the scotus battle

the scotus battle

the supreme court, and who is on it, has always been one of my ‘issues’. i suppose that is driven by the fact that i am one of those dreaded social conservatives – unashamedly pro-life and believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

now with justice souter retiring in June, The One get’s his first crack at nominating someone for the high court. at the risk of being too transparent, THIS is what i have dreaded the most with obama in the wh.

even though souter voted mostly with the libs and replacing him won’t change the balance of the court too much, it is the beginning of the complete take over of scotus and the judiciary in our country by uber liberals.

of course obama is going to pick a liberal jurist to the court. his pick will further enrage and energize conservatives and republicans; just one more poke in the eye that elections matter and have consequences.

there will be a huge fight over his replacement — we all know that. everyone has been blogging about how arlen specter’s defection to the dems gives them close to a filibuster proof majority in the senate — potentially allowing The One’s socialist agenda to sail through. and this seems true on most policies.

but in doing a lot of reading this am on law blogs and listening to my mentor, rush, ironically specter’s defection may give republicans the ability to filibuster judicial nominees at the judiciary committee level, so the nominees never get out of committee. check this out:

“Does Arlen Specter’s defection from R to D strengthen the President’s hand in Congress? Perhaps overall but not on judicial appointments because breaking (the equivalent of) a filibuster in the Senate Judiciary Committee requires the consent of at least one member of the minority. Before today, Specter was likely to be that one Republican. Now what?

the link in michael dorf’s post is to ‘Congress Matters’, which has the senate judiciary committee rule:

“IV. BRINGING A MATTER TO A VOTE
The Chairman shall entertain a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate, a roll call vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority.”

interesting don’t you think? specter could allow a nominee out of committee if specter was a member of the republican minority, but as part of the majority, he’s just another vote. here are the other republicans: orrin hatch, chuck grassley, jon kyl, jeff sessions, Llndsey graham, john cornyn, and tom coburn.

awesome!

the weak link is john mccain’s bff, lindsey graham, who was a member of the annoying gang of 14. if lindsey graham stays the course and stops his incessant whining, the republicans may not be able to stop runaway spending, military retrenchment, and an interrogation witch hunt. but they may be able to stop a nominee in committee! arlen specter may have handed us a gift.

how fitting that it was joe biden who arranged it all by convincing specter to switch. thanks, joe!

and just as a reminder, keep an eye out for the scotus nominee from The One to have a tax problem.

Written by

No Comments
  • PenniePan says:

    No. I realize this feels hopeful for you, makes you feel less like slitting your wrists, but it’s not going to happen. Who ever the President chooses will be approved easily. There are so few Republicans left in Washington, D.C. that most of them never show their faces. Ever. No one would notice if they objected to anything. Really this one isn’t the battle. The NEXT one will be for the golden egg.

  • Jared says:

    Kate you are delusional. Do you actually believe the GOP will unite on this??!!? Oh I think they will be furious, driven by right wing blogs like Malkins but seeing how things have gone lately, the various factions inside the GOP will flail and fight each other a lot and go no where. Of course this would be fun to watch.

  • Dade Cariaga says:

    Sorry, Kate, but it won’t go down that way.

    You say Lindsay Graham is the “weak link,” but I’d also point to Chuck Grassley or Orrin Hatch. These guys are conservatives, certainly, but more than that they’re survivors.

    Politicians don’t weigh their decisions in terms of ideology. They decide things by determining the advantages and disadvantages to taking a particular stand at a particular point in time. It’s true for Democrats and Republicans.

    Obama will get his nominee.

  • micky says:

    Obama will get his nominee but the point is that the more liberal that nominee is the harder time he will have getting them in due to the present landscape.
    Which means that instead of nominating someone so far left hes off the planet he’ll more than likely have to pick someone whos more of a centrist.

  • micky says:

    Jared, you really think were going to self destruct over this ? If thats the case you’re the delusional one high on wishful thinking.
    What will be more fun to watch is the code pink radicals and there ilk go off the deep end if Obama chooses someone whos more inclined to national security and immigration. The far left loons like Soros, Media Matters etc are all going to be expecting and doing their best to ensure that Obama to pics the most radical leftist he can find. If he doesnt, you better dresss like you’re going to a Gallagher show cuz theres going to be some serious infighting amongst your crew.
    This means more to the left by a mile than it does to us.

  • Ted says:

    The underlying problem with the USSC is that there are those who view the Constitution as if it were a living, breathing document that means something in 2009 that it didn’t mean in 1789, or that they suddenly discovered various “rights” or “restrictions” that were hidden until just recently. The term “judicial activism” is an accurate definition of what has happened, that is judges creating laws that the people as a whole would never support. These libs know what they propose would never become an Amendment, which is the proper way to change the law, so this leads them to operate outside what was intended when the document was radified.

