The Supremes Are Back – Bush Does a Victory Lap
By Kathryn Kolbert Monday Oct 06, 2008 3:01pmToday’s the first day of the Supreme Court’s new term, and President Bush is using the occasion to appear before the Cincinnati Federalist Society. He’s being joined by a coterie of right-wing judicial activists who helped him push hundreds of nominations through the Senate. Among them will be Wendy Long, whose Judicial Confirmation Network just launched a nasty smear campaign against Obama.
Bush is taking a victory lap, and you almost can’t blame him. Of all the terrible things that he set out to do, shifting the federal courts far to the right is the only thing he’s achieved. A full one of every three federal judges were appointed by Bush, including Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito on the Supreme Court, and they have steadily chipped away at our rights.
But Bush couldn’t quite close the deal – the right-wing bloc on the Supreme Court is still one vote short of an unstoppable majority. Justice Stevens – 88 years young and the most progressive member of the Supreme Court – stubbornly refused to retire. Justices Ginsburg and Souter, who have reportedly eyed retirement, also weathered the Bush reign, presumably in hopes of a better political environment next year.
What that means is McCain, if elected, stands to achieve Bush’s goal of a right-wing court. There’s no uncertainty here – McCain has pledged to nominate “clones of Roberts and Alito”:
So that’s where we’re at. The next 40 years of the Supreme Court are on the ballot.
Kathryn Kolbert is President of People For the American Way
Login or Register to post comments.
BE DEFEATED!
That's gonna' be quite a feat considering if this stupid old bastard does indeed manage to steal another election for the garbage GOP , he isn't gonna' be alive for more than 2 months or so into the new year anyway.............
I believe Bush has achieved everything he set out to do during his presidency:
dismantle education - check
enrich defense industry - check
enrich oil industry - check
enrich banking industry - check
Dude! It's true - and here we were, thinking of him as a failure....
Weaken civil rights-check
Re-draw the congressional districts to favor Republicans-check
Install election-stealing voting machines that favor Republicans-check
Stack the Departments of Justice, FDA, EPA etc. with Republican puppets-check
Concentrate all power in the Executive Branch of government-check
(Although that one will backfire.)
The list goes on...
We have to get America's education back on track. I graduated from a high school a couple of years ago where only 40% of the students passed the literacy exam. And, instead of the teachers focusing on teaching the students how to read, they are forced to work with the No Child Left Behind Act. The new regulations and testing causes the teachers to "teach towards the test." If our education continues to fall behind, it won't matter what happens on Wall St. The candidates have barely touched on this issue.
Here's McCain's "next big problem" if he wants to discuss who's hanging around with terrorists or "anti-US" types:
She delivered via video her support in BOTH 2006 AND 2008 TO THE AIA....Alaska Independence Association (aka "secessionists")
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/09/sarah-palin-...
This will be HUGE from now until election day.
People in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones, Moosey!
Looks like "secessionista Sarah"'s moose is cooked a bit more. Here's a link to her involvement with the AIA (Anti-US Secessionists) in 1994 and her video taped commendation of their work both in 2004 and 2008.
I believe this qualifies both Sarah and Todd as "traitors" at this point, doesn't it?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/...
So 40 years doesn't hold much terror to me.
Also, it's a fact that Obama's nominations will necessarily be 'center-right' judges. There's no way he'd have the balls to nominate another Marshall, or Douglas, or Brennan. Who would be defeated by DEMOCRATS, for the love of fucking christ...
McC(umst)ain would nominate worse choices, but the Senate--led by Sen. Obama (and Clinton, we'd hope) would use the rule of 40 to beat them back, too...
...has been the notion of another GOP president presiding over those three SCOTUS nominations.
Btw, I know this is a cheap shot, but McCain's little nub hands, immobile joints and the way he creaks around on stage really freaks me out. He just looks like he is so uncomfortable. This guy should be retired, not vying for the presidency.
