Here we go again....
"Why do the conservatives always get the conservatives, but we don't get to get the liberals? What the hell is that all about?"Tom Harkin (D - Iowa)
Reported in POLITICO
Damned good question, Tommy boy! Why indeed? Who was the last real Liberal on the Supreme Court anyway? You really have to go all the way back to William O. Douglas in 1975. By the way, Hark Man, you were my choice for nominee in 1992. To posterity's eternal regret, you were out-bubbah'd by smooth talkin' Slick Willie Clinton. We all would be much better off today had President Harkin (an honest to goodness Liberal) been minding the store between the years 1993 and 2001, that's for damned sure!
Fasten your seat belts and brace yourselves for the latest shit storm that is about to fall on Washington DC, folks. With the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens imminent, President Barack Obama is about to make his second appointment to the United States Supreme Court in a less than a year. And like last year's Sonia Sotomayor confirmation travesty, you can expect the Republicans (and even some Democrats) to have a positive hissy fit. These people have moved so far to the extreme right in recent years, the wishiest washiest moderate is going to be perceived as too much of a radical, left wing ideologue for these nincompoops. That being said, I think the president should make a bold decision. The Roberts Court contains plenty of far-right Conservatives (five of them). It's high time we have a Liberal in there - someone who leans decidedly (although not extremely) to the left.
Dag nap it! We need someone in there with the judicial chops of William O. Douglas! Is that asking too much? Douglas was appointed by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1939 and sat on the bench until 1975 when a debilitating stroke forced him into retirement. He died on January 19, 1980. Interestingly, the man who would eventually replace him was Justice Stevens! For thirty-six years, Douglas was, in almost every instance, on the side of the people (Almost - nobody's perfect). He was such a thorn in the side of the political fringe in this country, the GOP twice tried to impeach him. One of those attempts was led by Congressman and future president Gerald R. Ford. Why can't we have someone like Douglas sitting on that bench once again? It's been too long. We need a fightin' Liberal on the Supreme Court.
No matter what the president does, he's going to catch hell from these silly bastards and bitches. Why not go full steam? Why not a little daring do? We're seven months from Election Day. By then, whomever is appointed won't be much of an issue. By then it is almost certain that the American people will come to realize that having one true Progressive voice on the Supreme Court will not cause the sun to fall from the sky or huge cracks to appear in the earth's surface. There is nothing foretold in the Book of Revelations that a Liberal or two (or five) on the highest court in the land is the wicked force that is likely to bring on Armageddon. Sure, the usual suspects will freak out. Sarah Palin will accuse the new Justice of "paling around" with the Weather Underground; John Beohner will break down and weep tears of rage and despair on the floor of the House; Glenn Beck will almost surely come up with manufactured evidence of his or her ties to Fidel Castro, Abbie Hoffman and the North American Man/Boy Love Association - but by November it won't amount to a hill of garbanzo beans.
Not quite three months ago, in a five-to-four decision that is sure to have a seriously negative effect on democracy, the United States Supreme Court ruled that corporations, in effect, had all the legal rights as you and I; that they could pervert the electoral process with unlimited amounts of cash. Come to think about it, I take back what I said before. What we need is a FIRE-BREATHING, LEFT WING EXTREMIST as a counterweight to the plutocratic lackeys who now sit on that court. You know who they are:
John Roberts
Anthony Kennedy
Antonin Scalia
Samuel Alito
Uncle Thomas
All five of them are appointees of either Reagan or the two Bushes. The damage those three presidents did to this republic thanks to those horrible appointments will be felt for generations. The Republicans are already warning their clueless masses that Obama plans on nominating a judicial activist. Just what do they think the five mentioned above are? If you don't define giving a corporation full citizenship as "activism", I've got some property on one of Saturn's moons that I'd like to sell you. By the way (and I'm sure this never even crossed the minds of these assholes) that atrocious ruling leaves the door open for foreign corporations to influence American elections. Chew on that for a little bit. If you think the system is corrupt now - Oh, Brother! Just wait and see what it looks like in three or four years!
