April 30, 2009

NBC: David Souter To Retire From Supreme Court
— DrewM

flaming_skull2a.gif

It's that time of year again and now NBC says they have information that one of the worst mistakes a Republican President has ever made will be retiring.

NPR has it as well.

Waiting for a Democrat to win the Presidency is the perfect way for this unimpressive guy to go out.

And once again, a big shout out to George H. W. Bush, Warren Rudman and John Sununu for foisting this guy on us. At least Bush made up for it with Clarence Thomas.

Thanks to the cowardly Arelen Specter, we have no hope of slowing down whatever leftist douche Obama sends up.

Something I never thought I'd say...God I hope Anthony Kennedy doesn't retire anytime soon. At least there's a chance the coin flip will go our way every once and a while.

WaPo early list of possible replacements

Some of the names that have been circulating include recently confirmed Solicitor General Elena Kagan; U.S. Appeals Court Judges Sonya Sotomayor, Kim McLane Wardlaw, Sandra Lea Lynch and Diane Pamela Wood; and Leah Ward Sears, chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court.

Sotomayor has to be the front runner. A woman and a Hispanic? That's a double whammy.

Posted by: DrewM at 04:12 PM | Comments (143)
Post contains 215 words, total size 2 kb.

1 And so it begins.

Posted by: AmishDude at April 30, 2009 04:14 PM (T0NGe)

2 NO, NOT SOUTER!

Posted by: Dave M at April 30, 2009 04:14 PM (sBxQE)

3 Will Ginsberg be next?


Posted by: Kratos (on the back of Gaia, scaling Mt Olympus) at April 30, 2009 04:15 PM (otlXg)

4 Announcing his retirement 4 months into the president's term?  Given his comparatively young age, I wonder why he didn't wait another year, and milk it just a little bit longer?

Posted by: pinche migra! at April 30, 2009 04:17 PM (B6Fis)

5 Obama plans to nominate Janeane Garofalo

Posted by: Roy at April 30, 2009 04:17 PM (6/GFl)

6 I'm guessing it will be Dahlia Lithwick, or that fat dyke Rosie Odonnel

Posted by: thegreatsatan at April 30, 2009 04:19 PM (ywKLw)

7 I cannot even imagine the insanely left-wing nut job this guy has in mind.
I almost have a morbid curiosity in how bad this pick will be- whats the over/ under on age , 40? 

Posted by: jjshaka at April 30, 2009 04:23 PM (JpHc3)

8 Barry will nominate - wait for it - Barack Obama

Posted by: eman at April 30, 2009 04:26 PM (Dec0Z)

9 Liberal judge will be replaced by a liberal judge. I'll be more worried when Kennedy decides to retire.

Posted by: Jana at April 30, 2009 04:27 PM (PJY4R)

10 Who thinks the Messiah will nominate HIMSELF? He said he was THE ONE we had been waiting for and could make the seas lower. So I figure he can at least be enchanted, POTUS and a SCOTUS member all rolled up into one little burrito!

Posted by: freeus at April 30, 2009 04:28 PM (zxRJP)

11 Norm Coleman needs to hold on longer than Souter does.  Can't get to 60 without Franken.

Posted by: Diddy at April 30, 2009 04:30 PM (R08C+)

12 Mega dittos to the Kennedy fear. I pray to God he wears a bullet proof vest daily and has a food taster. The Dems would sooo love to replace him! It would seal our fate for sure!

Posted by: freeus at April 30, 2009 04:30 PM (zxRJP)

13 "I cannot even imagine the insanely left-wing nut job this guy has in mind."

I think it'll be Hillary.  If I remember correctly, that was the deal.

Posted by: Henry Ford at April 30, 2009 04:33 PM (qsGH+)

14 Damn snipers! WHERE ARE YOU?!

Posted by: Corona at April 30, 2009 04:33 PM (hyUeL)

15 I know that the Justices, historically, tend to live very long lives...but I worry about the health of Scalia and Thomas....they ain't exactly spring chickens......

Posted by: Luca Brasi at April 30, 2009 04:36 PM (Cqkek)

16 With Stevens on the Court, how can you call Souter the worst mistake? Second worst perhaps, but he'd have to fight Warren for that.

Posted by: Ken Hahn at April 30, 2009 04:42 PM (qgkEA)

17 Heck, at least we hold serve.  Following him will probably be Stevens and Ginsberg.  For the sake of our country, I hope Nino and Clarence are happy, healthy, and intellectually productive for at least four more years.  I'm not sure about Clarence, but barring the Reaper, you know Nino isn't going anywhere.

Posted by: Ombudsman at April 30, 2009 04:45 PM (fWF4Q)

18 FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUU

And that about sums it up.

This administration is killing my liver.

Posted by: Sir Elliot at April 30, 2009 04:45 PM (DUNS7)

19 In the end, there will be only .............. Liberalism?

Kratos, help me out here.

(Let the betting pool on nominees start now:  William Ayers?  Hillary Clinton?  Something we haven't encountered yet?)

Posted by: Techie at April 30, 2009 04:45 PM (QYuCD)

20 In retrospect, I think the biggest achievement of BushCo was getting Roberts and Alito confirmed.  Thinking back to that rancorous political environment, how'd they do that?  Was it the Harriet Meyers feint?  

Posted by: Ombudsman at April 30, 2009 04:49 PM (fWF4Q)

21 Thanks to Chris Buckley, Peggy Noonan, and all the people who made this possible.

Posted by: JohnJ at April 30, 2009 04:49 PM (SWyxd)

22 With Stevens on the Court, how can you call Souter the worst mistake?
Posted by: Ken Hahn at April 30, 2009 09:42 PM (qgkEA)

You can't. That's why I didn't.

I said Souter was 'one of the worst mistakes'. Clearly Warren is the worst and Stevens is right behind him.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2009 04:50 PM (hlYel)

23 forget noonan and the dumber buckley, thank doug kmeic for supporting a pres who will be sure to nominate someone who has the originalist philosophy kmeic supposedly espouses

Posted by: republican at April 30, 2009 04:52 PM (EegTB)

24 What I wouldn't give for a President McCain right now.

Posted by: JohnJ at April 30, 2009 04:52 PM (SWyxd)

25 Also, I find it strange that only Republican Presidents ever seem to make "mistakes" when appointing Justices to SCOTUS, at least from Eisenhower onward.

 I can't recall a single Justice appointed by a Dem that drifted (or swung) rightward afterwards......

Somewhat on topic, I've just started reading Men in Black by Mark Levin,...it's very disturbing and depressing, a must read.

Posted by: Luca Brasi at April 30, 2009 04:53 PM (Cqkek)

26 According to the news, Souter's decision was based on the fact that Ginsburg isn't retiring.  And I don't see any change in the court with this.  Who knows, Obama might get fooled by his choice the same way Souter fooled GHWB.  Well, we can hope.

Posted by: Deanna at April 30, 2009 04:54 PM (Ns3Aq)

27 What I wouldn't give for a President McCain right now.


What I wouldn't give for a president Eishenhower right now .

Posted by: Blazer at April 30, 2009 04:55 PM (+FzLa)

28 What is the rule that any organization that is not explicitly "conservative" will drift liberally over time?

That's my explanation, at least.


Posted by: Techie at April 30, 2009 04:55 PM (QYuCD)

29 no big deal, liberal will replace liberal

Posted by: YRM at April 30, 2009 04:56 PM (004wR)

30 " I can't recall a single Justice appointed by a Dem that drifted (or swung) rightward afterwards......"

I'd suggest Hugo Black (appointed by FDR) and/or Whizzer White (appointed by JFK).

Posted by: Dave J. at April 30, 2009 04:56 PM (qsGH+)

31 At least it is Souter, to be any more left he'd have to appoint Stalin. Luckily for us Stalin doesn't have a J.D.

Posted by: jollyroger at April 30, 2009 04:56 PM (+tHhv)

32 No way he gets fooled on the pick.  Justices never drift right.  Obama will pick the most-far left, preferably female minority candidate who will promise to "interpret" the law based on "modern understanding" etc. etc.  Thanks Souter, way to go out with a bang.

Posted by: brak at April 30, 2009 04:57 PM (tL4w1)

33  I can't recall a single Justice appointed by a Dem that drifted (or swung) rightward afterwards......


The last decent Democratic Supreme Court Justice was Byron White.

Plenty of craptastic ones from Republicans.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2009 04:57 PM (hlYel)

34 The problem for Republicans is that the Judiciary trends leftwards.  We're playing against a stacked deck.

Posted by: Techie at April 30, 2009 04:59 PM (QYuCD)

35 Wasn't O'Conner one of Reagans? Do they have sleeper cells in law schools or what?

Posted by: jollyroger at April 30, 2009 05:00 PM (+tHhv)

36 nmnmhgl; ;./l9 ghi9/ .gh8uhughl,8. gh89l. 8

Posted by: Jacobin Jesus at April 30, 2009 05:00 PM (NUZHY)

37 Lawyers do trend leftwards, true. Why not pick someone in the Federalist Society though. I'm in it. All right wing extremests in there

Posted by: jollyroger at April 30, 2009 05:01 PM (+tHhv)

38 Well said, JJ

Posted by: Techie at April 30, 2009 05:01 PM (QYuCD)

39 Justice Billy Ayers?

Posted by: TheQuietMan at April 30, 2009 05:01 PM (txQIp)

40 You know Hillary wants it. This way no matter what happens in four years, she'll be there just to screw with us. Like genital warts.

Posted by: jollyroger at April 30, 2009 05:03 PM (+tHhv)

41 That was my daughter's first blog. I had fallen under the table just then. Pass the Val-U-Right. (55 gal. Container)

Posted by: Jacobin Jesus at April 30, 2009 05:04 PM (NUZHY)

42 Lawrence Tribe would be a good pick.  He's almost 68 years old so I could live with it.

Posted by: toby928 at April 30, 2009 05:05 PM (PD1tk)

43 I hope those who didn't vote McCain because they figured Obama would lead to our next Reagan are happy with themselves. Justices are for life, not a presidential term or two.

Posted by: Mark at April 30, 2009 05:05 PM (3WQn7)

44 @ 43 well said. exactly, i hated those suicidal republicans, as much as we'll eventually have to deal w/ another carter i don't want to exp. it now and now they have to deal w/ their choices. i voted for mac so i wont be blamed in 4 yrs when the country is worse off then ever since carter

Posted by: YRM at April 30, 2009 05:07 PM (004wR)

45 Posted by: toby928 at April 30, 2009 10:05 PM (PD1tk)

And that's why it won't be him. Plus, white and a dude? No way.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2009 05:09 PM (hlYel)

46 "Lawrence Tribe would be a good pick.  He's almost 68 years old so I could live with it."

No way will Barry pick Tribe, precisely because he really COULD be the left's Souter in the sense of drifting right once he's on the Court.  Tribe actually believes the Second Amendment means what it says!  Even if he personally thinks it should be repealed.

Posted by: Dave J. at April 30, 2009 05:09 PM (qsGH+)

47 Re: why Republicans pick lousy judges. It's because they're usually working with Democrat-controlled Senates. W had a republican-controlled senate. That's why he did so well. Clinton's nominees had to pass a republican senate. I can't imagine how bad this is going to be.

Posted by: JohnJ at April 30, 2009 05:10 PM (SWyxd)

48 Just cause Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg isn't retiring right now, who's to say she'll have any choice in the matter? She is still battling cancer, no? I think we are in for some really bad choices coming soon. And they'll probably tend to be youngish, so they can serve for many decades to come. Oh joy. As for McCain looking good for Preznit right now, hell, the Breck Girl wouldn't have been this bad.

Posted by: di butler (New and Improved. Now with 20% more boobs!) at April 30, 2009 05:11 PM (qPIRP)

49 Ditto, Mark. That kind of mentality is weak and it never works. Look, in reality a President McCain administration would have been barely adequate, and most likely infuriating in ways that make Dubya's tenure look pretty rosy, but as we head into the darkness of the Next Hundred Days, I am wishing like hell the Maverick was POTUS.

Posted by: PaleoMedic at April 30, 2009 05:12 PM (yiNoG)

50 Drew, the one thing that might actually make us feel a little better about Specter is that he might have actually made it HARDER for dems to push through some real wacko when he switched parties.

http://tiny.cc/75OPs

Posted by: republican at April 30, 2009 05:12 PM (EegTB)

51 Great thing the gang of fourteen saved that fillibuster for judicial nominees so we can... oh yeah. Thanks Specter. Ass.

Posted by: jollyroger at April 30, 2009 05:13 PM (+tHhv)

52 Keep in mind that Justice Scalia is nearly 80. That's gonna hurt like hell.

Posted by: PaleoMedic at April 30, 2009 05:13 PM (yiNoG)

53 Legal Insurrection has an interesting take:

http://tinyurl.com/dbyddk

Puts the Specter switch in a different perspective.  Thanks for aiding in the defection, Sherrif Joe.

Posted by: David in PHX for now at April 30, 2009 05:16 PM (VsDj3)

54 Scalia is 73, not quite 80, but yeah we need to make sure he's eating salads and hitting the gym.

Otherwise, I'm going to love Tester/Webb/Landrieu/Bennett/etc squirming when Elena Kagan testifies that their is no individual right to bear arms.

Posted by: republican at April 30, 2009 05:16 PM (EegTB)

55 I think that if Little Mac was POTUS we would not have the clarity of the moment(sic) that we have now. We would be livin' with a super maj. in congress and a RINO bitch a the helm. (BTW I voted for Mav.) This is the only first 100 days that the Dems will enjoy for many many years. On with the body count.

Posted by: Jacobin Jesus at April 30, 2009 05:18 PM (NUZHY)

56 We will probably get either Keith Ellison X, first Muslim Supreme Court Justice, or a Lesbian. Either way, Obama pumps himself up with women, who would LOVE that pick for the in-your-face to social conservatives.

Women love the hard-left stuff, by and large.

There's no filibuster, so Obama gets to indulge himself and his feminist-marxist-Islamist-lesbian pals just like at Occidental (where he hung out with those people as he wrote in his book).

Posted by: whiskey at April 30, 2009 05:19 PM (L03mw)

57 Posted by: republican at April 30, 2009 10:12 PM (EegTB)

I saw that. I don't think it's true. I remember things getting out of committee on party line votes.

I sent it to JackM. to see what's what with it.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2009 05:20 PM (hlYel)

58 summon the meteors

Posted by: xandar at April 30, 2009 05:20 PM (PD1tk)

59 Off topic prediction.  Obama and the dems with their super majorities and Rino's pass an immigration bill well before 2010.  20 million illegals become 20million Democrat voters.  Kiss our 2010 comeback goodbye.

Posted by: Dan at April 30, 2009 05:22 PM (qfb86)

60 How do you say Acorn in Espaniol?

Posted by: Dan at April 30, 2009 05:23 PM (qfb86)

61

True, with Souter retiring back to his mother's basement, Uhbuhmuh will replace lib with lib. Same when Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg retires/dies/melts into puddle screaming "I'm melting! I'm melting!"

The trouble starts if/when a reliably conservative Justice retires/dies/goes to Ft Marcy Park for lunch and is later found bound gagged two bullets in the head, obviously having committed suicide. That's when Uhbuhmuh gets to replace con with lib and the whole thing goes gunnysack on us.

 

Let's see: rubber stamp Politburo Congress, liberal-dominated Supreme Court, and liberal-dominated mass media.

Yeah- America's gonna suck.

Posted by: Jones at April 30, 2009 05:23 PM (KOkrW)

62 @Drew

The straight line vote you're referring to are probably the final committee votes to move it to the full senate.  They're talking about filibustering it committee.

The repub they need would be during the analogue of a full filibuster in the senate, not during the actual vote.

Posted by: republican at April 30, 2009 05:26 PM (EegTB)

63 The trouble is that liberal judges aren't being replaced with conservative judges. How can problems with the judiciary be fixed when liberal judges keep getting appointed to make their own rules?

Posted by: JohnJ at April 30, 2009 05:28 PM (SWyxd)

64

republican at April 30, 2009 10:26 PM (EegTB)

 

Graham will be the new spector for the RINO's.  he just won reelection so he is safe for 6 years.  He will hit his knees and blow whoever Obama wants him too

Posted by: unseen at April 30, 2009 05:31 PM (aVGmX)

65 Even if the new gal is no more liberal than Souter, she will be 20 years younger and will be cheerily reinterpreting the Constitution for another generation.

Posted by: Terry Notus at April 30, 2009 05:34 PM (LQFXI)

66  I guess it's OK that we demand a white male republican-acceptable choice? I mean, isn't that the acceptable criteria to the enemy other side? Replace like with like?

Posted by: Frank G at April 30, 2009 05:36 PM (Aaspy)

67 What I wouldn't give for a President McCain right now.

What I wouldn't give for a president Eishenhower right now .

Fuck. What I wouldn't give for a President Buchanan right now.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at April 30, 2009 05:38 PM (MlEgW)

68 If the reps were smart they would use the power they have in the judical committe to get some things off the table like healthcare reform and cap and trade.  hell if I was a rep on the judical committee I would just bottle it up for the next 4 years.  fuck the dems they play hard ball with our judical picks lets play hardball with theirs. 

Posted by: unseen at April 30, 2009 05:43 PM (aVGmX)

69 I get graham isn't great on a couple issues, but the guy is nowhere near specter's ballpark.

and @xandar

+1 for the pbf reference

Posted by: republican at April 30, 2009 05:45 PM (EegTB)

70 Fuck McCain. Without his ego - and open primaries, we might have had a real presidential candidate last year.

Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at April 30, 2009 05:53 PM (cdGLg)

71 Sotomayor has to be the front runner. A woman and a Hispanic? That's a double whammy.

Plus, she's sporting a last name that's totally whacky. Give that name to a totally white-bread WASP and he'd be a lock.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at April 30, 2009 05:54 PM (MlEgW)

72 "...and the President has shown great strategic thinking in choosing such a centrist nomination. Will the Republicans choose to stonewall and risk public backlash or will they decide to do what is best for the country at this moment of our history?"

Posted by: msnbc at April 30, 2009 05:54 PM (SWyxd)

73 The only problem with Sotomayor is that she might be too moderate.  She's considered somewhat neutral and is a former prosecutor.

Obama might want to go for broke.

Posted by: republican at April 30, 2009 05:55 PM (EegTB)

74 Whoever it is I hope s/he bites Obama in the ass as hard as Souter did Bush.
Besides, there's nowhere to go but right anyway right?

Posted by: Rocks at April 30, 2009 05:59 PM (3RHzM)

75 I'd suggest Hugo Black (appointed by FDR) and/or Whizzer White (appointed by JFK).

Actually, that should be Hugo Black (Noted Democratic KKK member appointed by FDR).

The Democrat - KKK connection should always be stated.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at April 30, 2009 06:01 PM (MlEgW)

76 Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick????
The guy is qualified to operate the elevator never mind sit on the bench.
I think Kwame Kilpatrick is available.

Posted by: Rocks at April 30, 2009 06:02 PM (3RHzM)

77

27 What I wouldn't give for a President McCain right now.


What I wouldn't give for a president Eishenhower right now .

What I wouldn't give for a President Coolidge right now.

Posted by: A Lock of Che Guevara's Chest Hair at April 30, 2009 06:03 PM (AeZjJ)

78 Maybe Bubba (as in Billary) is interested in the gig.

Posted by: PA Cat at April 30, 2009 06:08 PM (Apr5F)

79 I don't think Legal Insurrection is completely correct. I think the committee rules (unless they've changed) allow any Senator to object to any item being brought up for consideration at a committee meeting. That Senator's objection will be recognized, and no action will be taken on the item objected to until the next business meeting of the Committee. In practical terms, this usually means a one-week delay. I think that the committee can override the "committee hold" and act sooner by getting 10 votes, providing a member of the minority votes in the affirmative. Once used, the same Senator can't repeatedly object each week to the same item. Other Senators can, theoretically, offer their own subsequent objections to prolong committee action, but this seldom happens unless new information justifies it. So, basically, the GOP could delay committee action for a brief period of time, but not indefinately. Ultimately, the Committee Chairman has the ability to move items along provided his side votes with him.

Posted by: Jack M. at April 30, 2009 06:09 PM (eOEgY)

80 Thanks for the clarification Jack.

Sucks to hear it, hopefully Tester/Webb/etc can be spooked by their constituents into replacing the inevitable Snowe/Collins defection.

Posted by: republican at April 30, 2009 06:17 PM (EegTB)

81 What I wouldn't give for a President McCain right now.


What I wouldn't give for a president Eishenhower right now .

What I wouldn't give for a President Coolidge right now.

Posted by: A Lock of Che Guevara's Chest Hair at April 30, 2009 11:03 PM (AeZjJ)

What I wouldn't have given for Obama to have been President William Henry Harrison.

Posted by: paranoidpyro at April 30, 2009 06:27 PM (3WHpf)

82 Two things:

(1) Specter leaving means JEFF SESSIONS is now the ranking Republican on Judiciary.  If anyone can do anything, it's sessions.
(2) Wasn't Sotomayor originally a Reagan appointment to the District Court?  Clinton put her on the Circuit, but it's something.

Posted by: someone at April 30, 2009 06:37 PM (1wXl7)

83 Sotomayor has to be the front runner. A woman and a Hispanic? That's a double whammy.

-----------

I get the impression that Barry doesn't like women very much. I don't mean in the gay way, but in the "Mommy didn't love me and she made Daddy run away" way.

Frankly, I'm growing bored of Presidents with Daddy issues.

Posted by: Dave S. at April 30, 2009 06:38 PM (ESLGV)

84 "Thanks to the cowardly Arelen Specter, we have no hope of slowing down whatever leftist douche Obama sends up."