    When asked what kind of gov’t we would have, Ben Franklin told the questioner “A Republic, if you can keep it.” With liberal judges, it’s a foregone conclusion that they’ve never had any intention of keeping it. I’ve read too many comments from lib pol sites and blogs that declare their desire to rid the country of a Constitution “written by a bunch of old, priviledged, white, male, slave owners” (The hatred of the founding father has become something I expect from the libs). How do you do that? Short of being able to scrap the Constitution altogether, you appoint judges that disregard the document in order to create laws that fit their ideology. The thought of having a justice that’s interested in actually upholding the Constitution (a strict constructionist POV), which is what the founding fathers intended to have happen, isn’t even a consideration in Dear Leader’s decision.

  • micky says:

    With Ginsburg on her way out theres no doubt Obama will be making another pick in the near future also.
    Teds absolutely right. In the next couple years we can bet good money that we’ll see the selection of a more agenda driven justice.
    This is the first time in almost 20 years the dems have had this opportunity and they wont let it go to waste.
    Being that Bush senior was the one to originally select Souter you can be sure that any replacement will no doubt be more liberal.

  • kate says:

    hey dade

    of course obama will get his nominee but maybe not his first choice or even his second. and maybe obama won’t be able to put his most radical of pro-abortionists on the court which would be something i am hoping for.

    i agree that grassley and hatch can be squishy (they annoy me, no great surprise! ;)) but on something like this, their constituents will go nuclear if they don’t do the right thing.

  • A_Reluctant_Pundit says:

    How interesting. The ying and yang of life. This is MY real reason for voting for President Obama. At all costs we must reclaim and overwhelmingly outnumber the conservatives on the court. We must not roll back efforts made by women and minorities in this country. We must also roll back the restrictive and invasive policies like Gitmo and lack of rights for prisoners who are held forever w/o due process, all because of the Bush administration.

  • micky says:

    Micky;
    “What will be more fun to watch is the code pink radicals and there ilk go off the deep end if Obama chooses someone whos more inclined to national security and immigration. ”

    Reluctant;
    “We must also roll back the restrictive and invasive policies like Gitmo and lack of rights for prisoners who are held forever w/o due process, all because of the Bush administration.’
    “We must not roll back efforts made by women and minorities in this country”

    Reluctant makes my point.
    These people are more worried about the rights of those who would kill us than the rights of those who defend us like the Bush admin. CIA operatives and our troops.

  • Sammy says:

    Those of you that think the Dems have the votes are sadly mistaken. Franken might not be seated by end of June and Specter, Nelson, and Leibermann could go either way.

  • Jared says:

    “Micky;
    “What will be more fun to watch is the code pink radicals and there ilk go off the deep end if Obama chooses someone whos more inclined to national security and immigration. ””

    WTF??? You have to repeat YOURSELF because you think what you said is so great? BWAAHAHAHAHAHAH!

    Sammy
    Specter, Nelson and Leibermann know what is at stake. They will vote for an Obama nominee. Hell, Specter would have voted for an Obama nominee is he were still a Republican. Obama will not waste this pick for some centrist. He is here for a purpose and he’s going for it with gusto.

  • Jared said: …He is here for a purpose…

    Seriously, I don’t think that means what you think it means…

  • Ken says:

    “We must also roll back the restrictive and invasive policies like Gitmo and lack of rights for prisoners who are held forever w/o due process, all because of the Bush administration.”

    Would that include the detainees in Afghanistan who Obama is fighting to DENY rights to even after a court ruled that they are entitled to. Or do you only get up on your soapbox when a Republican is “violating the constitution”????

    “He is here for a purpose and he’s going for it with gusto.”

    Agreed, and we’ll all pay the price for it.

  • Ken says:

    “At all costs we must reclaim and overwhelmingly outnumber the conservatives on the court.”

    At all costs???? That sounds a bit EXTREME, wouldn’t you say???

  • SouthernProgressive says:

    Kate

    Your Party
    Lied about going to war
    Lied about Torture
    Wrote”permission slips” afterwards for use of torture.
    Used the DOJ as a personal law firm

    Etc
    Etc
    Etc

    You have no authority to stand on your little soap-box. Go ahead, object to whomever Obama nominates, because that IS your duty and your right. But just remember that your party sold whatever credibility in honoring justice and the law, it ever had a long, long time ago.

  • micky says:

    Jared;
    “WTF??? You have to repeat YOURSELF because you think what you said is so great? BWAAHAHAHAHAHAH!

    Let it be known that it was you who went off and started a personal attack having nothing to do with the topic at all.