I don't like McCain because he's a Dubya clone -- callow, hypocritical, mediocre and reliant on his family connections to get ahead in life. But Bonkers I think you did launch a cheap shot. McCain's physical impairments brought on from his POW captivity should be off-limits. (Except, as you pointed out, his tiny, tiny hands.)
I don't really worry about McCain nominating a SC justice. Stevens and Ginsburg are way too angry and stubborn to die or retire before McCain. It's Palin's potential nominees that have me biting my nails. Governor Palin appointed Franci Havemeister to the AK Dept of Agriculture because they were high school buddies and Franci "liked cows when she was younger."
If Palin gets to the Oval Office, she'll try to turn the Supreme Court into the People's Court. God help us!
I guess that means Judge Judy get a new gig and Judge Wapner (is he still alive?) makes a comeback!!! Bob, help us!!
You know they'd all be super young, too. I'm so tired of watching my country devolve into some kind of third world country. First, abortion will be outlawed. Then the libraries and public roads will go. And so on. (ok, maybe not quite. But seriously, it's sad that I don't think my own country is the best place to raise a family anymore! Or maybe I just need to move out of the south?)
Many times I have read comments on this blog that say there is no difference between the Thuglies and the Dems. The nominations to the SCOTUS highlight the difference imho.
I know Obama won't nominate Bork or another Thomas. If that's all I can hang onto at least that's something.
I have a sneaky suspicion Hatch wants a judgeship. Deliver us all from evil.
The importance of this cannot be understated. The next president will appoint THREE NEW SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, who will probably sit for the next 20 years.
The Supremes Are Back--Bush Does A Victory Lap
With sarah palin giving him a lap dance?
)O(
a little in my mouth.
ewww....the image is disgusting but then again, so where those masochistic black suede pump knee high boots she was wearing yesterday.
Who the hell dresses this woman? Obviously someone without any sense of taste at all. If they did have taste, they'd realize that the fake wiglets and the teasted up "conehead" look is passe...unless you're Amy Winehouse....that's it! That's exactly who Palin reminds me of!
Jon Stewart says she looks like Alan Greenspan.
I agree with Jon, I think she looks like a mutt.
I especially liked the 3/4 jacket/coat she was wearing last week somwhere that made her literally look like a cow (it was spotted black & white). Don't remmebr if she had her cool boots on with it or not; I guess that's AIP chic....?!
that black and white monstrosity is her 'cloud' coat. It gives McCranky something to yell at.
she wore a pink turtleneck sweater with that coat. Discerning women know that only black or white turtlenecks are acceptable when emulating the 'Holstein look'. Sheesh!
"masochistic black suede pump knee high boots"=the nice way of saying hooker boots.
To Palin's dresser: we want women to be respected in D.C., not exploited.
Jack Singlaub of Iran Contra fame and John McCain.....Begala makes the intimate connection of McCain's membership in this extremist organization. For every allegation they think they can lay on Obama, McCain and Palin have about 6!
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Begala_McCain_s...
I thought you were referring to his close association with Dick Cheney.
Site monitor, help! I tried to post a comment and when I tried to "save" my comment, it said something like "that name is already used by a registered user." But that's me; I registered last night, but didn't receive my email confirming it (and no, it wasn't in my spam folder either.) I was able to post before I registered (it was "not verified" and I wanted to be "verified.")
I then tried to contact you via "contact us" and it said the site monitor address wasn't found. I'm friggin' frustrated!
Help!
The Sitemonitors are at:
sitemonitor1@gmail.com
(Sorry sitemonitors--don't mean to swamp y'all...)
[No Worries. That's why we have it-Sitemonitor]
If you actually READ my comment, you'd realize THAT DIDN'T WORK. But thanks for trying to help.
Site monitors: I'm sure this will be a problem for others, so how about replying on the thread?
