Coincidence...?

wrote:
Much of the media was all aflutter (or maybe a-twitter...) over Specter
switching parties, but he votes nay on Obama's budget, and then, he's the
possible/probable go-to guy for a yea vote on getting an iffy nominee of Obama's
for SCOTUS out of committee - by current rules, at least one R must vote yes to
get a nom out of the committee.

That's not technically true. One member of the minority must
vote yes to end the debate before a nomination can be listed for
Committee consideration during an Executive Business Meeting.
Once the nomination is listed for consideration a simple majority
vote determines whether the nomination is ordered reported to the
full Senate.

Specter certainly knew that and I'm pretty sure
Souter would have, too. I've heard, um, "speculation" (again, DC style) that
most middle-of-road types of both parties intend that any potential noms need to
be, well, middle-of-the-road types - they better be somewhere between Souter and
Roberts, and another Sandra Day O'Connor-type would be OK, but some half-assed
Ruth Ginsburg-wannabe (I'm not sure even an actual RBG clone would fly) would
not.

The Republicans wouldn't dare hold up a Supreme Court nominee in
committee by refusing to allow the Judiciary Committee to hold a
vote. That's a non-starter, more deancounter wishful thinking, and
I'm sure the thought never crossed Souter's mind.

But, having said that, I sure do wish they'd try. Talk about a PR
nightmare for the GOP in the mid-terms.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Fri, 01 May 2009 15:41:41 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Much of the media was all aflutter (or maybe a-twitter...) over Specter
switching parties, but he votes nay on Obama's budget, and then, he's the
possible/probable go-to guy for a yea vote on getting an iffy nominee of Obama's
for SCOTUS out of committee - by current rules, at least one R must vote yes to
get a nom out of the committee.

That's not technically true. One member of the minority must
vote yes to end the debate before a nomination can be listed for
Committee consideration during an Executive Business Meeting.
Once the nomination is listed for consideration a simple majority
vote determines whether the nomination is ordered reported to the
full Senate.

Specter certainly knew that and I'm pretty sure
Souter would have, too. I've heard, um, "speculation" (again, DC style) that
most middle-of-road types of both parties intend that any potential noms need to
be, well, middle-of-the-road types - they better be somewhere between Souter and
Roberts, and another Sandra Day O'Connor-type would be OK, but some half-assed
Ruth Ginsburg-wannabe (I'm not sure even an actual RBG clone would fly) would
not.

The Republicans wouldn't dare hold up a Supreme Court nominee in
committee by refusing to allow the Judiciary Committee to hold a
vote.

Oops, nope - there's no "refusing" to allow the committee to vote. As I
shorthanded it, but you expounded upon, they simply can vote to continue the
debate - they would not be voting to "refuse" to do anything, except, if one
wants to phrase it as such, "refusing to vote yes to end the debate." IAC, they
wouldn't be voting to refuse to allow the committee to vote and if a
questionable nominee is presented, there should be plenty of debate (and given
the Dems past history with such, they'd be hard-pressed to claim otherwise). And
the Rs have no real incentive to allow a nominee too far to the left out of
committee - there's little chance to get hurt by it.

That's a non-starter, more deancounter wishful thinking, and
I'm sure the thought never crossed Souter's mind.

Um, well, you were sure Phil Graham is a US Senator, too...

But, having said that, I sure do wish they'd try. Talk about a PR
nightmare for the GOP in the mid-terms.

Actually, it could be worse for the Dems - well, certain Dems, anyway.

HTH,
R

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
The Republicans wouldn't dare hold up a Supreme Court nominee in
committee by refusing to allow the Judiciary Committee to hold a
vote.

... And
the Rs have no real incentive to allow a nominee too far to the left out of
committee - there's little chance to get hurt by it.

roll eyes Well, if you mean the GOP is so screwed they couldn't
possibly screw themselves any worse, you may be right. But I
wouldn't underestimate these guys ability to shoot themselves
in the foot. If they decide to bottle up the nomination of the
first Hispanic woman to the Supreme Court (for instance) it'll
be a deliciously major political faux pas.

That's a non-starter, more deancounter wishful thinking, and
I'm sure the thought never crossed Souter's mind.

Um, well, you were sure Phil Graham is a US Senator, too...

Yeah, yeah, and you can't even spell Lindsey Graham's first name.

But, having said that, I sure do wish they'd try. Talk about a PR
nightmare for the GOP in the mid-terms.

Actually, it could be worse for the Dems - well, certain Dems, anyway.

Huh ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Fri, 01 May 2009 17:00:39 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
The Republicans wouldn't dare hold up a Supreme Court nominee in
committee by refusing to allow the Judiciary Committee to hold a
vote.

... And
the Rs have no real incentive to allow a nominee too far to the left out of
committee - there's little chance to get hurt by it.

roll eyes Well, if you mean the GOP is so screwed they couldn't
possibly screw themselves any worse, you may be right. But I
wouldn't underestimate these guys ability to shoot themselves
in the foot. If they decide to bottle up the nomination of the
first Hispanic woman to the Supreme Court (for instance) it'll
be a deliciously major political faux pas.

You're assuming it's Sotomayor, and if it is, that actually makes it easier for
the GOP - she's pretty left, and more importantly, a lot of lawyers apparently
don't like or respect her. Specter could be a "nay" on that regardless of what
party he's in.

That's a non-starter, more deancounter wishful thinking, and
I'm sure the thought never crossed Souter's mind.

Um, well, you were sure Phil Graham is a US Senator, too...

Yeah, yeah, and you can't even spell Lindsey Graham's first name.

But, having said that, I sure do wish they'd try. Talk about a PR
nightmare for the GOP in the mid-terms.

Actually, it could be worse for the Dems - well, certain Dems, anyway.

Huh ?