    No, its not because I think what I said was so great Jared. Its because Reluctant only solidified my position and bolstered my point of view.
    Whats the matter little boy ? Subject a little too complex and intellectual for you so you have to satisfy your kiddy pangs and toss out irrelevant crap to be noticed ?
    Obviously from your comments its been made clear that you have no idea of what the danger is of having a one party state where there are no counters or checks and balances.
    Even some of the most extreme pundits, left or right agree that its never a good thing when one party has too much power. Its bad enough we have to trust government but when we can only be subjected to the whims of one majority we stand the chance for pure legislative and judicial anarchy.
    Wise up, this is not a game of dodge ball. Absolute power corrupts, no matter whos in charge

  • micky says:

    Southern;

    “Your Party
    Lied about going to war
    Lied about Torture
    Wrote”permission slips” afterwards for use of torture.”

    There is no evidence to prove this.

    “Used the DOJ as a personal law firm”

    I could say that for any administration. So what ?

    “You have no authority to stand on your little soap-box”

    As a US citizen she carries the authority by virtue of her rights to climb on any box she wants.

    Wise up.

    “But just remember that your party sold whatever credibility in honoring justice and the law, it ever had a long, long time ago.”

    Pot, meet kettle.

  • kate says:

    SouthernProgressive – ‘You have no authority to stand on your little soap-box.’

    well ya i do. it’s my blog silly person.

  • lisab says:

    Liebermann and Specter will vote with the dems because that was the deal they made

  • Jared says:

    Micky that was no personal attack you paranoid little person!! I have opinions and so what if you don’t agree or like them. My comment was questioning what the hell you were doing repeating your own comments! But then you start the slams.

    “Whats the matter little boy ? Subject a little too complex and intellectual for you so you have to satisfy your kiddy pangs and toss out irrelevant crap to be noticed ?”

    You have a very short temper!

    I completely disagree with you but then what do you care about that? Clearly you want to bully your way into having people agree with you. But I haven’t seen very many do that. Here’s a clue for you Micky-Same party rule is fine if it’s the right party. That’s why we’re in charge and you are not. We’re right and you are pathetically wrong. So wrong that everything was taken away from you like the White House, the Senate, the House and now the Courts. So keep looking for any and every reason to start fighting, because you just can’t help yourself.

  • micky says:

    Jared, you’re an a$$hole.
    What TF does my repeating my post have to do with the subject ?
    You didnt even attack the content of the comment but instead simply the fact that I repeated my self.

    You yourself admit to your idiocy and ineptness right after that.

    “My comment was questioning what the hell you were doing repeating your own comments! ”

    Once again you’ve proven without a doubt that you’re incapable of discussing a topic at hand and only capable of high school antics.

    “That’s why we’re in charge and you are not. ”
    The only thing you run around here is your mouth.

    “I completely disagree with you but then what do you care about that?”
    You should of said that a long time ago. but now instead you’ve chosen to launch an attack on my methods of blogging instead of relaying to me that you disagree.

    ” Clearly you want to bully your way into having people agree with you.”

    You’re off topic.

    ” But I haven’t seen very many do that. ”

    You’re off topic.

    “Here’s a clue for you Micky-Same party rule is fine if it’s the right party. That’s why we’re in charge and you are not. ”

    No, we have two parties or more for a rerason.

    “We’re right and you are pathetically wrong. So wrong that everything was taken away from you like the White House, the Senate, the House and now the Courts.”

    Nothing is “taken away” its voted away.

    ” So keep looking for any and every reason to start fighting, because you just can’t help yourself.”

    You’re off topic again

  • Jared says:

    “Jared, you’re an a$$hole.”

    Micky no not really. I like jerking your ridiculous chain that you wave around, like some pathetic attention seeking moron, so someone can grab.

    “You’re off topic.” “You’re off topic again”

    AHAHAHAHA. Actually you go off topic everytime you rant and rail like an out of control psycho. Handle your own issues before you point fingers at someone else’s rule breaking you little weaseling tattletale. And Micky worry about your own name calling because you are breaking rules again and your foul mouth disrespects a blog that you don’t run.

    Instead of whining all the time that no one debates you, why don’t you learn HOW to debate and then maybe somebody might actually take you up on it, but I doubt it.

  • micky says:

    WTF??? You have to repeat YOURSELF because you think what you said is so great? BWAAHAHAHAHAHAH! ”

    That, is a personal attack.
    In eccense you are saying my vanity has such a grip on me that I felt I must say what I said earlier because it was such as astute, poignant and cutting statement it deserved repeating.

    “Instead of whining all the time that no one debates you, why don’t you learn HOW to debate and then maybe somebody might actually take you up on it, but I doubt it.”

    That somebody has never and never will be you.

    I’ve made you the offer before.
    You failed.
    You cant even answer a simple question never mind debate.
    You’re a looser.

    “Micky no not really. ”

    Yes, really.