[That's the email addy. Check your spam filter for the email that was sent-Sitemonitor]
Once again, IF YOU ACTUALLY READ MY COMMENT, IT WASN'T IN MY SPAM FILTER. Geez, for all our supposed technical sophistication these days, you'd think something this simple woould be easy to correct, rather than giving me a lame answer.
How about a human-based answer, rather than some tech-weenie "it's not my problem" excuse? Just how hard is it to figure this out?
Looks like this "upgrade" is just a load of crap.
[Chill out. We're trying to help you. Your temper tantrums on the board and your inability or unwillingness to email the site monitor email address is not making this easier-Sitemonitor]
P.S. My screen name is "Matt in Texas" that wouldn't let me post.
[That's because you registered that handle successfully-Sitemonitor]
GREAT!!! So how come I can't post any comments??? Boy, this site upgrade is peachy!!!
[Sorry. I haven't seen all the stuff you've been writing here. Let me email and check something. And have some patience. You are not the only one having problems, Matt-Sitemonitor]
Sorry, I've got a lot of crap going on right now, and C&L has been my refuge from it. Thank you for your attention.
[Thanks. We're all a bit tetchy these days. I just sent an email to an admin that can look at your password. They'll send it to me, and I'll send it to you via the sitemonitor1 email-Sitemonitor]
Thanks. (And those people in Darfur think they have problems......)
[Really. I'm still waiting. I don't know who is up, and there's a pretty high volume of email flying around here these days-Sitemonitor]
OK, so now that I've gotten past my anger, it's heartening to see how a site like this can actually be a resource for people who have other issues in their lives. It truly has been a source of outreach/expression for me, and I appreciate the online community it has inspired. Thank you, and keep up the good work.
[Matt, I sent an email from the sitemonitor email. I sent it to the address that shows on your account-Sitemonitor]
That right wing "legislate from the bench" rhetoric just pisses me off! Most of them who use it don't even know what it means. What THEY mean when they use it is that they want judges who rule the way they want them to.
It's as bogus and hypocritical as their "states rights" arguments. Their fine with federal controls, as long as they're what they like. Many of them would be all for a constitutional amendments that dictate when life begins, and defines marriage as one man and one woman.
Ignorant, hypocritical control freaks! Bah!
Indeed. When I hear someone denigrate a judge as a "judicial activist" or someone who "legislates from the bench," I know exactly what they mean. They mean they just lost a case, or a judge ruled in a manner with which they disagreed. Even among judicial scholars, this seems to hold true. There might be very good arguments about impropriety of certain kinds of jurisprudence, but in common parlance, judicial activists are simply judges who don't rule according to conservative politics.
I hate that "argument." States do not have rights. States have powers; persons have rights!
Of course they would, though, to be fair, that doesn't necessarily make them hypocrites. At least working to amend the Constitution means they're working within the process, not just having judges interpret things their way, and calling out anyone who disagrees as a judicial activist.
Study of Bush's psyche touches a nerve
Julian Borger in Washington
The Guardian, Wednesday August 13 2003
Article history
A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".
As if that was not enough to get Republican blood boiling, the report's four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the rightwing talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same affliction.
All of them "preached a return to an idealised past and condoned inequality".
Republicans are demanding to know why the psychologists behind the report, Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, received $1.2m in public funds for their research from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.
The authors also peer into the psyche of President George Bush, who turns out to be a textbook case. The telltale signs are his preference for moral certainty and frequently expressed dislike of nuance.
"This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes," the authors argue in the Psychological Bulletin.
One of the psychologists behind the study, Jack Glaser, said the aversion to shades of grey and the need for "closure" could explain the fact that the Bush administration ignored intelligence that contradicted its beliefs about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
The authors, presumably aware of the outrage they were likely to trigger, added a disclaimer that their study "does not mean that conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false".
Don't need a study to show us that conservatism is pathological, last 3 repub presidents tell us that.
We'd better hope this lawsuit from the GOP about Obamas illegal foreign donors doesn't reach the supreme court, seems some of them were from the middle east, october suprise, anyone?
I don't think it's a lawsuit. It's a request to the Federal Elections Commission to audit the Obama campaign's books.
McLame did promise to go lower....
May I suggest that we all get down on our knees and pray (to whatever god or critter you think might help) that Justices Souter, Stevens, and Ginsburg continue to be extremely healthy in every way possible, until a new President (Obama) is duly elected, inaugurated AND sworn into office - AMEN.
No prayers from me. I'd rather take action.
And I would instead implore everyone to study the Constitution, as well as the jurisprudential philosophies of the people likely to be appointed by both Obama and InSane.
As a textualist myself, I don't much fit in with either the so called judicial liberals or the judicial conservatives. I wouldn't be truly welcome at the Federalist Society or its progressive counterpart, the Constitution Society. But I can give cogent arguments about how the Constitution should be interpreted, and if we organize into groups and parties that really know the Constitution, and how to persuade the judges on the courts, no matter who they are, we'll be much better situated to protect our rights.
That right wing "legislate
Mon, 10/06/2008 - 16:46 — Korry (not verified)
That right wing "legislate from the bench" rhetoric just pisses me off! Most of them who use it don't even know what it means. What THEY mean when they use it is that they want judges who rule the way they want them to.
It's as bogus and hypocritical as their "states rights" arguments. Their fine with federal controls, as long as they're what they like. Many of them would be all for a constitutional amendments that dictate when life begins, and defines marriage as one man and one woman.
Ignorant, hypocritical control freaks! Bah!
______________________________________________________________________
Interesting you should say bah!
The reichwing like to do sheep too.
So a constitutional definition of marriage would be one man and one women for procreation, and a flock of sheep for recreation.
)O(
LMAO!
Ya, a little much
Mon, 10/06/2008 - 16:49 — Cait (not verified)
"masochistic black suede pump knee high boots"=the nice way of saying hooker boots.
To Palin's dresser: we won't women to be respected in D.C., not exploited.
_______________________________________________________________
I would think you'd want women to be respected in D.C.
Kinda reminds me of when The Man Show went out with a petition to end Womens Sufferage, and found plenty of women eager to sign it.
)O(
Barring a medical incident, all the replacements will be the moderates. We are stuck with the five blocks of fascism.
For the first time in the last eight;no, make it ten years(eight years of Bush destroying this country and two years of the Rethugs trying to destroy a sitting president)I feel that the country may be on the track back to sanity.Pool numbers look good for Obama in many battleground states,except the one I live in(Ohio)where he is down one point.I`ve got to tell you that if Ohio goes for McLame I`m moving to Arizona.If McLame wins I`m moving out of the U.S..
Resistance is Futile, your money will be assimilated.
http://im.rediff.com/money/2008/oct/06mlook.jpg
has someone missed the last eight years?
It can't be just me!
Indeed our rights are in jeopardy. And I agree with the above posters who note that the importance of the Court appointees can not be understated. But as a movement, we must truly educate ourselves about the Constitution, and how it has been interpreted and misinterpreted over the years.
It's not entirely true that the jurisprudential liberals are the political progressives' friends, or the jurisprudential conservatives our enemies. It has some truth, but it's not completely accurate.
We must absolutely know the Constitution, in and out. We all tend to think the Constitution supports our political affiliations. We're not always correct. Knowing the Constitution and Constitutional Law will go a long way toward getting a movement together to press for judges who will really protect our rights and to learn how to persuade the judges who actually are appointed.
So much for bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle.
Put both Clinton's on the SC, that'll make right wingers crazy. Two eloquent, intelligent people who will consistently put forward unarguable decisions and will relegate the right wing judges to the back of the bench where they belong 'til they retire.
If mccain actually did appoint judges who followed the constitution, he'd find himself on the gallows with bush/cheney/addington/gonzales et al.
Login or Register to post comments.