Actually, this is 100% wrong!  This is AWESOME... Specter's defection actually means we DO have a chance to block it now!

Seriously!

Check this out!

http://tinyurl.com/dbyddk

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.

Before Specter's defection, he would've been the one vote from the minority that would have let Obama's sure-to-be-moonbat judges through.  Now?  Well, Lindsey Graham could still screw us...

...but doesn't this completely -destroy- the claims of the bullshit Frums and other cockholsters that it's a tragedy that we lost Specter, and we have to have a "bigger tent" that includes douchenozzles that will screw us from within?

Screw that.  This is a perfect example of where presenting a solid front, with no defections, is crucial.  It's not the only one either.  Screw the "big tent" that includes people who'd support Obama's judicial nominees.  If we constantly have to watch our backs from the guys on our own team, we're doomed before we start.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at April 30, 2009 06:47 PM (/y1J0)

85 Awww crap, y'all talked about it already.  I'm a moron. 

Sigh.  Sorry to waste your time.  Still, I think my analysis about "screw the big tent" still has merit, heh.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at April 30, 2009 06:48 PM (/y1J0)

86 Obama's mentor, (Ayers) in some of the vid's on youtube, regularly trashed his mother, usually speaking in the voice of his brother.

Posted by: Douglas at April 30, 2009 06:52 PM (uU+Ss)

87

Buh Bye! See ya Souter!

 

Won't miss you a bit.

 

Obama gets to pick a LIBERAL judge???

 

This changes what?  Something?

 

I can't wait for the confirmation hearings........I hope it is Alcee Hastings....

Posted by: Gerry Owen at April 30, 2009 07:10 PM (oGv5F)

88 At this point, it feels like we're playing a game of Monopoly, and the dickhead on the other side of the board has Boardwalk and Park Place, plus all the green, yellow, and red properties loaded with hotels. He can't wipe the shit-eating grin off his face, (a la, "now we don't have to explain process") knows that any move we make gets us fucked, and only ends when we sock him in the mouth for being a wise-ass when we're down. The difference here? The dickhead has made all the moves on his own and is proud of it, the NOTUS et al won't own up to anything, we can't sock them in the mouth, and they're blaming us for all the shit falling down all around them! God damn I hate these people!

Posted by: Stitches at April 30, 2009 07:12 PM (KyqYb)

89 88 At this point, it feels like we're playing a game of Monopoly, and the dickhead on the other side of the board has Boardwalk and Park Place, plus all the green, yellow, and red properties loaded with hotels. He can't wipe the shit-eating grin off his face, (a la, "now we don't have to explain process") knows that any move we make gets us fucked, and only ends when we sock him in the mouth for being a wise-ass when we're down.

. . . .

Posted by: Stitches at May 01, 2009 12:12 AM (KyqYb)



Close - what you also need to add in there is the rest of your family and friends (i.e., the media) surrounding the Monopoly board and talking about how "charismatic, brilliant, and debonair" the other player is while you play.

Plus you're using real money . . .

Plus all of the money's yours . . .

Posted by: AD at April 30, 2009 07:18 PM (B9p4m)

90 If only we had some secretly conservative judges, who've pretended to be liberal for decades, to sneak in and then "grow in office", the same way liberals infiltrate everything.  Too bad we're not that smart evil.

Sigh.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at April 30, 2009 07:28 PM (/y1J0)

91 Obama should just appoint himself. If there's a Constitutional ban on such a thing, he won't care.

Or maybe Worf. What a frightening scene that would be, her glowering at you from the bench next to a drooling Ginsburg....

Posted by: Luca Brasi at April 30, 2009 07:30 PM (Cqkek)

92 #89. So true, AD, and damn funny if I do say so, but you're not making me feel any better.

Posted by: Stitches at April 30, 2009 07:30 PM (KyqYb)

93

God, what i would'nt give for either Bush never to have been President. Their tenures are so full great moments puked away.

Souter has got to be one of the most dishonest little germs ever to wear a robe. I'm sorry, but I hope he roasts in.... nevermind, but what a one man wrecking crew of our great Constitution. We could have got it back but not for him.

Posted by: Awnree at April 30, 2009 07:30 PM (eH8Cv)

94 This is good riddence to bad rubish week.

Posted by: sallie at April 30, 2009 07:50 PM (zplc6)

95 Isn't Michelle a Lawyer? She will be his pick so that he will have a lasting lifetime monument.

Posted by: jainphx at April 30, 2009 07:59 PM (7pvWO)

96 You just know Barry Motherfuckin' shitheel Cockholster will appoint some fuck who is thirty five years old. Just so they can sit on the bench for the next forty five fucking years. 

Posted by: jaleach at April 30, 2009 08:02 PM (gHrZU)

97 If the RNC has even the slightest hint of balls they will publicly state they will hire a legion of private detectives ready to delve into every minutae any candidate's life and "Bork" the living shit out of them.

Posted by: The Last Amtrak Passenger at April 30, 2009 08:14 PM (gftD1)

98

If a conservative justice retires, it's time to go all Pelican Brief on the Supreme Court.

Yes, I'm serious.

Posted by: jaleach at April 30, 2009 08:25 PM (gHrZU)

99

I dunno whether to find comments 88 and 89 amusing or just scary as hell. People are over at HotAir convinced that Barry is going to pick Billy Jeff for Souter's replacement. Seems that little loss of law license and all should hamper that, no? Not to mention the dirt that hasn't been brought up that could. Hell, what am I saying? The Clinton's are made of dirt, and the media just slobbers on them and makes mud pies.

