Don't over-estimate the "power" of the Chief Justice. It's not as if he lords over the rest of them or can bully the Associate Justices. Whether he would be "damaging" is in the eye of the beholder. Let's cut the crap right now about the death of Olson's wife. If he gets the nomination, it's NOT because anyone's milking his tragedy.
Justice Antonin Scalia will be nominated for Chief Justice Solicitator General Ted Olsen will be nominated for Justice
This is outrageous historical revisionism at it's worst. Ashcroft, Lott and DeLay raised blocking judges to one of the highest black arts forms. DeLay was calling for judges to be impeached. The "Judicial Selection Monitoring Project" launched a million dollar PR campaign about "judicial tyranny." In 1996, the Senate confirmed 17 judges -- the lowest election confirmation rate in 40 years. And then they blamed Clinton for the vacancies. And was Clinton nominating idealogues like Pickering and Priscilla Owen? Clinton's appointees had uniformly high ABA ratings. But hey: That's just the one member of reality-based community's opinion. In other news, Iraq is complete success and given the chance, we would do everything exactly the same way. I also heard Democrats are engaged in voter suppression and intimidation. Shame. And, after much deliberation, Black has apparently decided to become White.
While I would personally like that .... and it would be darn enjoyable to hear of Scalia's oration ... I don't think there is a prayer in hell's chance he will become CJ. Entertainment factor would be through the roof with Scalia though.
in an alternative world - Bork was approved by the Dems and the Senate - and Crimen y Castigo moved overseas.
No, not really. Entertainment factor is higher for dissents. Scalia would need to build consensus for the Court - he'd have to tone it down. IntheNet - perhaps you could tell me more about this "Solicitator" General. Barb - Kozinski would likely get confirmed, but I don't think he'd want to do it.
Though I am not a lawyer -- (though I did think about going to law school for about, oh, 15 seconds) -- and I guess would lead toward more being a strict constructionist (as opposed to a "loose interpreter?"), I will say this. I have zero problem with the Democrats in the Senate "blocking" or otherwise delaying judicial appointments they find troubling. The senate's job is not to rubber stamp. However, I will say this. I think Democrats have much more at stake in this, given the conservative direction of the electorate. As the Democratic party becomes increasingly a minority party, the only redress they may ultimately have is the courts, since they won't be able to win the votes they need for their representatives, and thus won't be able to control the legislative agenda, in ways they would like. That's why I take Bush at his word that (a) he doesn't have a litmus test and (b) he wants strict constructionists. Because that will mean, going forward particularly (I think abortion cat is out of the bag, and won't be put back in), the courts will not engage in legislative functions; Republican controlled legislatures will. For Dems, it's once again, lose, lose.
For someone who's admittedly ignorant of the ideological rifts in legal theory, you sure aren't shy about subscribing to one. Oooh, now I get to try. I may not know much about this here black hole stuff, but I don't think I agree with Hawking (as opposed to a "anti-Hawking)?
I thought I remembered some comments about it from when he was confirmed for his current position as Solicitor General, but I wasn't sure, so I went to look it up. Here is what I found, for what is worth: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/05/24/senate.olson/ Many linked Olson to the so-called Arkansas Project to discredit President Clinton, and some observers predicted with the Democrats coming to power in the Senate, Olson's nomination would die a quick death. I am not sure what the 'Arkansas Project' was, but if their aim was to discredit President Clinton, it sounds like something some Democrats might not be happy about. NOTE: The reference to Democrats assuming power refers to the time when Senator Jeffords defected from the Republican party. Obviously before the 2002 elections.
There's nothing "so-called" about the Arkansas Project (I know that's not your language, asf). Funded by Richard Mellon Scaife, it was basically a hit machine, digging up bimbos, Whitewater, etc. Scaife is your typical conservative millionaire dirty trickster. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/scaifeside050299.htm And here's an article from Brooks Jackson, before he started FactCheck.org http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/27/scaife.profile/ And here's a fun fact: Scaife has donated more than $13 million to Malibu's Pepperdine University. Who's the new dean of their Law School? Kenneth Starr. Starr originally accepted a position with Pepperdine in 97 or 98, but suddenly thought better of it when the Scaife connection became public. Everything's okay now, though. No worries.
Ok. Sounds like you know something about this Arkansas project. But how credible were Olson's alleged links to this group? Is there something there that might be enough to derail his candidacy to the Supreme Court?
My bad -- just the mere mention of the ArkProject got me all Hillary and Vast Right Wing Conspiracy-ish. Olson's connection to the ArkProject is usually described as "tenuous." What is known is that he's best buds with Starr. They were at the same law firm in LA, and they've both been part of The National Legal Center for the Public Interest and the Washington Legal Foundation --- two conservative think tanks funded by..............................................wait for it .....................................................Richard Mellon Scaife. And of course, like Starr, Olson is very, very conservative, constitutionally and jesus-ly speaking.
Unlike some, I have actually read Hawking's books. And I do think I understand a lot of what he says. Meanwhile, my point was simply this: since Democrats can't win elections (or rather, are winning fewer and fewer of them), the courts are becoming their only option. I have no problem with Democrats fighting judicial appointments as they see fit, but I think we should all understand that it's less about principle than it is the death-gurgles of a minority party that sees its political influence in eclipse.
That's wonderful for you. Really. It is. Irrelevant as always, but wonderful. The courts do not contain democrats, nor are they electoral strategies. Justices are usually apolitical. And as such, appointing justices isn't a "strategy". LOL. Losing two presidential elections, both remarkably narrolwy is a death gurgle? OK. So I guess that's why the Republicans fought Fortas tooth and nail in the late 60s, or why the Republicans fought Clinton so hard in 94, right?
it would always be benificial to have more liberal SCJs... more liberal ones means more choice for the people. start getting more conservative, and the people are going to have choices made for them. its pretty scary that, in this day and age, there are people, our president included, who think that they should force "morals", and thier way of thinking, upon an entire country, as well as the world.
Anything that gives Thomas even a smidge more power will be damaging. No one said that people would be milking it. But it might give his critics pause before they spoke out.
But they didn't fillibuster the judges, they simply voted NO. The dems now won't even allow for a vote.
It does? Really? So liberals are all about staying out of people's lives and not trying to influence their choices? Since when? So more liberal means that I can invest more of my money in a retirement account that has a future instead of Social Security? Because you see, right now, that's a choice liberals don't want me to have... So more liberal means that I can have my taxes that go to public education and instead put that money towards a private education for my child? Because you see, right now, that's a choice liberals don't want me to have... So more liberal means that public universities will completely disband any regard for race or gender, and will select students solely on qualifications? Because you see, again, that's a choice liberals really don't want schools to have... So more liberal means that people can buy, own, and sell whatever firearms they want when they want to, no questions asked? Liberals want to give Americans that choice, don't they? They don't? Wait a second, you mean to tell me that when liberals claim they believe in giving people more choices, they are in fact full of sh!t? Oh, wait a second. I think I might know what you're talking about. You mean that somewhere between 1-2% of abortions that involve the woman being forced to have sex or the woman's life endangered, you want to give that woman the choice to carry that baby to full term or not? Nevermind that the other 98% of abortions are just men and women who have already made a stupid, irresponsible choice and are just trying to avoid the consequences (a human life they have to care for) of that choice... So that's the tiny, statistically irrelevant segment of the population that you want to give a choice to, and now liberals are claiming to be the aisle of choice? HA! Comedy.