One of the possibilities being floated about at the moment is Hillary Clinton. For the record: I said a lot of things about Hillary Clinton during the primaries two years ago - really mean things - that I truly regret. In October of 2002, when she voted to give George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq without congressional approval (mandated by the Constitution) she blew it as far as I was concerned. That was a political vote - and there was no excuse for it. I hope she has lost a lot of sleep in the years since as a result of that vote. That being said, Ms. Clinton is a smart woman and - at heart - a true progressive. Since 1992, her innate liberalism has taken a back seat to political expediency - for obvious reasons. But that situation would reverse itself once appointed to the court. Progressives who view Hillary with suspicion need not be worried. I think she would be an outstanding appointment - as long as she keeps Bill out of the deliberations. That could complicate things just a tad, you know what I mean?
Another possibility (and this is my idea, thank you very much) would be - not necessarily a lawyer or a judge - but a constitutional scholar! A person who has spent his or her professional life - not in a court of law - but at the National Archives and various law libraries, studying the U.S. Constitution and the ramifications (for good and ill) of various Supreme Court decisions throughout American history - like that Dred Scott case! Wasn't that a hoot? Or how 'bout that "Corporations are People, Too" decision from January! THAT WAS A SCREAM!
Barack Obama is going to be attacked no matter whom he puts forward as a nominee. Putting up a real fight against the forces of darkness and stupidity will surely impress enough of his fellow countrymen and women to make a difference on Election Day next. This could be a political gold for him if he goes about mining it correctly. He should choose someone he knows will stand by the Constitution and the American people; someone who will fight the good fight in the name of good ol' traditional liberalism, baby! We haven't had a justice like that on the Supreme Court in a very, very long time. In fact we're decades overdue. C'mon, Mr. President! Let's rumble!
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
tomdegan@frontiernet.net
SUGGESTED READING:
Go East, Young Man
By William O. Douglas
BLOGGER ALERT:
Sheria Reid is a writer from Raleigh, North Carolina. Her blog is called, "The Examined Life". In her own words:
"An examination of the ups and downs of of life as a southern, black woman. I write about family, politics, and the human condition, and I try to maintain a sense of humor about it all."
It's a great site. I think you might like what she has to say. I know you'll love the music. Here's a link:
www.theexaminedlife-sheria.blogspot.com/
The unexamined life is not worth living. "The Examined Life" is definitely worth a good read. Enjoy!
For more recent postings on this nasty, commie blog, please go to the following link:
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Cheers!
Fasten your seat belts and brace yourselves for the latest shit storm that is about to fall on Washington DC, folks. With the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens imminent, President Barack Obama is about to make his second appointment to the United States Supreme Court in a less than a year. And like last year's Sonia Sotomayor confirmation travesty, you can expect the Republicans (and even some Democrats) to have a positive hissy fit. These people have moved so far to the extreme right in recent years, the wishiest washiest moderate is going to be perceived as too much of a radical, left wing ideologue for these nincompoops. That being said, I think the president should make a bold decision. The Roberts Court contains plenty of far-right Conservatives (five of them). It's high time we have a Liberal in there - someone who leans decidedly (although not extremely) to the left.
Dag nap it! We need someone in there with the judicial chops of William O. Douglas! Is that asking too much? Douglas was appointed by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1939 and sat on the bench until 1975 when a debilitating stroke forced him into retirement. He died on January 19, 1980. Interestingly, the man who would eventually replace him was Justice Stevens! For thirty-six years, Douglas was, in almost every instance, on the side of the people (Almost - nobody's perfect). He was such a thorn in the side of the political fringe in this country, the GOP twice tried to impeach him. One of those attempts was led by Congressman and future president Gerald R. Ford. Why can't we have someone like Douglas sitting on that bench once again? It's been too long. We need a fightin' Liberal on the Supreme Court.
No matter what the president does, he's going to catch hell from these silly bastards and bitches. Why not go full steam? Why not a little daring do? We're seven months from Election Day. By then, whomever is appointed won't be much of an issue. By then it is almost certain that the American people will come to realize that having one true Progressive voice on the Supreme Court will not cause the sun to fall from the sky or huge cracks to appear in the earth's surface. There is nothing foretold in the Book of Revelations that a Liberal or two (or five) on the highest court in the land is the wicked force that is likely to bring on Armageddon. Sure, the usual suspects will freak out. Sarah Palin will accuse the new Justice of "paling around" with the Weather Underground; John Beohner will break down and weep tears of rage and despair on the floor of the House; Glenn Beck will almost surely come up with manufactured evidence of his or her ties to Fidel Castro, Abbie Hoffman and the North American Man/Boy Love Association - but by November it won't amount to a hill of garbanzo beans.