Posted by: di butler (new and improved! With 20% bigger boobs!) at April 30, 2009 08:36 PM (qPIRP)

100 I dunno whether to find comments 88 and 89 amusing or just scary as hell. People are over at HotAir convinced that Barry is going to pick Billy Jeff for Souter's replacement. Seems that little loss of law license and all should hamper that, no? Not to mention the dirt that hasn't been brought up that could. Hell, what am I saying? The Clinton's are made of dirt, and the media just slobbers on them and makes mud pies.

Look at the Constitution and see what are the required qualifications for a Supreme Court Justice. Nowhere does it says a law degree is required. If fact, there are NO Constitutional requirements for a Supreme Court Justice. A Thai tranny hooker can become a Justice if Congress approves the nomination.

Posted by: The Last Amtrak Passenger at April 30, 2009 08:58 PM (gftD1)

101 "A Thai tranny hooker can become a Justice if Congress approves the nomination." Don't give them any ideas. Although the tranny hooker might at least be somewhat more libertarian than BO ...

Posted by: Gary Rosen at April 30, 2009 09:16 PM (zqLD/)

102

Don't forget Bill Lan Lee.

I truly despise that spermburper. Had to him on the opposite side in a case once.  At his deposition, you could actually see the dogshit fumes wafting off of him.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at April 30, 2009 10:33 PM (8MuSQ)

103

@97: "If the RNC has even the slightest hint of balls they will publicly state they will hire a legion of private detectives ready to delve into every minutae any candidate's life and "Bork" the living shit out of them."

I see one slight problem with your otherwise sound idea.......

 

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at April 30, 2009 10:50 PM (8MuSQ)

104

@99: I actually wouldn't mind BJ Clinton on the Court.  1) He'd probably have to recuse himself from a lot of cases; 2) the guy would be pretty predictable - he'd vote with public opinion every time; and 3) he might just find it in himself to dork Bammy right in the ol' squeakhole on some crucial case as payback.

Out of list of apocalyptic potential picks, he has some degree of upside.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at April 30, 2009 10:54 PM (8MuSQ)

Posted by: в񤤷ϥ at April 30, 2009 11:01 PM (djEoO)

106 Posted by: °ÂÁ´½Ð²ñ¤¤·Ï¥µ¥¤¥È at May 01, 2009 04:01 AM (djEoO) I wholeheartedly agree.

Posted by: In Exile at April 30, 2009 11:06 PM (8nOHU)

107 Barry is a little too smart to go hog wild with this first choice.  We will get a lefty no doubt, but a solid judge.  Now, that second pick, look out.

Posted by: Jean at April 30, 2009 11:15 PM (xCBQ4)

Posted by: ͽв at April 30, 2009 11:37 PM (djEoO)

109

If you want to see how Souter and other liberals were appointed by Republican presidents you should read Supreme Conflict  by Jan Crawford Greenburg. If you weren’t disgusted before you will be after reading this.

Posted by: Vic at April 30, 2009 11:49 PM (f6os6)

110

What I wouldn't give for a President McCain right now.

What makes you think McCain wouldn't be doing the same thing? If McCain won, he'd let Pelosi and Reid dictate his every move. And he would turn even more people away from the Republican party, compounding the electoral disadvantage in the future.

Posted by: The Band at May 01, 2009 01:11 AM (QtRBc)

111 I don't think we have a chance of the coin flip going our way, unfortunately.  In the case of Souter, if I'm correct, he didn't have that much of a record and it indicated he may be moderate or conservative.

Obama is going to go after the most extreme liberal he can find and whoever it is will be rubberstanped through.  I doubt there's anyway these appointees will "surprise" Obama or liberals.

Posted by: Joe Kidd at May 01, 2009 01:41 AM (BWWhA)

112

Souter retiring reminds me of an interchange with a real conservative over at Townhall who intended to sit out the election rather than vote for Mclame. One of the arguments put forth was that SCOTUS picks would be better under McLame than El Duce. His response was that, at most, he would only get to replace two justices, Stevens and Ginsburg. Both of those were themost liberal and it would be a wash. That calculous did not include Souter who is relatively young. So now it is likely that El Duce will get to replace three justices.

Posted by: Vic at May 01, 2009 01:46 AM (f6os6)

113 "95 Isn't Michelle a Lawyer? She will be his pick so that he will have a lasting lifetime monument.

Posted by: jainphx at May 01, 2009 12:59 AM (7pvWO)"

Wow, that is like putting yourself in the position.

Posted by: muffy at May 01, 2009 01:59 AM (zplc6)

114

Worse just got worser, as my grandkids would say....

"We're looking for President Obama to choose an eminently qualified candidate who is committed to the core constitutional values, who is committed to justice for all and not just a few," said Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice.

Some of the names that have been circulating include recently confirmed Solicitor General Elena Kagan; U.S. Appeals Court Judges Sonya Sotomayor, Kim McLane Wardlaw, Sandra Lea Lynch and Diane Pamela Wood; and Leah Ward Sears, chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court. Men who have been mentioned as potential nominees include Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Harvard Law professor Cass Sunstein and U.S. District Judge Ruben Castillo of Chicago.

http://tinyurl.com/c7bcaj

Posted by: Deanna at May 01, 2009 01:59 AM (Ns3Aq)

115 Are Obama's leftist judge nominations guaranteed? This guy has an interesting angle saying Specter's defection is actually bad for the Dems: http://tinyurl.com/dbyddk The upshot is you need at least one minority vote to get them out of the Jud. Comm., and Specter was a reliable turncoat who would often provide the vote. Now former gang of 14er Lindsey Graham is the questionable RINO, but he is talking tough for the moment. Specter may have hurt the Dems more than he helped them, at least in this case. ps, having to "tinyurl" your URLs because your "tech" guy can't figure out how to truncate URLs is just moronic. Get a tech guy who actually knows tech. Every the lowliest forum has automatic URL truncating. jesus.