    “I like jerking your ridiculous chain that you wave around,”

    Look down, its not my chain.

    ” like some pathetic attention seeking moron,”

    Oh, what ? I thought you were gonna cry to your mommy that I’m being a bully ?
    If I’m so lame then how could I possibly be a bully to such a strong intelligent man like you ?
    Maybe make a relevant point to the topic ?
    The fact is that I was talking about the topic, you decided you wanted to talk about me repeating myself.

    You lose.

    “You’re off topic.” “You’re off topic again”

    And your still off topic.

    I’ll make the offer once again Jared.
    I’m willing to talk to you like a man, debate or discuss a topic in a decent decorum.
    From here on in if you fail to do that. You fail.
    From now on I will address you on topic only, lets see how you do.

    Now, answer my question without going off into some other area or obfuscating or eluding.

    If someone told you he knew when and where your mother was going to be raped and killed, would you torture him ?

  • micky says:

    ““Here’s a clue for you Micky-Same party rule is fine if it’s the right party. That’s why we’re in charge and you are not. ”

    Maybe you could start by telling us what leads you to believe this.
    And are you simply the elected party, or the one thats in charge ? Theres a difference you know.
    I really dont see Obama being much in charge of anything except the people who voted for him which are being led around by their noses.
    Maybe during that time we could discuss how it came to be a majority dem congress during a conservative executive. And how is it that the elected congress we have, the worst ever in history, is going to be re elected again when the people in all polls have said they will vote them “OUT” for being “so well in charge” of everything ?
    I mean really, if you’re all so much in charge then why would that be true ?

  • Marsha says:

    JARED and MICKY could you both give it a rest?????!! The school yard testosterone is just a bit much these days. Good F*kn G-D!!

    Sorry Kate.

  • micky says:

    Marsha.
    I’m sorry also. I’ve seen you come right back at someone after they make it personal with you.
    Why should I be any different ?
    I’m not a liberal. I dont crap from people. Anyone with with 2 cents worth of brains can scroll up and see that I was on topic just moseying along my own way and out of nowhere my methods get attacked by a statement that pointed out my assumed vanity or some personal defect caused me to repeat myself.
    If thats not a unprovoked personal attack I dont know what the f*ck is. And then to further insult our intelligence he first says it wasnt a personal attack but in the following posts admits it >
    ” I like jerking your ridiculous chain that you wave around ”
    ” My comment was questioning what the hell you were doing repeating your own comments! ”

    My first mention of Jared was on topic relating to him saying Kate was delusional.

    “Jared, you really think were going to self destruct over this ? If thats the case you’re the delusional one high on wishful thinking.”

    His first comment to me;
    “WTF??? You have to repeat YOURSELF because you think what you said is so great? BWAAHAHAHAHAHAH!

    WTF does this have to do with the topic ?

    Sorry, but if sticking up for yourself, making your point and driving it home with conviction is what these people call being a bully then I suggest its them who needs to get out of the school yard..
    Also. I would like it to be noted that on more than one occasion ( INCLUDING THIS ONE !)I’ve held out an olive branch and offered to cut the crap with these guys and move on to productive discussions. Has anyone ever seen any of them do this with us before ? Or apologize for their actions ?
    I dont think so. As a matter of fact I know they havent.

    So please, keep me off the list of those who are screwing things up around here because if you take an honest look back you’ll see that I’ve made repeated attempts to engage these little brats. But when those attempts start to expose a little too much truth or common sense and they cant make a decent argument anymore they revert to personal pi$$ing matches an start to focus on everything but the topic.

    I’ve been thru this with Kate via e-mail before and I dont think there can be much doubt that I’ve done my part in trying to curb the bullsh*t around here.

    Sorry, I aint takin no crap on this one.
    I was looking forward to pointing out how too much power, a one party state like we have now always fails using the 111th congress as an example.
    The perfect example of how and why the dems will collapse upon theselves is right there on the hill.
    But I digress, f*ck it.

  • Suz says:

    Learning to walk away shows more intelligence in a debate then demanding you are the victim. Save your powder for another day another opponent. My less then 2 cents…

    On the supreme court Obama will get any justice he wants regardless the outrage.. This is just different days now. The media in the tank for the Obamessiah will help this to happen.

  • micky says:

    Liberals are jumping up and down getting all lit up as if they’ve gained something.
    If theres any change in the next appointee it may be that we’ll see someone who trys to legislate from the bench instead of interpret the constitution. The qualities Obama mentioned hes looking for in the next appointee seem to indicate that type of pick is what we’ll be looking at.
    Totalitarian rule also comes with totalitarian ownership of the mistakes that rule makes. Everything is on the dems, they cant blame anyone after everything starts to collapse. Returning republicans to a reasonable level of power will be piece of cake.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram
Instagram has returned invalid data.