Not quite three months ago, in a five-to-four decision that is sure to have a seriously negative effect on democracy, the United States Supreme Court ruled that corporations, in effect, had all the legal rights as you and I; that they could pervert the electoral process with unlimited amounts of cash. Come to think about it, I take back what I said before. What we need is a FIRE-BREATHING, LEFT WING EXTREMIST as a counterweight to the plutocratic lackeys who now sit on that court. You know who they are:
John Roberts
Anthony Kennedy
Antonin Scalia
Samuel Alito
Uncle Thomas
All five of them are appointees of either Reagan or the two Bushes. The damage those three presidents did to this republic thanks to those horrible appointments will be felt for generations. The Republicans are already warning their clueless masses that Obama plans on nominating a judicial activist. Just what do they think the five mentioned above are? If you don't define giving a corporation full citizenship as "activism", I've got some property on one of Saturn's moons that I'd like to sell you. By the way (and I'm sure this never even crossed the minds of these assholes) that atrocious ruling leaves the door open for foreign corporations to influence American elections. Chew on that for a little bit. If you think the system is corrupt now - Oh, Brother! Just wait and see what it looks like in three or four years!
One of the possibilities being floated about at the moment is Hillary Clinton. For the record: I said a lot of things about Hillary Clinton during the primaries two years ago - really mean things - that I truly regret. In October of 2002, when she voted to give George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq without congressional approval (mandated by the Constitution) she blew it as far as I was concerned. That was a political vote - and there was no excuse for it. I hope she has lost a lot of sleep in the years since as a result of that vote. That being said, Ms. Clinton is a smart woman and - at heart - a true progressive. Since 1992, her innate liberalism has taken a back seat to political expediency - for obvious reasons. But that situation would reverse itself once appointed to the court. Progressives who view Hillary with suspicion need not be worried. I think she would be an outstanding appointment - as long as she keeps Bill out of the deliberations. That could complicate things just a tad, you know what I mean?
Another possibility (and this is my idea, thank you very much) would be - not necessarily a lawyer or a judge - but a constitutional scholar! A person who has spent his or her professional life - not in a court of law - but at the National Archives and various law libraries, studying the U.S. Constitution and the ramifications (for good and ill) of various Supreme Court decisions throughout American history - like that Dred Scott case! Wasn't that a hoot? Or how 'bout that "Corporations are People, Too" decision from January! THAT WAS A SCREAM!
Barack Obama is going to be attacked no matter whom he puts forward as a nominee. Putting up a real fight against the forces of darkness and stupidity will surely impress enough of his fellow countrymen and women to make a difference on Election Day next. This could be a political gold for him if he goes about mining it correctly. He should choose someone he knows will stand by the Constitution and the American people; someone who will fight the good fight in the name of good ol' traditional liberalism, baby! We haven't had a justice like that on the Supreme Court in a very, very long time. In fact we're decades overdue. C'mon, Mr. President! Let's rumble!
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
tomdegan@frontiernet.net
SUGGESTED READING:
Go East, Young Man
By William O. Douglas
BLOGGER ALERT:
Sheria Reid is a writer from Raleigh, North Carolina. Her blog is called, "The Examined Life". In her own words:
"An examination of the ups and downs of of life as a southern, black woman. I write about family, politics, and the human condition, and I try to maintain a sense of humor about it all."
It's a great site. I think you might like what she has to say. I know you'll love the music. Here's a link:
www.theexaminedlife-sheria.blogspot.com/
The unexamined life is not worth living. "The Examined Life" is definitely worth a good read. Enjoy!
For more recent postings on this nasty, commie blog, please go to the following link:
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Cheers!
posted by Tom Degan @ 2:27 PM
35 comments
35 Comments:
Ain't that the TRUTH!! I'd say because the conservatives think they run the country, it's always about them. If they don't get their way they cry and whine like 3 yr olds! It's time we act like the grown-ups and smack them down!
