Not One More Roberts or Alito (Leftist Blowhard Upset)

The Washington Post ^ | 6/28/07 | E.J. Dionne Jr.

[LdSentinal]

Just say no.

The Senate's Democratic majority -- joined by all Republicans who purport to be moderate -- must tell President Bush that this will be their answer to any controversial nominee to the Supreme Court or the appellate courts.

The Senate should refuse even to hold hearings on Bush's next Supreme Court choice, should a vacancy occur, unless the president reaches agreement with the Senate majority on a mutually acceptable list of nominees.

And no Bush nominee to a lower court deserves any deference now that we learn that U.S. Appeals Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh may have misled the Senate during his confirmation hearings. Kavanaugh claimed he was not involved in administration discussions about setting the rules for the treatment of enemy combatants. The Post reported that he was.

Although a spokeswoman for Kavanaugh insisted that his testimony was "accurate," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said, "I don't believe that he was truthful with us."

As for the Supreme Court, we now know that the president's two nominees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, are exactly what many of us thought they were: activist conservatives intent on leading a judicial counterrevolution. Yesterday's 5 to 4 ruling tossing out two school desegregation plans was another milestone on the court's march to the right.

[Kuksool]

If Bush wants to create a legacy, then he should quit the Amnesty scheme and push for more judges.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

Didn't Fred help select Roberts?

[OriginalIntent]

Yeah, he didn’t even use a penumbra.

It is amazing how the left's penumbra looks exactly like the communist ACLU playbook.

[Trajan88]

Hey Democrats, in case you forgot... to the victor, go the spoils.

Now don't go away mad... just go away.

[elizabetty]

I agree.

.

.

MAKE IT TWO MORE!!

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Ridiculous column.

[OriginalIntent]

E.J. Dionne does a perfect Barney Frank impression.

Only it is not just an impression.

[elizabetty]

He was asked to lobby on Roberts’ behalf.

Not exactly. He was what is called a "Sherpa" and he helped introduce Roberts to the Senators.

[kallisti]

Not to mention the relevence of international law. The ACLU is only one tentacle.

[SergeiRachmaninov]

He has done splendidly, although denied his poor choice of Miers and -- I think -- his wish for Gonzales. I don't think we have to worry about ~either~ of them now.

I do suspect though, if he had another pick, it would be somebody who would not make us happy.

I hope the lib justices hang on until after the election. I don't whatsoever concede the White House in 08, and I'd prefer to take a chance that we retain it rather than give Bush another nominee. I have no doubt that he would huddle with Kennedy, Specter, and Graham to find somebody "acceptable."

No one that we really liked could get confirmed now anyway.

[freespirited]

I wonder where Dipwad Dionne Jr. got the idea he can dictate how the government is run.

From cocktail chatter with other members of the liberal elite in his neighborhood.

BTW, please pay no attention to the inconvenient fact that he lives in one of the least "diverse" places in the country.

[bybybill]

Taxes

[Moonman62]

Yes, I found some articles saying that Fred was Robert’s “sherpa.” He guided him through the confirmation process.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

As Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute noted this week in Roll Call, the issue-ad decision demonstrated "not a careful, conservative deference to Congress" but instead "a willingness by Roberts to toss aside Congress' conclusions to fit his own ideological predispositions" -- the very definition of judicial activism.

Maybe conservatives are now able to see those profound meanings emanating from the Constitution's "penumbras" that heretofore were only detectable by liberals.

[jazusamo]

BTW, please pay no attention to the inconvenient fact that he lives in one of the least "diverse" places in the country.

Very good point. I'll bet Thomas Sowell will have a column on this next week, I'm anxious to see.

[Rembrandt]

“Liberals NEVER have litmus tests for judicial appointments, eh E.J? Its those nasty conservatives that must be stopped from loading the courts with ideological judges. Why, liberals are just impartial, rule of law-minded and have no ulterior agenda. Yeah, right!”

---

Way back when, FDR actually went so far as to propose expanding the SCOTUS to 15 members so he could appoint enough lefties to counter the conservative tilt of the court. His plan failed, thankfully.

[xzins]

At this point, I sort of agree with this article. Pres Bush is not going to get a conservative through this Senate. It isn’t going to happen.

He should recess appoint a conservative to serve to the end of the Bush term.

Then the election will determine who gets to make the next appointment. It would be a win/win for conservatives.

First, we know there’s no such thing as a political moderate. Moderate = liberal. Therefore, if we get a liberal from a liberal next President, there’s no difference.

However, if we happen to get a revised Senate and a conservative President, then there’s a ready-made seat on Scotus for them to fill.

JMHO.

Although, the President probably isn’t thrilled about being called a moron by his amnesty foes. I hope he doesn’t take the rhetoric about the amnesty debate personally. “It’s not personal, Sonny; it’s only business.”

[SaxxonWoods]

My goodness, that was fun reading, made my night!

[LdSentinal]

Bush can get another conservative if we hold all 49 Republican senators and that's doable.

All we need is for one Democrat to defect.

[Intolerant in NJ]

The Senate should refuse even to hold hearings on Bush's next Supreme Court choice, should a vacancy occur, unless the president reaches agreement with the Senate majority on a mutually acceptable list of nominees... it's the Senate's duty to advise and consent on nominees - it would be unconstitutional for them to "refuse to even hold hearings" - but then leftwingers do think the law is to be ignored when it gets in the way of their lust for control and power, right E.J.?!........