Judicial Watchwords

Christy Hardin Smith Tuesday February 10, 2009 6:15 am

Speaking of Republicans pushing faux bipartisanship and testing messages on judicial appointments, Nan Aron of Alliance for Justice hits this head on:

In an interview with CNN this weekend, AFJ President Nan Aron said that Republicans are already testing their opposition messages for their fight against President Obama’s nominees. “I think we saw during Eric Holder’s hearing, Republican senators testing out messages — not designed to deny confirmation to Eric Holder, but to test them to see whether they’d work with some of Obama’s judicial nominees.” This new wave of calls for a certain type of nominee is likely part and parcel of a larger effort to test messages and gear up for a fight should the time come.

Bipartisanship does not mean ignoring core constitutional principles like liberty, equality and justice for all when making judicial nominations, a distinction we are sure President Obama — who just happens to be a former professor of constitutional law — understands quite well.

Keeping the rule of law front and center — rather than appeasing people who will never be satisfied without a Scalia clone as a nominee — is key.

Bipartisanship should not mean rolling over. Ever.

And it sure as hell doesn’t mean appeasement or giving up core values for nothing but more, endless GOP kvetching in return.

How about instead of trying to make the fake "middle" happy, we instead start out with the justice appointees we’d all rather see? Lawyers who not only adhere to the rule of law, but who take the words justice, fairness, evidence, precedent and integrity to heart…and to the bench.

If there’s going to be a fight, it might as well be over principle instead of made-up frippery for the sake of media prima donnas grasping for air time. Don’t you think?

PS — Good news on the DOD legal front: Jeh Johnson’s been approved. Excellent.

Spotlight

26 Responses to "Judicial Watchwords"

foothillsmike | Tuesday February 10, 2009 06:39 am 1

Judging by what we have seen so far, postpartisanship is in reality war.

Christy Hardin Smith | Tuesday February 10, 2009 06:40 am 2

In response to foothillsmike @ 1

Pretty much — it’s just dressed up in pretty wrapping paper names for the Villagers to preen over. SIGH

beguiner | Tuesday February 10, 2009 06:45 am 3

Good morning. Supposed to be in the middle 60s in Chicago today.

demi | Tuesday February 10, 2009 06:48 am 4

for the sake of media prima donnas grasping for air time.
But, they’ve got that young mother with 14 kids who’s on food stamps to talk to and about, over and over and over.
I know that’s not an issue you want to talk about, but she just seems to be the metaphor for a lot of foolish ideals.

Christy Hardin Smith | Tuesday February 10, 2009 06:51 am 5

In response to beguiner @ 3

We’re already almost to 50 here — here’s hoping it stays that way today.

foothillsmike | Tuesday February 10, 2009 06:51 am 6

In response to beguiner @ 3

Gosh it is 2009 here in the Denver area

sadlyyes | Tuesday February 10, 2009 06:55 am 7

more freedom of the press

http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200902090035

billybugs | Tuesday February 10, 2009 06:55 am 8

In response to beguiner @ 3

Only 29 here ,the stock market has yet to crash !

sunshine | Tuesday February 10, 2009 06:56 am 9

How long before there will protests at their home offices?

Homeowner group protests ‘predator’ CEOs outside their mansions

If these activists are as dedicated as they are desperate, expect this to become a trend.

Monday, a group of 350 to 400 at-risk homeowners, organized by the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America, staged a series of protests outside the mansions of wealthy bankers in a moneyed Connecticut neighborhood.

“Called the ‘Predators Tour’ these actions were the start of NACA’s ‘accountability campaign,’ an aggressive, confrontational protest aimed at several top executives of companies that refuse to allow NACA to renegotiate the terms of loans on behalf of members, according to NACA CEO Bruce Marks,” reported the Stamford Times.

“Sporting bright yellow shirts that read, ‘Stop Loan Sharks,’ protesters demanded more accountability from the CEOs of the financial institutions responsible for the millions of unaffordable mortgages in the state and across America,” reported NBC New York in an article titled, “Grab Your Torch and Pitchfork.”

Protesters also gathered outside the mansions of William Frey, the CEO at Greenwich Financial Services, and John Mack, CEO of Morgan Stanley.

….

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/….._0209.html

billybugs | Tuesday February 10, 2009 06:58 am 10

After 8 years of Bush appointees , just about any choice will be an improvement !

sadlyyes | Tuesday February 10, 2009 06:58 am 11

In response to sunshine @ 9

saw that wish there were 4 thousand

perris | Tuesday February 10, 2009 07:00 am 12

Bipartisanship should not mean rolling over. Ever.