Don't forget guys: it's their way or the highway. Everybody is entitled to an opinion just as long as it is the same one they have. And "we don't need activist judges" on the supreme court unless they are going to rule "actively" in conservative causes. Wahhhh......
I agree. It's just crazy. They repalced a moderate with an extreme rightie. Alito and Roberts promised they didn't like activist courts and then have voted to change many past laws with precedent by earlier courts, even given a corporation the same voting rights as individuals as a supposed part of freedom of speech. It drives me nuts that they now want a moderate. They don't want a moderate anyway but what we need is a liberal
The Republicans are already saying they'll filibuster whoever President Obama nominates. They'll explain why once they know who it is.
Don't forget Ruth Bader Ginsberg. She is a liberal, but is always voted down by the extremes. With another Ginsberg on the court we might have a fighting chance to see justice once in awhile.
Those right wing nuts better not say one word about 'liberal activist judges' again after the current crop of far right justices have turned over decades of precedent.
The Planned Parenthood tried to warn everyone that Bush would pack the court with Right Wing judges if he was elected. Sadly, they were right.
You are absolutely right about one thing. Obama might as well place a fire breathing liberal up for nomination because the Repubs will try to block anyone he nominates anyhow just to stop him. I don't believe a single Republican would vote for an avowed right wing candidate if Obama named him/her to the Court. The Repubs have planned their strategy for the next election and it's to make Obama fail as often as they can.
If the Right were really interested in honesty and fairness, they'd allow Justice Stevens to be replaced with someone who is at least as reasonably liberal as he has proven to be without a fight....so you know that's not going to happen.
I think President Obama should just scare the crap out of them by insisting on the most outrageously liberal appointee he can find, fight unrelentingly like he was going to get whoever it is seated just like he got the health care bill passed, threaten to seat whoever it is with a recess appointment, then at the last second, when the GOP is losing what's left of their minds, slip in a 'compromise' (aka who he actually wanted in the first place).
They're not that bright, but you have to play the game by their rules if you want to beat them. The last President to seat a Supreme Court Justice by recess appointment was Eisenhower, so there is precedent for it.
I'd also like to suggest 'Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court' By Jeff Shesol. I just started reading it, but it's very interesting.
I'm with you, sweetheart!
Full steam!!!!!
S
No matter what the president does, he's going to catch hell from these silly bastards and bitches. Why not go full steam?
P.S. My human-identifying word was "intanse." Yes! It was!
It sooooo was that I'm still slurring my words!!!
__________
I've just watched the 11:00 p.m. news and it was filled with images from the local tea party rally in North Carolina's state capital, Raleigh. It was a big crowd, at least 1,000 people, maybe more. They carried a lot of signs, made a lot of speeches that were filled with "sound and fury, signifying nothing." Yet they all screamed and applauded every meaningless turn of phrase. These people scare me.
We need a liberal full of liberal ideas about justice to fill Justice Stevens' seat. We need someone with the chutzpah to embrace the term liberal and not act as if it's a four letter word. We need someone who will kick Thomas under the bench really hard and force him to speak even if it's only to say, "Ow!" We need someone who understands that the Constitution is a living document and not just some tired old document trapped in the limbo of the 18th century. We need a miracle; I'm asking Obama to deliver one.
Many thanks Tom for the shout out; it's greatly appreciated. I'm always particularly delighted when a reader appreciates my eclectic tastes in music. I love creating soundtracks to my life.
Perhaps worth noting that at this stage in Bush jnr's first term, he had only five nominees for various positions under review - whereas Obama currently has seventy seven.
The GOP/Party of No on the march still.
You have "done it again" and that's a good thing! Why am I surprised?! LOL... New Yorker eh? I should have known! Hoorayyyy.
A question just came to me:
If a tree falls in the forest....
....does it make a sound if Mitch McConnell is not there to deny that a sound was made?
Something to ponder.
Tom Degan
Harkin is so right. We have to have some kind of national debate to get the word "liberal" removed from the dungeon. After all how bad is:
liberal |ˈlib(ə)rəl|
adjective
1 open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values : they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people.
• favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms : liberal citizenship laws.
