Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Court pick could face filibuster over 'feelings'

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Old Coot Donating Member (385 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 03:58 PM
Original message
Court pick could face filibuster over 'feelings'
Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON – The Senate's No. 2 Republican on Sunday refused to rule out a filibuster if President Barack Obama seeks a Supreme Court justice who decides cases based on "emotions or feelings or preconceived ideas."

Sen. Jon Kyl made clear he would use the procedural delay if Obama follows through on his pledge to nominate someone who takes into account human suffering and employs empathy from the bench. The Arizona Republican acknowledged that his party likely does not have enough votes to sustain a filibuster, but he said nonetheless he would try to delay or derail the nomination if Obama ventures outside what Kyl called the mainstream.

"We will distinguish between a liberal judge on one side and one who doesn't decide cases on the merits but, rather, on the basis of his or her preconceived ideas," Kyl said.

The White House is preparing to announce Obama's pick to replace Justice David Souter, who plans to retire back to his beloved New Hampshire when the court's term ends. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said Sunday that he has been told a choice is likely to be announced this week. Those involved with Obama's decision hint that it could come as early as Tuesday.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090524/ap_on_go_su_co/us_obama_supreme_court
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tsuki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. Up and down vote. No filibuster. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lochloosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. ..
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
28. I love that expression.
Only those with a majority or near majority in the Senate ever use it, and when they do it's as though it's all they ever used.

Dems used it in the '90s, before they lost power. As soon as they lost power, of course, the idea of an up-or-down vote was anathema. The right of the minority to speak, to hold forth, to put holds on nominations, and to filibuster was essential in a free, democratic society.

Then again, repubs hated the idea, until they got power. As soon as they had a majority, well, it was up-or-down time.

Now that dems have power, of course, all the blather about how an up-or-down vote restricted the rights of the (dem) minority is out the window. Gotta be up-or-down, the right of the minority to speak, to hold forth, to put holds on nominations, and to filibuster is antithetical to a free, democratic society.

I'm glad I have a lousy sense of smell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
3. as other threads have said, even the mythical jesus would be fillibustered so might as well...
pick a real liberal from the git go.

Msongs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
4. Yet they will rally behind a president who uses "gut" feelings for running/ruining our country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corpseratemedia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
5. feelings..nothing more than..feelings
trying to forget the..potential supreme court justice's..feelings of looooooove
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
6. That would be classic and it would be the stake in the heart of
what remains of the republican party.

I hope they continue to play their childish bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pattmarty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
7. Look, Bush picked TWO appointees to the court. AND, both were...........
........stone conservatives with Roberts being close to extreme. So I guess what I am saying is "fuck 'em". If Franken is seated by the time of the vote, this is just Republicans being fucking idiots.
Unless it's Karl Marx, pretty much any "liberal" will get confirmed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happygoluckytoyou Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
8. NOMINATE THE CANDIDATE.... CALL THE BLUFF ! ! ! FORCE THE HAND ! ! ! GROW SOME NUTZ! ! !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benld74 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
9. ENUF of their BS! IF Slappy can sit on SCOTUS obama's candidate deserves as much
Shut em up. show sum cajones. take charge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
10. Yeah, we all know about how those women get their feelings in a knot.
:sarcasm:

Fuck this sexist piece of shit.

I've never heard ANY politician raise concerns about a a male judicial candidate's "emotions or feelings".

(BTW, I'm aware there's been no announcement yet, but Obama WILL pick a woman, and Republican Kyl knows it.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UpInArms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
11. and Kyl would know "mainstream" how?
these freaks just are so stuuuupiid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Hope Mobile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
12. Yeah, we wouldn't want a SCOTUS justice to let their feelings of
Edited on Sun May-24-09 05:28 PM by The Hope Mobile
loyalty to party cloud their judgment . . . cough cough (Bush v Gore). That's what this boils down to. Freakin' hypocrites.
Obama's choice needs to be open to the letter of the law as well as (more than) the corporate rules. Souter was already that so what are they freaking out about. Its not like we're replacing Scalia or Thomas (I wish).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 05:44 PM
Response to Original message
13. Kyl wants robots on the court?
Every judge has preconceived ideas. That is why the court comes down with so many 5-4 decisions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earcandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
14. Passion is one of the three offices of truth of Aristotle, the father of western thought
Passion is the ability to arouse or allay the emotions of an
audience.