“pulling toward the center” is not something that should ever be done when you have a goal

the right wing did a great job moving what’s “called” the center, they have made it so what’s called “the center” is far far right wing

we have to move it back to what’s really the center

wigwam | Tuesday February 10, 2009 07:02 am 13

The Republicans are sure to force Obama to back down on some of his judicial nominees, just to show their strength. IMHO, now (the stim bill) is the time to have that showdown. As a purely tactical matter, he should force them to really filibuster while the American people are reading the daily unemployment statistics. They’ll have to back down.

sadlyyes | Tuesday February 10, 2009 07:02 am 14

In response to perris @ 12

mushy center

wigwam | Tuesday February 10, 2009 07:04 am 15

the right wing did a great job moving what’s “called” the center, they have made it so what’s called “the center” is far far right wing

Right, the center of the far, far right wing.

billybugs | Tuesday February 10, 2009 07:06 am 16

In response to sunshine @ 9

If I thought this tactic would accomplish anything I’d be all for it .
Maybe ,next time they will storm the castle ,and drag the Lord to the gallows.

Viva la revolution !! LOL !!

AZ Matt | Tuesday February 10, 2009 07:10 am 17

Good Morning from Snowy Arizona! Got a foot of fluff last night so ain’tgoing anywhere today. I heard snow level in AZ have dropped to 500 feet and even Tucson got snow. Flagstaff got about 3 feet.

So, has Marty Ledermann started work in the OLC? I was disappointed to hear the Obama Administration position in San Fran yesterday. Hope that changes soon.

AZ Matt | Tuesday February 10, 2009 07:11 am 18

In response to AZ Matt @ 17

Make that 2500 feet

eCAHNomics | Tuesday February 10, 2009 07:11 am 19

Anyone have any opinions on the two DOJ nominees now having hearings on cspan3?

wigwam | Tuesday February 10, 2009 07:19 am 20

OT: The writings of the right teem with irony, but today Glenn has found a stellar instance. NRO (today):

Terry Gilliam’s Brazil portrays a darkly comic dystopia of malfunctioning high-tech equipment and the dreary living conditions common to all totalitarian regimes. Everything in the society is built to serve government plans rather than people.

The film is visually arresting and inventive, with especially evocative use of shots that put the audience in a subservient position, just like the people in the film. Terrorist bombings, national-security scares, universal police surveillance, bureaucratic arrogance, a callous elite, perversion of science, and government use of torture evoke the worst aspects of the modern megastate.

Terry Gilliam (in 2006):

Have people forgotten I made Brazil? George W. , Cheney, and company haven’t. I’m thinking of suing them for the illegal and unauthorized remake of Brazil.

billybugs | Tuesday February 10, 2009 07:21 am 21

I always felt the courts job was to protect the rights of the people ,Bush appointees do anything but that.
It will be a welcome change to have a DOJ and judges that uphold the Peoples rights ,and don’t always find for the government or the corporations

hackworth1 | Tuesday February 10, 2009 07:22 am 22

Obama’s favorite Supreme Court nominees are not liberals. Where can he go from “not liberal” in order to appease Republicans?

It’s not unlike the manner in which Obama handled the tax cut portion of the stimulus bill. Instead of starting out at ten percent tax cuts to attempt to enjoin Republicans, Obama started with 30 percent – thus ending up with 42 percent tax cuts which are ineffective for economic stimulus.

Obama should make every effort to appoint the most liberal Supreme Court justices to counter the right wing idealogues who legislate from the bench – Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts.

Then, Obama can nominate centrist types as a backstop measure. When I think about the Democrats and the confirmation hearings and the votes in favor of Alito and Roberts, I could hang my head and cry.

billybugs | Tuesday February 10, 2009 07:28 am 23

In response to wigwam @ 20

Are you talking about Brazil ? Sounds a lot like the Bush USA !

foothillsmike | Tuesday February 10, 2009 07:28 am 24

In response to hackworth1 @ 22

I think he should nominate a good liberal then if he gets a lot of flack nominate someone as far left as he can find. That would be bringing a gun to a knife fight.

foothillsmike | Tuesday February 10, 2009 07:35 am 25

What is happening with the Solice nomination that has been stonewalled?

BargainCountertenor | Tuesday February 10, 2009 07:50 am 26

In response to foothillsmike @ 24

Yeah, Mike.

Of course, the thing we have to worry about is polarization on the Court. I don’t think it would be a good thing for them to working strictly in their little cliques. On the other hand, at this point it looks a lot like we have a Reactionary clique of Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Then we have five relatively free-thinkers. I dunno, I’m just worried about the damage that sort of behavior causes.

Sorry but the comments are closed on this post