• (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform : a liberal democratic state.
?!?!?!?!?
Spread this around folks.
John
A Liberal Definition by John F. Kennedy:
Acceptance Speech of the New York
Liberal Party Nomination
September 14, 1960
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.
In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:
I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.
cont.
I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.
Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.
Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city not only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.
Tonight we salute Governor and Senator Herbert Lehman as a symbol of that spirit, and as a reminder that the fight for full constitutional rights for all Americans is a fight that must be carried on in 1961.
Many of these same immigrant families produced the pioneers and builders of the American labor movement. They are the men who sweated in our shops, who struggled to create a union, and who were driven by longing for education for their children and for the children's development. They went to night schools; they built their own future, their union's future, and their country's future, brick by brick, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood, and now in their children's time, suburb by suburb.
Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day. But in 1960 the cause of liberalism cannot content itself with carrying on the fight for human justice and economic liberalism here at home. For here and around the world the fear of war hangs over us every morning and every night. It lies, expressed or silent, in the minds of every American. We cannot banish it by repeating that we are economically first or that we are militarily first, for saying so doesn't make it so. More will be needed than goodwill missions or talking back to Soviet politicians or increasing the tempo of the arms race. More will be needed than good intentions, for we know where that paving leads.
In Winston Churchill's words, "We cannot escape our dangers by recoiling from them. We dare not pretend such dangers do not exist."
And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman for the effort to achieve an intelligent foreign policy. Our opponents would like the people to believe that in a time of danger it would be hazardous to change the administration that has brought us to this time of danger. I think it would be hazardous not to change. I think it would be hazardous to continue four more years of stagnation and indifference here at home and abroad, of starving the underpinnings of our national power, including not only our defense but our image abroad as a friendThis is an important election -- in many ways as important as any this century -- and I think that the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party here in New York, and those who believe in progress all over the United States, should be associated with us in this great effort. The reason that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson had influence abroad, and the United States in their time had it, was because they moved this country here at home, because they stood for something here in the United States, for expanding the benefits of our society to our own people, and the people around the world looked to us as a symbol of hope.
I think it is our task to re-create the same atmosphere in our own time. Our national elections have often proved to be the turning point in the course of our country. I am proposing that 1960 be another turning point in the history of the great Republic.
Some pundits are saying it's 1928 all over again. I say it's 1932 all over again. I say this is the great opportunity that we will have in our time to move our people and this country and the people of the free world beyond the new frontiers of the 1960s.
Great stuff, John! I love that Kennedy quote. Always have. But I can boil it down into basic terms here:
A Conservative loves America for her body.
A Liberal loves America for her mind.
All the best,
Tom Degan
I think it's perhaps important to understand where and precisely whom is using the term 'liberal' as to how it is understood. Whilst the above context, expansions and definitions, JFK via John Sutton, might meet US sensibilities and expectations, it has a completely different rendering, connotation and usage both in Europe, and when used classically (i.e. when in reference to the great Liberal leaders of the British Empire).
Even here, 'the classical sense' is massively ambiguous and depends on whose terms of reference you're intending the term 'classical' to be used and interpreted. For example, do you mean "classical" in the Adam Smith ('The Wealth of Nations') sense, or "classical" in the Tory/Whig sense of the word? Or an even later - e.g. Gladstone - usage/etymology/vintage? And that's before we address such luminaries as Locke, Hume, Rousseau, Paine and Jefferson et al.
You see my point?
You people are amazing!! Why let the facts get in the way of some good propaganda!I just read the post about how Republican presidents only nominate "conservatives"! Only problem with that is Reagan gave us Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy. G.H.W Bush gave us David Souter. These are all far from "conservatives"! Obama just gave us Sonia Sotomayer. Funny how facts are omitted to fit your template!
Yes but when Reagan appointed O'Connor and when Bush appointed Souter, they believed that their appointees would tow the right wing line.
The same goes for Eisenhower's appointment of Earl Warren. Ike later called it "the biggest damned fool mistake I made in eight years in office."
