JABbering Stooge

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Thoughts on SCOTUS

If MSRNC is correct in its prediction, Bush is expected to name his nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on or around July 26. Whatever happens - or doesn't happen - in the next two weeks will in all likelyhood affect how the nomination fight turns out. With this in mind, here are my thoughts on the subject.


  • While President Bush is not explicitly bound to uphold the filibuster compromise, his continued stonewalling, eerily reminiscient of his "consultation" with the U.N. prior to the invasion of Iraq, is hardly what a neutral observer would consider adequate consultation with the Senate. If anything, the Democrats have held to their end of the bargain by suggesting to president Bush names of nominees that they could accept - much like when Orrin Hatch suggested Ruth Bader Ginsberg to President Clinton instead of Clinton's preferred nominee, then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt.

  • Speaking of the infamous 3/5 Filibuster Compromise, Part II, Section A. of the compromise states that "each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgement in determining whether such [extraordinary] circumstances exist." Arbitrarily precluding ideological leanings of nominees from such a consideration, as certain members of the Gang of 14 (almost exclusively Republicans) have openly stated, effectively blocks signatories from exercising their own discretion and judgement. Thus the Gang of 14 members who want to remove ideological considerations are in violation of the 3/5 Filibuster Compromise.

  • Almost every time the Democrats have reached out their hands in a show of bipartisan unity, this administration has arrogantly slapped them away. Are we seriously to expect that they'll treat something as serious as a Supreme Court nomination any differently? Remember what this means for the president's role in the consultations with the Senate demanded by the "advise and consent" clause of the Constitution, and compare it to how Clinton treated the Republican minority in 1993, and all the good it did him.

  • While we're on the subject of the seriousness of this nomination process, would it kill Sens. Larry Craig (R - ID) and Rick "Liberalism caused the pedophile priests" Santorum (R - PA) to act like grownups for once?

  • The Hill seems awfully sympathetic to the president - the title of the article is "Bush makes nice on his court pick," and opens with the following gag-inducing paragraph: "President Bush and his administration have engaged in unprecedented efforts to solicit the views of Republican and Democratic senators as the White House considers whom to nominate to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court." Yeah, unprecedented if you ignore the fact that Clinton solicited advice from Orrin Hatch (man, I'm starting to sound like a broken record - or Puffy McMoonface).

  • Given the fact that many on the right still see the 2004 election as a "mandate" (with Jeff Gannon) to ram their destructive agenda through and anyone daring to think otherwise should just shut up about the whole thing, it is unlikely in the extreme that they will accept anything less than Jerry Falwell's wet dream - an ideological clone of Grand Inquisitor Tomás de Torquemada. Unfortunately, this attitute dates back to 1981, when St. Ronnie of Tampico, IL, patron saint of Republicans nominated O'Connor for the Supreme Court. Falwell himself declared that "All good Christians should be concerned" about the nomination of O'Connor - to which Barry Goldwater replied: "Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass."

We've moved! Check out the new site here!