See above - Sotomayor isn't a "trouble-free" candidate, and if Specter doesn't
support her BIG, the GOP then has carte blanche to do darned near whatever to
stall or block her. Schumer, I'm sure, will be pimping her like the sorry
little **** he is, which will give the GOP even more room to work.

If Obama truly wants to be a middle-of-the-road kinda guy, he ought to be
looking at folks like Ann Claire Williams - moderate, non-Ivy, actually worked
before law school, ABA awards, Roberts seems to like her and she's known to the
SC, community service, unanimous past confirmations after appointments by Reagan
and Clinton, from the 7th Circuit, AFAIK, no controversial stuff legally,
professionally or privately and generally well-thought-of - nothing much there
for anyone to bitch about, and as bonus for those who insist on such, a black
woman. Again, from what I know about her, anyone in Congress bitching about her
will have some explaining to do.

HTH,
R

wrote:
...
See above - Sotomayor isn't a "trouble-free" candidate, and if Specter doesn't
support her BIG, the GOP then has carte blanche to do darned near whatever to
stall or block her. Schumer, I'm sure, will be pimping her like the sorry
little **** he is, which will give the GOP even more room to work.

Specter has rendered himself a non-player. He's just one Dem out of
twelve on the Judiciary Committee. And your comments about Schumer
reveal the extent of your blind partisanship. There is no universal
disgust with Schumer which will give the GOP "room to work" whatever
the hell "room to work" is supposed to mean.

If Obama truly wants to be a middle-of-the-road kinda guy, he ought to be
looking at folks like Ann Claire Williams ...

Obama has a sky high approval rating and a majority in both the House
and Senate, why would he want to be middle-of-the-road ? He can pay
lip service to bi-partisanship and coming together in a Kumbaya moment
but he needs to be what he is; a slightly left-of-center pragmatist.

Williams isn't a name I've heard mentioned, but Leah Ward Sears is
on most short lists. I don't expect anyone I've seen on most of the
short lists to have significant trouble in the nominating process.
But again, I sure do wish the GOP would give obstructionism the good
old college try because Joe Public is fed up with that ****.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
Obama has a sky high approval rating and a majority in both the House
and Senate, why would he want to be middle-of-the-road ?

because, at his core, that is who he is....a middle of the road, consensus
building pragmatist. If you are under some other sort of illusion, you are
going to be regularly disappointed during the coming years.


Tom

Tom Littleton wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
Obama has a sky high approval rating and a majority in both the House
and Senate, why would he want to be middle-of-the-road ?

because, at his core, that is who he is....a middle of the road, consensus
building pragmatist. If you are under some other sort of illusion, you are
going to be regularly disappointed during the coming years.

Well, what you and I would call middle-of-the-road is what a lot
of folks in this country call European-style socialism. It all
depends on how you define middle-of-the-road.

I haven't been disappointed with Obama so far, but I will be
disappointed if he doesn't nominate a candidate with a clearly
liberal judicial philosophy, a keen intellect and an articulate,
persuasive demeanor which can both challenge and persuade her
conservative colleagues on the Court.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Sat, 02 May 2009 07:49:03 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
...
See above - Sotomayor isn't a "trouble-free" candidate, and if Specter doesn't
support her BIG, the GOP then has carte blanche to do darned near whatever to
stall or block her. Schumer, I'm sure, will be pimping her like the sorry
little **** he is, which will give the GOP even more room to work.

Specter has rendered himself a non-player. He's just one Dem out of
twelve on the Judiciary Committee.

Er, no. If he doesn't gush over the nom, the Rs can point to his being courted
and welcomed into the fold, yet being hesitant about the nom. Any other Dem is
just being a good Dem.

And your comments about Schumer
reveal the extent of your blind partisanship. There is no universal
disgust with Schumer which will give the GOP "room to work" whatever
the hell "room to work" is supposed to mean.

If Obama truly wants to be a middle-of-the-road kinda guy, he ought to be
looking at folks like Ann Claire Williams ...

Obama has a sky high approval rating and a majority in both the House
and Senate, why would he want to be middle-of-the-road ? He can pay
lip service to bi-partisanship and coming together in a Kumbaya moment
but he needs to be what he is; a slightly left-of-center pragmatist.


Williams isn't a name I've heard mentioned,

Yeah, she's probably never been mentioned by "The Guilty White Liberal News and
Mulletwrapper"...Geez, Ken, she's in Chicago...

but Leah Ward Sears is
on most short lists. I don't expect anyone I've seen on most of the
short lists to have significant trouble in the nominating process.

Depending on connections to existing members and advice offered by practicing
attorneys, Sotomayor won't have the support you expect.

But again, I sure do wish the GOP would give obstructionism the good
old college try because Joe Public is fed up with that ****.

Yeah, right. The entire committee could show up dressed like rappers, call the
nominee a plaid platypus on roller skates and 99.99% of "Joe Public" wouldn't
even hear about it, and the .01% that did wouldn't care one iota...well, unless
the nom was Susan Boyle, whoever wins (won?) American Idol, or some bisexual
celebutant with a fresh Brazilian wax and a DWI...

HTH,
R

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Williams isn't a name I've heard mentioned,

Yeah, she's probably never been mentioned by "The Guilty White Liberal News and
Mulletwrapper"...Geez, Ken, she's in Chicago...

Yeah, right after I wrote that I read today's Chicago Tribune and
she is mentioned there. Of course the Trib is somewhere out in the
deepest part of political right field. Her bio contains stints as
a prof at Northwestern and John Marshall. In the hierarchy of Chicago
Law Schools the University of Chicago is the big leagues, Northwestern
is the minor leagues and John Marshall is the six-year-old T-ball
league. In other words, I think Supreme Court Justice is a little bit
out of her league.

--
Ken Fortenberry