Believe me, my friend. They had no idea they were appointing anything but lock-step right wingers. As Warren, a reliable Conservative in civilian life once remarked, "The view from up there on the bench is quite different than the one from from down below."
unfortunately, the most enduring legacy of the Founders is a propensity for Magical Thinking - beginning w/ all that talk of equality & "inalienable rights" (not to mention "sacred honor") - as they haggled over how to best defend the privileges of property & skin color against "those persons in bondage & servitude," & "domestic foreigners" (Native Americans).
Magical Thinking - the belief that wishing can make it so - was woven into the nation's laws, customs, & national narrative. in it's latest form, MT assures us that a two-front war on terrorism can be "won," & that electing a Black president meant that American had finally entered the "post-racial era." and then came the reality of mounting deficits & Tea Party protests.
obviously, the Obama administration is not immune to this condition - as we witnessed w/ the near-debacle over health care reform, where the tactic of compromise-before-negotiation set the tone for a senseless, divisive, year-long public spectacle. and if this pattern continues in deliberations on Stewart's high court replacement - & please feel free to point out indications that suggest otherwise - we can expect to see major concessions to the Right from jump-street.
sigh. what else can we expect fom an administration that looks like the Potomac chapter of the Harvard Club?
---
http://www.alternet.org/story/146467/glenn_greenwald%3A_why_elena_kagan_would_be_a_dangerous_pick_for_the_supreme_court
Thank you, Tom! Both for the shout out to my good friend, Sheria Reid, and for saying what we all wish for. SOMEBODY has to say the things you're not afraid to say. I love Sheria for that and now...you, too.
Oh, Nance!
You've made my day (and 97 percent of the evening - that other 3 percent I keep reserved for the gal who played Miss Jane on the Beverly Hillbillies - long story).
Thank you so much for the kind words, and thanks again for turning us all on to THE EXAMINED LIFE! It really is worth living!
Love and Peace,
Tom Degan
Well Tom, here is what I dont understand. The story on your website never mentioned O'Connor,Kennedy or Souter! The story would have actually had context if you had included those 3 non conservative justices appointed by Reagan and Bush. It doesn't matter if both presidents had hoped they would be more right leaning. The first line in the whole story is "why do conservatives always get conservatives" When your reply post clearly states that isn't true!Intent or not, 3 non conservative justices have been giving to us by Reagan and Bush!
My point being that leaving those 3 justices out of your story totally changes it! But since this is a site called left blog I guess its to be expected.
Anonymous, you wrote...
"It doesn't matter if both presidents had hoped they would be more right leaning."
You just don't get it, do you? Let me try to explain it to you, since Tom's more than ample answer was understandable to me (and everyone else, I'm sure).
When Reagan gave us Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, and "Bush I" gave us David Souter, neither Republican president thought these conservative judges would lean left once appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States. In actuality, O'Connor was more of a swing vote in several matters. For instance, from 1994 to 2004, she joined the traditional conservative bloc of Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas 82 times; she joined the liberal bloc of Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer only 28 times. Liberal? Hardly.
Since the retirement of O'Connor, Kennedy is often considered the swing vote on many of the Court's politically charged 5–4 decisions, although he reaches conservative results more often than not. As far as the first George Bush's selection, David Souter, initially, from 1990 to 1993, Souter tended to be a conservative-leaning justice, although not as conservative as Scalia, Thomas, or Rehnquist. After the appointment of Thomas, Souter moved to the middle. By the late 1990s, Souter began to align himself more with Breyer and Ginsburg on rulings, although as of 1995, he sided on more occasions with the more liberal justice, Stevens, than either Breyer or Ginsburg (who were both Clinton appointees).
That's the thing about conservatives that I admire the most [intense sarcasm]: You always shoot from the hip and make up crap as you go. That's why conservatives, like yourself, are generally considered ignorant and, for the most part, untrustworthy. Next time, get your facts straight.
Very nice blog Tom. Thanks for visiting my blog and leaving a comment.
We have been watching the unsuccessful attacks of every action and inaction of the Whithouse by the extreme right even before the swearing in ceromony. Glad to know I am not the only one seeing it.
Italco....
Thanks so much for that. Go to Italco's link, folks. It's an excellent site.
Well Jefferson's Guardian, it always seems when you people cant explain yourself you fall back to the default "you must not get it"!
The story was meant to justify Obama nominating a "Fire breathing Left Wing Extremist" and in order to do that the author had to make you think that Republicans presidents only nominate extreme right wingers!
