen Specter — is warning Dubya not to send the committee any nominee who's too conservative or lacking in legal stature:

According to the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee — which has to give the nod to any prospective court nominee — Dubya shouldn't bother sending the committee any nominee who's too conservative or lacking in legal stature:

Sen. Arlen Specter, fresh from winning a fifth term in Pennsylvania, also said the current Supreme Court now lacks legal "giants" on the bench.

"When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, I think that is unlikely," Specter said, referring to the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.

"The president is well aware of what happened, when a bunch of his nominees were sent up, with the filibuster," Specter added, referring to Senate Democrats' success over the past four years in blocking the confirmation of many of Bush's conservative judicial picks. "... And I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning."

Specter's warning is not idle. While the Republicans have a 55-45 majority in the Senate, Democrats and the few remaining liberal Republicans have more than enough votes to block an unnacceptable nomination by filibuster. (It takes 60 votes to force an end ['cloture'] to debate.)

Via AP.

Posted by Magpie at November 4, 2004 09:44 AM | Law/Justice | Technorati links |
Comments

I wish I did not have to say this:

Redistricting proceeded in the past on accepted norms of decency.

No longer.

Committee chairmanships in the past . . .

You get the idea. I will be happy for any wins and preservations of our nation heritage that we can get, but nobody should be in doubt that the opponent is a ruthless organization prepared to overturn ANY precedent for decent management of public affairs.

Posted by: TomR at November 4, 2004 01:11 PM

media quote: Faced with GOP nominees ranging from conservative to ultra-conservative, voters have instead elected Democratic governors for the last two decades. That's why Rossi's strategy to position himself as a centrist paid off in a much tighter race, observers said. "He's more of a moderate than anyone who's come up in a long time, and they were effective in selling that," said Todd Donovan, a political science professor at Western Washington University. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/198176_governor04.html

'He's more of a moderate than anyone who's come up in a long time', of course, means relatively little when 'anyone who's come up in a long time' is either a dismissed vampire from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, a retired Catholic Priest-Pedophile, an Oil Company Humanist (only eats puppys and kittens after they are dead), or George 'I've never told a lie I'll admit to' Bush.

God's judgement is coming; unfortunately, even those of us who voted against George the Lesser will have to pay. (For those of you even slightly informed: what happens when all those furriners stop buying our bonds? Oh! You actually like 18% interest rates?!?

Posted by: TomR at November 4, 2004 01:55 PM