Posted by: ms docweasel at May 01, 2009 02:01 AM (yCAZq)

116

RE:4 "Besides, there's nowhere to go but right anyway right?"

Last time I checked, this was a pretty conservative court. How does replacing Souter and/or Ginsberg with another liberal swing it left? There's still Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and (a lot of the time) Kennedy.

Until one of those retires, the court stays pretty conservative.

As for you, Jones, if you think America sucks so bad, I'll quote the conservative line of 'then get the hell out.'

Posted by: JEA at May 01, 2009 02:10 AM (AfORa)

117 What makes you think McCain wouldn't be doing the same thing? If McCain won, he'd let Pelosi and Reid dictate his every move. And he would turn even more people away from the Republican party, compounding the electoral disadvantage in the future. Posted by: The Band at May 01, 2009 06:11 AM (QtRBc) You can only argue that as a possibility and it's still debatable. On the other hand, it was undeniable that Obama would move the courts further left if he had the chance. On the one had a possible risk on the other hand near certainty. Pretty easy pick IMO.

Posted by: Mark at May 01, 2009 02:10 AM (3WQn7)

118

You can only argue that as a possibility and it's still debatable. On the other hand, it was undeniable that Obama would move the courts further left if he had the chance. On the one had a possible risk on the other hand near certainty. Pretty easy pick IMO.

In the election? Sure. But to come out now and say you only wish McCain was here is like yearning for Lois Lane to save the day.

Posted by: The Band at May 01, 2009 02:18 AM (QtRBc)

119 Time to start borking whoever gets picked.

Posted by: Sgt. Rock at May 01, 2009 02:21 AM (cWg6W)

120

 Isn't Michelle a Lawyer? She will be his pick so that he will have a lasting lifetime monument.

I seem to remember an article that said she had been disbarred, so while she has a JD, she is NOT a lawyer.

Of course that isn't a bar to appointment to SCOTUS.

Posted by: Vic at May 01, 2009 02:22 AM (f6os6)

121

Time to start borking whoever gets picked.

 

Republicans will NEVER do that. Hell, they voted to confirm Ginsburg 96-2. Republicans say that they believe a President should get his pick barring very bad disqualifications and being a communist from the ACLU is not a disqualification.  The Democraps believe that being nominated by a Republican is a disqualification and they vote that way EVERYTIME. When they control the Senate a Republican pick will not even make it out of committee unless the Dems have had a hand in making the pick.

 

This and MAJOR manuevering blunders is why the Court has been liberal for the past 75 years or so.

 

Also, look at these so-called Town Hall meetings the Republicans are doing now. One of the major focuses of these meetings is to show that Republicans can appeal to independents and Democraps. So you can see they are STILL trying to get that last idiot liberal voter. They have not learned their lesson yet. The Dems could nominate V. I. Lenin for the court and he would be confirmed 96-2. Jeff Sessions and Jim Demint would be the only no votes.

Posted by: Vic at May 01, 2009 02:30 AM (f6os6)

122 Look out for Cass Sunstein for SCOTUS who I dont see listed on anyones replacements yet..
Cas is BFF with TOTUS and is now married to Samantha Power another Gawd Save Us TOTUS pal....

Posted by: ginaswo/MiM at May 01, 2009 02:32 AM (1Y3ic)

123 Michelle Obama will get the nod.

Posted by: yinzer at May 01, 2009 02:38 AM (/Mla1)

124 Some of the names that have been circulating include: Vladmir Lennin's corpse......oops sorry Vladmir......it appears that you've paid all the taxes you were due over the past 80 someodd years. Which disqualifies you from serving your country during this administration. And........you're way to conservative to survive senate  confirmation. Thanks though.

Posted by: pendejo grande at May 01, 2009 03:33 AM (PXZI9)

125

Cass Sunstein -- crikes, I just puked in my mouth some.

Posted by: unknown jane at May 01, 2009 03:34 AM (EpmMs)

126 @84 - Well, Lindsey Graham could still screw us...

Lindsey will do the right thing.

/sarc, hard-core sarc that's giving me a crap sarc

Posted by: rockhead at May 01, 2009 03:41 AM (DvaIL)

127 /sarc, hard-core sarc that's giving me a cramp sarc

Freaking coffee hasn't kicked in yet this morning.

Posted by: rockhead at May 01, 2009 03:42 AM (DvaIL)

128 I wouldn't be at all surprised if duh1 didn't pick himself....or his teleprompter.

Biden will sulk.

Posted by: torabora at May 01, 2009 04:12 AM (WSRk3)

129 Souter leaving is a total wash. Had McCain won Souter would have waited him out the same as Bush. Souter has hated the job from day one and has been wanting to leave forever. The only thing it does is exchange an old liberal with a young one and Obama may not pick someone young his first time out. There are a lot of oldeer liberals who have been waiting a long time for a spot to open up for them and they have more political clout then the newbies.

As far as nominating a hard core lefty I really don't see how you can get much farther left than Souter. As for social issues this at least allows a chance at some moderation which there never was with Souter since he is a "confirmed bachelor".

Barring catastrophe Obama will not have a chance to chnge the "Polititcal" makeup of SCOTUS even though he will probably get to name replacements for Ginsburg and Stevens too.

Posted by: Rocks at May 01, 2009 04:23 AM (Q1lie)

130 By the way, one name not being mentioned that should be....Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. Go ahead and laugh.
1. As a life long senator he would get a free pass from the Senate.
2. He has turned out to be a total liability as VP.
3. Biden might want out.
4. Biden thinks of himself as the smartest guy around and the decider.

Against it? He would lose a lot of perks he has as VP and Uncle Joe is all about the perks.

Posted by: Rocks at May 01, 2009 04:27 AM (Q1lie)

131 Bill Clinton on the Supreme Court?  Wasn't he disbarred as part of the impeachment trial?

I haven't found anything that would disqualify a disbarred non practicing lawyer from the bench, but that's a pretty big bullet in the Bork gun, at confirmation time.

Posted by: Jay in Ames at May 01, 2009 04:37 AM (UEEex)

132 As wretched as Specter has been, I will admit that he did stoutly defend Clarence Thomas against that lying bitch (who ought to be raped for trying to ruin someone's life).

Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 01, 2009 04:43 AM (ujg0T)

133

  Wasn't he disbarred as part of the impeachment trial?

 

Nope he wasn’t. His license was suspended for 5 years. SCOTUS, seeing that he was going to get off scott free thanks to snalin arlen, removed his ability to practice law before the SC. That was a largely symbolic gesture.

 

Anyone else would have got 5 years in jail AND disbarred.

Posted by: Vic at May 01, 2009 05:01 AM (f6os6)

134

wasn't souter brought to us by the kind of republicans folks like brooks and frum think the party needs to become?  if he does nominate a far leftist, can the hatches of the world be trusted to call him out?

Posted by: ed at May 01, 2009 05:35 AM (Urhve)

135 Anyone touted by that fat, jowley Arab loving Sununu should be supect. G.H.W .Bush and his friends (Baker, Scowcroft, and Sununu) - what a fucking loser!!!

Posted by: Scipio at May 01, 2009 05:40 AM (01fwJ)

136 Ithink the Dear Leader will nominate his wife,  Lt Whorf.

Posted by: Honest Cloud at May 01, 2009 06:08 AM (0Qynq)

137

which there never was with Souter since he is a "confirmed bachelor".

Giggle

Posted by: VJay at May 01, 2009 06:30 AM (gQ+XA)

138 As wretched as Specter has been, I will admit that he did stoutly defend Clarence Thomas against that lying bitch

I'm the last person to encourage "what have you done for me lately" thinking, but when the amount of time since the last notably good thing the guy did is easiest to measure in solar sunspot cycles, well....

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at May 01, 2009 07:06 AM (/y1J0)

139 Time to start borking whoever gets picked.

<a href="http://obatjerawatbatu.blogspot.com/2010/06/blogger-indonesia-dukung-internet-aman.html" title="Blogger Indonesia dukung internet aman, sehat & manfaat">Blogger Indonesia dukung internet aman, sehat & manfaat</a>|
<a href="http://obatjerawatbatu.blogspot.com/2010/06/blogger-indonesia-dukung-internet-aman.html" title="Blogger Indonesia dukung internet aman, sehat & manfaat">Blogger Indonesia dukung internet aman, sehat & manfaat</a>|<a href="http://obatjerawatbatu.blogspot.com" title="Jerawat">Jerawat</a>

Posted by: Blogger Indonesia dukung internet aman, sehat & manfaat at July 05, 2010 01:55 AM (qZq1A)

Posted by: Blogger Indonesia dukung internet aman, sehat & manfaat at July 05, 2010 01:57 AM (qZq1A)

141 AVI to iPad Converter is just the most suitable tool for iPad which let iPad user freely convert various video or audio files to iPad just with simple clicks.
dvd to ipad

Posted by: AVI to iPad at August 18, 2010 04:52 PM (fwfah)

142 I like this post and I'm sure people would do much more than just read, they act. Great stuff here. Please keep it up....  Mercedes-Benz Mobil Mewah Terbaik Indonesia::Meriahkan pesta ulang tahun bersama GarudaFood::Mari Berkomunitas Di Faceblog

Posted by: Mercedes-Benz at June 02, 2011 09:24 PM (xJe3c)

143 M?chten Sie FLV zu WMV-Format konvertieren? Wenn Sie FLV (YouTube) zu WMV konvertieren wollen, schlage ich vor dieser m?chtigen FLV to WMV Converter für Sie. Mit einer einfach zu bedienenden Schnittstelle bietet der FLV to WMV Converter starke Funktionen.
Au?erdem k?nnen Sie mit dem FLV to WMV ConverterVideo-Ausgang anpassen durch croping das Video Spielfl?che, triming Video L?nge und passen Videoeffekt. Sie k?nnen auch Helligkeit, sturation und Kontrast einstellen.
Wenn Sie FLV zu ASF konvertieren m?chten, kann der FLV to ASF Converter das Problem l?sen.
FLV to ASF Converter ist eine leistungsf?hige Software, die FLV in fast alle Video / Audio-Formate umwandeln kann, auch auf HD-Videoformate konvertieren kann. Au?erdem bietet der FLV to ASF Converter Ihnen Editierfunktionen. Wenn Sie ein fortgeschrittener Benutzer sind, k?nnen Sie auch Reset Video-Bitrate, Audio-Bitrate und Bildrate anpassen.

Posted by: How to FLV to MP4 DivX Converter? at August 25, 2011 02:26 AM (Ge6Yh)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
143kb generated in CPU 0.16, elapsed 1.4879 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.3555 seconds, 379 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.