To quote the story "What we need is a FIRE-BREATHING, LEFT WING EXTREMIST as a counterweight to the plutocratic lackeys who now sit on that court."
NOW the story wouldn't have the intended effect if it had included the 3 non conservative given to us by Reagan and Bush 1 !
You go on to say I am "ignorant" but I find it amusing that people who sell themselves as the intellectual superiors to those on the right would think its ok NOT to included 3 supreme court justices in a story about nominating supreme court justices just to prove your political point!
You say I am untrustworthy and I "need to get my facts strait" which is absolutely hilarious given the fact that your defending omitting 3 supreme court justices that just happen to not fit your storyline.
we can debate about the intent of what president thought what but what I wont debate is the facts!
The fact is the Reagan and Bush 1 gave us 3 non conservative extremists! Which is 180 degrees away from what the story implied!
Really interesting. I don't understand why the blatant conservative bent of the court doesn't get much press...which isn't necessarily a bad thing, until you start getting decisions like the campaign finance mess. We definitely need a rational liberal mind on the court.
I especially agree with your comments on Hilary...I gave her way too much crap in 2008. She is one of the most competent minds in Washington; I hope she remains a big player for a long time to come.
I like the blog. Check out mine, Young Politics, and continue the discussion.
Anonymous, if you want to get into a pissing contest with someone and be taken seriously, please take the time to proofread what you write, quote them correctly and use the right word. What JG actually wrote and what you meant to say was "get your facts STRAIGHT", not STRAIT.
LMAO! seriously??? thats all you got? 1 single spelling error?
I find it amazing that I am called names and have my intelligence questioned because I think a story about the judicial nominees of Presidents Reagan,G.H.W Bush and G.W Bush should include O'Connor,Kennedy and Souter!(I know how crazy is that)
Charles Moore I spelled 1 word wrong in 3 posts and therefore you feel I cant be taken seriously?
Again you people sell yourselves as being superior in intelligence but yet you cant answer 1 simple question??
so I will ask it again maybe a little simpler this time and make sure I double check the spelling!
All I want to know is why O'Connor,Kennedy and Souter where left out of the story about the supreme court nominees of Reagan and Bush???
You can disagree with my views but you cant seriously believe its ok to omit 3 justices from this type of story!!!
Again why like stupid things like facts get in the way of some good propaganda!
Dude...
Please stop spamming the South Florida craigslist Politics Forum! I am sympathetic to your point of view but 3 posts promoting your blog within just a few hours this morning is a bit much. Very conservaturd-like behavior. Thanx in advance for your cooperation.
We have a say in who gets nominated to the Supreme Court: It's called an electoral process. If we only elect progressive candidates who pledge to elect those darned "activist" judges that actually follow the law and help the ordinary citizen rather than the deep-pocketed corporation, these problems will be history...
Join me...
http://www.facebook.com/pages/CAMPAIGN-CORNER-A-HOME-FOR-PROGRESSIVE-POLITICAL-CAMPAIGNERS/382328365843?v=info
You mean the deep pocketed corporations like Google ?
Bill said "The Republicans are already saying they'll filibuster whoever President Obama nominates. They'll explain why once they know who it is."
The fact that they are saying this exposes exactly the mindset (if they have a mind) of the conservatives. Opposition just for the sake of opposition. Not because it is for the good of the people, not because it's for the good of any party. Just be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. Being obstructionists is what the right wants. They have no other reason for doing it, and are openly opposing every little decision the Democrats (moderate Dems at that) make, even before they even make them! If they do state a reason, that reason can be exposed as lies. None of their arguments hold any water. So all they can do is act like children having a temper tantrum. Sit there and hold their breath until they get their way.
"The Conservatives will whine, but that’s what they do best. They’ll whine just as they whined when Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Voting Rights Act of 1965, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964." You do realize it was Al Gore Sr(d) who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964...Republicans passed that bill...and the Voting Rights Act...well of the 19 "No" votes in the Senate...17 were democrats and in the house of the 85 "No" votes 61 were...wait for it...DEMOCRATS!. Wanna talk about Womens suffrage? Nah...you really dont
Post a Comment
<< Home