Those damn pesky emotions are dangerous. They power
advertising and 
can cause the imagination to generate will. 
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 06:17 PM
Response to Original message
15. so, Mr. Kyl, how does this differ from * using his 'gut' and/or 'god'?
eh?

In fact, how does the idea of 'god' differ from a preconceived idea?

Answer: It does not. You are a hypocrite, sir.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hangman86 Donating Member (270 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 07:16 PM
Response to Original message
16. How the hell can you tell if a justice is acting on "feelings" or wisdom?
We have elected judges and lawyers who go as far as to say that torture, wiretapping, and taking away 1st amendment rights are perfectly within the limits of the law. Did they make these decisions based on reason?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 07:51 PM
Response to Original message
17. Then again, Kyl could be bullshitting. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mr_liberal Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
18. I'm ready to predict: Diane Wood.
The other leading contenders have... problems. Well, Kagan doesnt, but she just started as solicitor general. So I think he'll consider her for a later nomination.

Sotomayor has said something controversial about "legislating from the bench", and was a part of that controversial firefighter affirmative action case. That be a huge target for Republicans.

Wood is respected for her intellect and possibly being able to be a leader and create ... majorities. Plus it seems like Obama has tried to de-emphasize empathy and real world experience recently. He's changed empathy to mean pragmatic too, and thats what people seem to say Wood is.

Also Obama has mentioned wanting someone thats, what I took to mean, reasonable about business issues, not leftist. And thats what Ive heard Wood is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pushed To The Left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-24-09 08:48 PM
Response to Original message
19. I guess all the "up-or-down" stuff the right wing was preaching in 2005 was bullshit.
Roberts and Alito should have been filibustered, but the right wing threatened the "nuclear option". How do they feel about the "nuclear option" now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q3JR4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 02:45 AM
Response to Original message
20. Well, they were going to filibuster anyway,
Edited on Mon May-25-09 02:45 AM by Q3JR4
is this reason any better than the others they would have inevitably come up with?

Q3JR4.
As leader of the Neutral Planet my gut says, "maybe."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 05:17 AM
Response to Original message
21. No women allowed? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 08:08 AM
Response to Original message
22. That just about sums up Puke Corporatist thinking right there.
Feelings (like compassion) are bad, Greed is good.

Fuck you, Kyl!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 08:14 AM
Response to Original message
23. And suddenly all these "moderates" who so worried that Bush's pick would be filibustered
will publicly hem and haw about whether they support this filibuster. :wtf: :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 09:08 AM
Response to Original message
24. More BS. Repugs had promised to fillibuster well before Obama said anything about feelings.
Excuse du jour.

Government is broken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
25. Sounds pretty damn sexist to me. This is "code" for no women allowed in my "radical" feminist days
If they try to pull this shit, I say call em on it. I'm damn sure this is exactly what they intend - to dredge up antagonism towards Obama's near-certain pick of a woman cloaked in old stereotypical anti-female sentiment.

That's how Dems should fight back - that the Rethugs are simply anti-woman on the Court. It's how Kyl is framing it. If they're going to fight dirty, I say let em have it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
26. Translation: "We will oppose whoever is nominated"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoldenOldie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #26
27.  As a Zoni with Sen. Kyle my Rep, I am totally ashamed that he represents Arizona
All voters have to do is look at his voting record. He represents no one but himself. Hopefully, with Obama's appearance at ASU and his actions along with Napolitano taking charge of Homeland Security, Arizona voters will truly questions Kyle's representation. Kyle hasn't a clue as to who Obama with nominate for SC, but he has already proclaimed his opposition????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC