So, Who’s It Gonna’ Be?
Primary tabs
Only days after the announcement of Justice Steven’s upcoming retirement, some Republicans are already proving to be full of piss and vinegar over Obama’s possible nominations. And, in the meantime, Democrats are already preparing themselves to be pissed off at another “middle-of-the-road” candidate. Summer’s lookin’ like a good time already!
So, what is it exactly each side is gettin’ worked up about?
Well, for us Lefties, it seems that the majority of comments I hear or read pertain to the fear that President Obama will chose another Sotomayor-like candidate; a Justice who turns out to be so centrist, that they actually lean to the right.
Unfortunately, this is a strong possibility and concerning likelihood. Already in the news, there are several possibilities that have many of us on the left more nervous than a long tailed cat in a room full a’ rockin’ chairs.
And from the Right we’re already hearing the telltale catch phrases like “activist judges” and “legislate from the bench”. Not to mention you have pompous Senators like Jon Kyl of Arizona refusing to take filibuster off the table unless Obama picks someone “from the mainstream”
Let’s be real here folks. The above mentioned phrases appear in just about every Supreme Court nomination in recent history. Both sides have used such code words to describe judges that are unlikely to vote in the manner preferred by their Party. And before the Right gets all hot headed about any potential “activist judge”, they may first want to take a look-see at the recent Citizens United case.
In the concurring opinion written by Roberts and Alito, the pair virtually does a dosie-doe trying to explain why the particular case in question allowed them to go against stare decisis and essentially “legislate from the bench”.
In section II, sub-section A, paragraph 2, Roberts compares the decision to go against the precedent to the previous decisions in Brown v. The Board of Education, West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, and Katz v. The United States. What the Justice fails to signify, however, is that in all the previous cases the parties in question were actual human beings… not corporations. As far as I’m concerned, Roberts’ opinion on this case makes about as much sense as horns on a mule. To anyone with half a brain, a corporation is not, has never been, and will never be an actual person.
Sure as a one-legged duck swims in circles, we all know there’s still gonna’ be a grand ol’ spectacle from the opposition regardless of who is selected. So, Mr. President, why not go whole hog? Nominate someone so far left that I can hear Republicans’ heads exploding from down here in the swamps.
And the fact is, in order to avoid the scales of the Court from tipping any further to the right, we need an über-liberal! Stevens has consistently been a strong voice in the never-ending battle to protect civil liberties. He has provided leadership and guidance to the progressive members of the Court for decades, resulting in several landmark court decisions. We simply cannot allow the current corporation-lovin’ court to lean even a hair more to the right.
In the meantime, we don’t have to sit around twiddlin’ our thumbs. Call. Write. Email. Let the Administration know that it was we on the Left that put them where they are and we expect them to do right by us now. And for those on the Right that are gearin’ up for a fight before a name has even been announced, I saved a special lill’ Southern sayin’ just for you. Go Fuck Yourselves!

- The Mayberry Lane's blog

- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
Bbbbbut...
Obama doesn't want a fight! (That's his usual excuse for pre-selling out to the Rs, and Leader Nancy seems to be going along with it. See link here.)
Personally, I'd love a fight. Bring it on!
(Which reminds me: where's friend bringiton there days?)
You betcha!
I say this not because I want it to happen (I don't) or that I think it is a good idea (it's not) but merely because I want to see the heads explode amongst the more offensive blogger boys, Obama hardcore supporters and alleged progressives:
Supreme Court Justice Sarah Palin
Can't you just see them writhing on the floor, mouths foaming and screaming obscenities? Just like the primaries...
;-)
I would pay to see that
in fact, they could probably put the congressional hearings on PPV if Palin was nominated. Pay for a couple more CEO bonuses, at least.
The thought of her as SC Justice
litterally makes my skin crawl!!! Sure, there may be some fun "head explosion" moments, but could anyone really sit through listening to that nomination hearing???
Skin crawl
Do Republican men make your "skin crawl" too.
Good question
Although my skin has never crawled, I'm sure that if it could, Mitt Romney would be the one to make it do so.
Guess I've only heard it used
Guess I've only heard it used when men talk about women. Then again, I lead a sheltered life. :)
Good choice...
Mitt is slime incarnate.
I don’t understand your fantasy world;
it makes me feel queasy. And not because you are imagining Palin as a SC nominee, but because your sideshow of OFB head explosions requires you to cut off your nose – and take everyone else’s with it.
In my fantasy world, I imagine a nominee with great left-of-center judicial philosophy and world view, around whom Democrats decide to unite, thus resulting in tiny head explosions (because their heads are so small) on the Republican side of the aisle.
I don’t give a damn if the OFB heads spontaneously combust; what I do give a damn about is some semblance of good government and a Supreme Court whose rightward momentum is stopped.
My fantasy probably requires a different president and a different Democratic Senate, but if I’m going to dream, I might as well go all the way.
sense of humor fail
It's called a joke. It's not a fantasy, desire or any such.
It would never happen. Nor would I want it to.
The fact that you took it so seriously to issue that rant is just plain disturbing, frankly.
Your "joke" wasn't funny.
And despite your caveat that you didn't think it would ever happen, and you didn't want it to, you did describe the utter joy you would take in the horror of the OFB, and described in exquisite detail, what you imagined their reaction would be - that is, by definition, a fantasy.
And, by the way, that was not a rant; that was, as I explicitly stated, my fantasy; that you would be disturbed by my desire to see someone with more liberal leanings nominated and seated on the Supreme Court says that maybe your desire for revenge against the OFB is making it hard to see what's really important.
skin-crawl?
isn't that a bit much, specially as she's not in the legal profession and therefore has zero chance in heck of being actually nominated?
Sorry, it's just words like that about Palin make me flashback to similar sentiments against Hillary on Kos, back in the day. That she is revolting, disgusting etc.
Geesh, Not everything is about Hillary...
I realize there were some horrible things said about Hillary during the primaries (and during her entire career), but I am not anti-Hillary and not every joke is about her...
And yes, if the Republican men are as mean-spirited and lacking political substance they make my "skin-crawl"- it's a figure of speech...I'm not being sexist.... you do realize I'm a woman, right?
So sexism cannot come from a
So sexism cannot come from a woman, particularly if the target is a mean spirited Republican bimbo. What if the verbal attacker is a gay man like Andy Sullivan or a straight woman like Amanda Marcotte. Who gets to have immunity. I'll go ponder.
Skin Crawl...
I've only had that reaction to men - the ones that are too familiar and "friendly" in social settings.
I can see that this discussion of Palin as Supreme Court Justice comes from some kind of joke upthread, with the "look over there..." quality that Lambert has pointed out so often. Maybe next we could discuss what a horrible brain surgeon she would be and how we would react to her personally in that respect?
This is getting old.
The rhetoric of disgust
1. The problem with stale rhetoric is not only that it so often misfires (mixed metaphors) but that it leads -- in many cases, I'm not saying and I don't think here -- to stale discourse.
2. On skin crawl, I think it's entirely natural, after the 2008 primaries, for sexist usage to be read into it, whether or not that was the intent. That rhetoric was so extreme, and so vile -- after all, it had been brewed, fermented, and aged during the slow-moving, media-fueled coup that was the R assault on the Clinton administration -- I think it makes sense to call it out, or anything that's like it or near it (Goes for me, too!)
3. I applaud DCBlogger's new and visual rhetoric of parasitism. Not only is it disgusting, it makes the right people disgusting, and -- even more critically -- makes rent seeking behavior disgusting; that is, it's analytically powerful. That's very different from the rhetoric of disgust for Palin, or Clinton, or the tea partiers, or the Rs, which is fundamentally tribal in origin. It's instrumental, not analytical, and therefore stales rapidly.
I hope this makes sense, I'm a bit rushed in RL.