Skip to main content

Democrats are polling too well before midterms, so naturally, Republicans have pushed the panic button. That button being judicial nominations, of course.  So grab a bottle of asprin, stock up on plush items to throw at your TV, and prepare for the return of the "up or down" vote.

Brett Kavanaugh was re-nominated by President Bush in January to serve on the D.C. Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals.  For those not familiar with the federal court system, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is considered the second most important court in our nation. It has jurisdiction to hear complex and critical matters, including appeals from federal agencies.  How important is the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals? Four of the nine members of the Supreme Court served on that court.

Today, the New York Times comes out against Kavanaugh's nomination:

A young lawyer with paltry courtroom experience, Mr. Kavanaugh does not have the legal background appropriate for such a lofty appointment. What he does have is a résumé that screams political partisanship.

He worked for Kenneth Starr, the independent prosecutor, and helped draft possible grounds of impeachment against President Bill Clinton. He became a partisan in the impeachment battles that followed, co-writing an op-ed article in 1999 that presented Mr. Starr as an "American hero," while railing against a "presidentially approved smear campaign against him." Mr. Kavanaugh has spent much of his legal career since then in the Bush White House, where he helped select many of the administration's far-right judicial nominees.

Since Mr. Kavanaugh's nomination was first considered, information has come to light about a number of troubling policies that he could have had a hand in, including domestic spying, torture and rendition of detainees to other countries. Senate Democrats would like to question Mr. Kavanaugh about these programs, and about what connection he had, if any, to the Jack Abramoff scandal.

You can read more about Kavanaugh's political background here and here.  He is undeniably a champion for the Republican cause--whatever that cause may be at the particular moment. Is it appropriate to nominate such a partisan individual, one who has dedicated his legal career to serving the interests of the Republican Party, to the second most important court in the land? Senate Democrats are critically examining his record, and Minority Leader Reid has stated that a filibuster is possible.  

Democrats want another hearing on Kavanaugh so that they can question him on his knowledge of the NSA scandal, Abramoff's dealings with the White House, and the administration's torture policy.  Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter is reportedly reluctant to grant another hearing, though he has not ruled it out.  Tomorrow, the committee will consider Kavanaugh's nomination. If a vote is taken then, it is expected to be along party lines.

And that brings us to the floor of the Senate again, to continue with the rhetorical foreplay of "constitutional" options and "up-or-down" votes.  Bill Frist expects Kavanaugh to be confirmed by the end of May.

Speaking of Frist, if you want a good chuckle, head on over to Frist's VOLPAC and check out the comments on Kavanaugh's nomination.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed May 03, 2006 at 06:21 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Do people think Frist'll (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    try the nuclear option if we do filibuster, and claim that it's the Democratic gang members fault since they promised not to filibuster (they promised not to filibuster except when the nominees are clearly out of the mainstream or unqualified, and this guy seems to be both, so they wouldn't be violating their promise).

    Don't take my bluntness and attitude personally-the best weapon for the Democrats is the unvarnished truth, and the truth usually hurts.

    by DemocraticLuntz on Wed May 03, 2006 at 06:19:45 PM PDT

    •  Kavanaugh wasn't part of the compromise (3+ / 0-)

      His name was specifically left out of that pact. I recall the wingers being particularly pissed about that.

      So yeah, we don't extraordinary circumstances on this one.

      Though appointing such a partisan with such limited experience to the bench, I would contend, is extraordinary.

    •  Not quite (3+ / 0-)

      The Dems in the agreement didn't promise "not to filibuster except when the nominees are clearly out of the mainstream or unqualified..." They promised not to filibuster except in "extraordinary circumstances" with no further definition.

      •  We should renew that point. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Maybe this time, the extraordinary circumstances are that federal judges are being nominated by a president who thinks they're "quaint."

        •  November 2006 (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Shapeshifter, earthy crunchy1

          This is the time for the Dems to showcase themselves as a party that can lead courageously on the right issues and then to move forward into the November elections. I'm afraid if they don't kick it into gear here and give America a strong reason to vote for them --as opposed to simply not voting for Republicans--, then it's unlikely they'll find the courage to present themselves as a bold, visionary, substantive alternative.

          Thankfully, the nominee in question is tainted with so many of the administration's problematic issues --you know, the kind of "super depressing" issues that warrant mention in a comedy routine-- that it shouldn't be difficult for the Dems to use this as an opportunity to explain to the American people the difference between them and the corrupt party in power.

          "You can't talk to the ignorant about lies, since they have no criteria." --Ezra Pound

          by machopicasso on Wed May 03, 2006 at 06:44:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I completely agree. (0+ / 0-)

            More and more people are simply not voting because they can't stand voting for either party. They don't see voting for democrate simply because it's "better then the alternative" as a good thing. Democrates have to stand up and show that not only are they better then the alternative, they are what needs to be in the top seats and that not voting for anyone will keep who those types of people don't want in office.


            "Yesturday is a canceled check; tomorow is a promisary note; today is a gift; treasure it"

            by earthy crunchy1 on Wed May 03, 2006 at 08:56:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  And by the way... (0+ / 0-)

        the "extraordinary circumstances" language is in Part II of the agreement, which deals with "future nominations."

        Kavanaugh's nomination was pending at the time the deal was inked, which technically puts him under Part I of the agreement. That part says only what the signatories agree to do with nominees mentioned by name, is silent on Kavanaugh and Boyle, and says nothing about what it means not to be named.

        So technically, there's nothing in the agreement that binds anybody with respect to Kavanaugh. Of course, by that reading, the Republican seven are not specifically barred from supporting the nuclear option in the case of a filibuster against his nomination, either.

        Not that that matters, knowing as we do that both Graham and DeWine never had any serious, long-term commitments to upholding the deal. DeWine probably needs to get out from under it, anyway, and would take any excuse to do so.

        •  aw, why did you have to go all (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          logical and lawyerly on this?

          now you've spoiled all the GOP fun!

          •  Well... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            machopicasso, MarketTrustee

            it was just a race to see who wanted out sooner. And you just know it wasn't going to be one of the Democrats. If they filibuster, they'll stick to the "extraordinary circumstances" thing, regardless of its applicability.

            This is an excuse that's equally suited for use by both sides, but chances are it won't be used except in desperate ("extraordiary," even) circumstances. The humor is that the whole thing will be fought out under the terms of the wrong part of the deal, because that's the only part there's anything approaching a common understanding of -- and the common understanding is that nobody knows what it means!

        •  Exactly (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Kavanaugh's filibuster was ACCEPTED by the deal.

          The GOP will be breaking the deal if they push him.

          The GOP Senators party to the deal will be breaking the deal if they vote for the Nuclear Option.

          But the deal was always worthless.

          "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

          by Armando on Wed May 03, 2006 at 06:46:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's ridiculous (0+ / 0-)

            Kavanaugh was not on the floor, therefore was not filibustered, therefore, the filibuster could not have possibly been accepted, as it did not exist.  Had it been accepted, his name would appear alongside Myers and Saad.

            •  I'm really confussed... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              by why they made this deal in the first place. If they  were presured by Republicans, then it shows that many democrates have no back bone. If they did it on their own, then it still shows that they have no back bone. Writting this kind of deal guarentees nominees like Kavanaugh to just walk write through. I say rip up the deal and filibuster all they can!


              "Yesturday is a canceled check; tomorow is a promisary note; today is a gift; treasure it"

              by earthy crunchy1 on Wed May 03, 2006 at 08:59:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Ha! (0+ / 0-)

              He wasNOT on the floor because there WAS a filibuster Dr.

              Who you kidding?

              "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

              by Armando on Wed May 03, 2006 at 10:36:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Wha? (0+ / 0-)

                How the hell is that possible?  A filibuster by definition can occur only on the floor.  It is a procedure, as you well know, to prevent a final vote from occurring by extending the floor debate.  60 votes are necessary to cut the debate off.  If someone is not on the floor, pray tell how can one be filibustered and how the filibuster can be cut off.

                •  Doesn't matter. (0+ / 0-)

                  It doesn't matter whether he was being filibustered or not. Filibusters are only addressed under Part II of the agreement, which doesn't apply to Kavanaugh, because his nomination was pending.

                  •  That makes no sense (0+ / 0-)

                    If that was true, i.e., if anyone who isn't specifically mentioned can be filibustered, why list Myers and Saad explicitly?

                    And in any event, he is a new nomination since he was returned in December and renominated in january.

                    •  Sure it makes sense. (0+ / 0-)

                      You just need to pretend it doesn't, so that you can claim that Kavanaugh's nomination wasn't pending, and you can shoehorn him in under the wrong part of the deal.

                      All Part I(B) says is that there's no agreement as to the disposition of the nominatios of Myers and Saad. What's so hard to figure out about that? It means what it says.

                      It also means what it doesn't say -- that is, that there's also no agreement as to the disposition of any other pending nominations.

                      I have no doubt, of course, that disingenuous Republicans will claim that the terms of the deal can be rewritten if only once "pending" nominations can be reclassified as "future" nominations.

                      The fact that Kavanaugh isn't mentioned is (intentionally) confusing. But it doesn't magically change the fact that his nomination was pending, as you're trying to do.

                      •  That's silly (0+ / 0-)

                        Again, why mention Saad and Myers?!  If there is no deal on ANY of the pending nominations other than Owen, Pryor and brown, why mention Saad and Myers specifically?

                        Furthermore, it would make no sense for the Gang deal to specifically mention Kavanaugh or anyone else who was still in the committee, because for all they know, they may never be reported out of the committee.  Or some bizarre facts may come from hearings.  Or they may die or withdraw.  It would be premature to have any deal on those who have not yet been considered in the Committee, and it would be premature to state that there is no deal on them either.

                        It therefore stands to reason that the nominees who were not reported at the time of the deal are all "future" nominees.

                        •  Is it silly? (0+ / 0-)

                          Sillier than having to pretend that the signatories to the deal used the word "pending" without knowing that it really meant what you think it means, as opposed to what the inclusion of Saad and Myers under Part I means?

                          Sillier than having to pretend that the fact that there's no agreement written about the pending Kavanaugh nomination actually means that there was one, and that it was for his approval?

                          Saad and Myers were still in committee at the time the deal was inked, and yet they were mentioned under the "pending" section of the agreement. You're just flat wrong about that, and haven't come to grips with it. What's "silly" is pretending that you're capable of discussing this issue without acknowledging that.

                          They mentioned Saad and Myers specifically because those were the two names they could get 14 signatures for. Kavanaugh was also opposed, and opposed specifically by Graham, but Graham knew what kind of heat he was in for just for signing, and was too gunshy to permit Kavanaugh's inclusion, because the stalling of Kavanaugh's nomination could be directly linked to him, and he didn't want to put that down on paper and add that to his list of troubles. No written agreement was necessary, because it was general knowledge that his nomination was dead, while there was still some lingering question as to Saad and Myers.

                          •  Again, you are factually incorrect (0+ / 0-)

                            Myers was reported out of committee on March 17, 2005 on a 10-8 vote.  The deal was inked on May 24th, 2005, i.e., over 2 months after Myers was voted out of the Committee.

                            Graham never opposed Kavanaugh.  that's utter nonsense and you have absolutely no evidence for that.  Graham opposes Haynes (a nominee to the 4th Circuit) and will vote against him in the committee, thus preventing him from getting to the floor.  Graham supports Kavanaugh and will vote for him.  the stalling of Kavanaugh's nomination is done by Hillary not by Graham, as a payback for his involvement with Ken Starr.

                            I still fail to understand why if teh deal really only included the three confirmed judges, and no one else, why bother metioning 2 other judges specifically as still filibusterable?  

                            Furthermore, Kavanaugh is a new nominee anyway.  having been returned by the Senate, his nomination was resubmitted in January of this year as a new nomination.  Consequently, he is a "future" nominee.

                          •  And Saad? (0+ / 0-)

                            You still need to overcome Saad to even have a shot at being right about what "pending" means.

                            Graham won't oppose Kavanaugh this time, but that's not an answer to where he was privately last time.

                            You still fail to understand innumerable things about this deal, whether I can list them specifically or not.  And the deal doesn't say the other two are specifically filibusterable. It says there's no agreement on them. That's all. In order for you to be right about Kavanaugh, you need to prove that he wasn't "pending," and that the fact that there's no mention of any understanding on him really means that there was one.

                            And yes, I'm well aware of the spin Republicans would like to have us believe, having "renominated" Kavanaugh so that he can be considered a "future" nominee. But why not "renominate" Saad, too? Or Myers? Would you defend them as "future" nominees, too?

                          •  Saad and Myers (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            Saad withdrew.  Myers was never returned and remains pending.  Furthermore, whether Myers and Saad are renominated, they are specifically permitted to be filibustered.  In other words, teh agreement says that neither the letter nor the spirit is violated if the signatories choose to vote against cloture on those 2 nominees.  The letter and the spirit is violated if they choose to vote against cloture on any other nominee absent extraordinary circumstances.

                            You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Graham opposed Kavanaugh at any point in time.  That is just a bald faced lie.

                            Finally, the discussion is academic.  Kavanaugh will be confirmed either by having cloture invoked, or through the nuclear option.  DeWine, Graham and Warner have made it pretty clear that they will not tolerate any future filibusters of judicial nominees.

                          •  Not proven. (0+ / 0-)

                            Saad withdrew in March of this year.

                            You've failed to prove your case. Or, if you prefer this construction, you're a bald faced liar.

                            But I agree that Republican duplicity will render this discussion (or at least my part of it) academic. Your part wouldn't qualify.

                          •  Ludicrious (0+ / 0-)

                            By specifically mentioning the 2 nominees who wouldn't trigger the nuclear option, i.e, who were OK to be filibustered, the agreement under the "inclusion unius" principle provided that no other nominee, absent extraordinary circumstance can be filibustered.

                            No other construction is plausible.

                          •  Ludicrous indeed. (0+ / 0-)

                            By what construction do you find an agreement on Kavanaugh?

                            The deal does not specifically say a filibuster is OK for those two. It merely says that there's no agreement about it.

                            Part I(A) says, "we will vote to invoke cloture" on Brown, Pryor and Owen.

                            Don't you think Part I(B) could easily have said, "we will not vote to invoke cloture" on Saad and Myers? Because it doesn't. It says, "signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture" on them.

                            So by what magical construction does the omission of Kavanaugh mean there something other than "no commitment" on him? And what accounts for this report on the subject?

                            I have just heard from excellent sources that a number of Hill reporters believe that there is an oral side deal under which two other very good men have been prospectively thrown overboard by the Republican 7, notwithstanding the "extraordinary circumstances" pledge: Kavanaugh and Haynes. If true, this would be the dirty deal of all time and a disgraceful surrender executed under cover of darkness. It would also be an ominous portent of how the written deal will be implemented in the future.

                            At this point, this is only rumor, but it's imperative for the press, the groups, and the Republican leadership to demand a flat, on-the-record confirmation or denial from each of the seven Republican signatories. Immediately. If there are terms of this deal beyond those in writing, the public has a right to know.

                            Gee, I wonder why nobody ever got a flat, on-the-record confirmation or denial from each of the seven Republican signatories? Could it be... for precisely the reason I posited?

                          •  Part I(B) (0+ / 0-)

                            could not say "will not vote to invoke cloture" because obviously 7 GOPers + Nelson of NE supported cloture.  So that's why it said "no agreement" meaning that Senators can oppose cloture and still comply with the MoU.

                            There is no specific agreement on Kavanaugh.  Duh.  he is to be treated like everyone else, i.e., filibuster under extraordinary circumstances only.

                            So the quote you cite self-acknowledges that a) it is nothing but a rumor and b) says absolutely nothing whatsoever about Graham's opposition to Kavanaugh.  I am underwhelmed.

                            That morning, Reid met in his office with Nelson and Mark Pryor. Reid wanted changes in the draft to specify that there was no guaranteed final vote for two other nominees:

                            Kavanaugh. As associate independent counsel under Kenneth Starr, he had leading roles investigating the Whitewater case involving President Clinton and the 1998 Clinton impeachment case. Later, in the Bush White House, Kavanaugh was one of the president's lawyers working on getting the president's judicial nominations through the Senate. Kavanaugh was nominated for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Democrats argued that he was too conservative for the bench.

                            Senate Republicans pushed back when the centrists got together last Monday evening for what proved to be their final meeting. GOP lawmakers noted that the Senate Judiciary Committee had not acted on either Kavanaugh or Haynes.

                            Schumer objected to the deletion of Kavanaugh's name. Recognizing that the talks were over, Reid asked Democrats to support filibusters against both Kavanaugh and Haynes.

                            Nelson declined. Several participants in the meeting said the others agreed, although Landrieu said Friday through a spokesman that she had not. Reid's spokesman declined comment.


                            Seems like Reid & Schumer wanted the language saying that there are no guarantees on Kavanaugh and lost out.

                          •  I read that, too. (0+ / 0-)

                            Why did you leave out this part?

                            At Collins' suggestion, their names [Kavanaugh and Haynes], as well as those of McKeague, Griffin and Neilson, were dropped from the document.

                            Why were they were dropped? Because Republicans like Graham didn't want to sign documents linking them to sinking their nominations, but understood that the nominations were dead anyway (which is the way they wanted it). Otherwise, they'd have pushed to include them in Part I(A). Instead, they agreed to reach no agreement on them.

                            The assumption that he'd be treated like everyone else, even though the circumstances of his nomination at the time were entirely different from those contemplated under Part II -- where the only mention of "extraordinary circumstances" resides -- requires a redefinition of pending so radical and counterintuitive that it facially violates the plain language of Part I.

                            Of course, it also violates the "spirit and continuing commitments made" in the deal, referenced in Part II(B), should we decide that applies. The Republican commitment was to oppose rules changes in the 109th Congress, but apparently they recognize no parallel commitment prohibiting the "renomination" of rejected candidates within the same Congress. Which is why Graham and his six cohorts are snake oil salesmen never to be trusted, and the interpretation of the agreement is, as you noted, all academic.

                          •  I fail to understand where you get that (0+ / 0-)

                            "Republicans like Graham didn't want to sign documents linking them to sinking their nominations, but understood that the nominations were dead anyway (which is the way they wanted it)."

                            The article states pretty clearly that it was Reid and Schumer who wanted the nominations dead, not Graham.  If Graham wanted it dead, he would simply vote against him in committee of which he is member, thus deadlocking the committee and preventing Kavanaugh from ever reaching the floor.  (As he is planning to do with Haynes).  There is no evidence whatever that Graham does now or has ever opposed Kavanaugh.

                            The only people who wanted Kavanugh and Haynes included in the document were the pro-filibuster Democrats.  They wanted their names to be included along with Saad and Myers.  they failed.  Consequently, they are not placed in the same group as Saad and Myers, and therefore are entitled to a vote absent extraordinary circumstances.

                            As for "spirit and continuing commitments made," it is pretty clear that the Senators can vote for the nuclear option if they feel that the other side is not living up to the "spirit and continuing commitments made" of the agreement.

    •  Lessons Unlearned and total faith in Diebold are (0+ / 0-)

      necessary to all of them if they dare to vote straight party lines on this and other matters from now on out.  Promises mean nothing to most of them at any other times, even if Kavanaugh is considered within the realm of their "promise", it means nothing period.  They all took oaths of office to uphold the Constitution.  That is ALL that matters to this country.

      Of course, I noticed that they are not voting as they should in other matters.  But, this one is another high score.  Up-or-down votes, and "...probably he will be confirmed by the end of the day" gives no one time for due consideration and is just a push and shove technique.  "...Filibuster is "possible" said the weak-kneed Reid.

      Fristing along thinking he's strong and perfect, Senator Frist, is probably unaware that he is thought of as a pasty-faced buffoon.

      Oh, yes, I'll be voting, ... I recently answered a poll, "Will you be voting Democratic, or Republican?" Or, "Are you not going to vote", but these goons will have opposition, and that is where we pay attention! ... Any one who is reading this, DO NOT stay home, not vote, and think there's nothing you can do to put the bad guys out of their seats.  Be there in November!  Think what the alternative to simply letting them roll right over you without an even so much as an attempt to save your own self!  Not one of you will be safe from the monsterous regime that will be upon each of us if they are re-elected.  You have only seen the preview!

  •  Scary comments (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bree, adigal, boofdah, DemocraticLuntz

    Those comments on Frist's webpage are downright frightening - so many GOP minions, all short of a full deck.

    "Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will." - Frederick Douglass

    by goblue72 on Wed May 03, 2006 at 06:24:39 PM PDT

    •  I think they're hilarious (6+ / 0-) doesn't look good for November does it? Every conservitive I know isn't even voting this time. you ask me to donate to Volpac to help more GOP to win in November, and I want to give really I do...but there is no proof that the new GOP members would do anything different on these 4 issues (espically the borders). So I'm giving nice donations to the Minutemen project. They are doing the job on the borders that you are supposed to do, and that is a worthy cause.

      *The voters gave you a majority in both houses, as well as a Republican President, and you still blame the Democrats for your inability to pass legislation.* I thought that only a simple majority was necessary to approve a bill. Am I wrong? Truthfully, I can't see where it made any difference to give the Republicans control of the Legislature. The Democrats seem to still be running things in Washington, DC. Why?

      First, as the majority party it should not take three years to confirm anyone. I understand you have to work with and in spite of the RINOs, but this is ridiculous. [...] Mark my words...*if the Republicans in the House and Senate do not get back to representing their grassroots constituents you will lose in November.*

      *Comfirming Kavanaugh is a ploy to invigorate your core supporters.* It's a much easier task for you than to fight for secure borders, secure ports, immigration enforcement, a real energy policy, balancing the budget and trade policy that benefits America. You are like a magician to misdirect our attention while the "trick' is performed out of our view. Please deal with the issues that matter to the majority of Americans.

      Robert Simonsen
      Disgusted lifelong Republican

    •  totally agree, I live in a different time-space? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bree, Timbuk3

      Have I become so jadedly (post)liberal that I have no sense of a common reality? Please tell me that those people are seriously whacko. I cannot believe the serious amount of non-reality in those comments. I have always been liberal and always at least understood what conservatives were talking about and why they felt that way. But this batch of loonies is different from their foremothers. They don't even acknowledge the existance of reality, more so live in it. Some of those comments are bizarre. It is a cult. The Republicans are a cult. And George Bush is their David Koresh. And the fall elections are their Waco. Sadly, they'll find a new David.

      The left should be on the left, not the center or the right.

      by ThanxAl on Wed May 03, 2006 at 07:41:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Very funny, and very creepy (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Cult like is right, because they are leaning towards almost supernatural explainations about how the Democrats are still somehow running the country presumably by using black magic and drinking baby's blood.

        It would be oversimplifying to say that the answer was that GOP voters were simply wrong. But really, the agenda wasn't all bad, it was because the people that they elected sold them out.

        And at least one guy made the comment that Frist is just kiting one more silly distraction. So maybe it is getting through that they were screwed.

        •  It's all old school for them (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bree, earthy crunchy1

          Knuckle-dragging nativists and molting hawks and conservatives of every description have always had to find scapegoat groups to blame for the world's ills.  Those ills which clearer-eyed folks tend to blame on the conservatives themselves.

          Jews, gays, blacks, Democrats, Mexicans... the names are interchangeable.  The story line stays the same:  They are screwing up the world, using their nefarious power to foil the ambitions of Decent People everywhere.  They may be few in number, but possess the supernatural power of Evil.

          They swallow so much bullshit, it's a wonder they find room for beer.

          -4.50, -5.85 In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. --Orwell

          by Dallasdoc on Wed May 03, 2006 at 08:50:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Glad someone said it. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            i've been screaming that for years. I just never knew how to put it in those kinds of words. Thank you.


            "Yesturday is a canceled check; tomorow is a promisary note; today is a gift; treasure it"

            by earthy crunchy1 on Wed May 03, 2006 at 09:02:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Find your words, earthy (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              This place is a playground for words.  Play.  Have as much fun as you want.  Say what you want to say.  I think you'll find the words come.

              -4.50, -5.85 In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. --Orwell

              by Dallasdoc on Wed May 03, 2006 at 09:12:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Supernatural evil (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                The 2 traits of the Other is that "they" are:

                1. Mentally, spiritually, physically degenerated
                1. Have almost supernatural power of distruction

                That's what Hitlers said about jews, and that is what the GOP says about liberals.

                For instance "evolution" is so obviously false and degenerate, but the idea has the power to destroy civilization and religion. Degenerate and false but supernaturally destructive

                •  More conservative projection (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  These people are always afraid, and what they're afraid of always seems to be the reflection in the mirror.

                  -4.50, -5.85 In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. --Orwell

                  by Dallasdoc on Wed May 03, 2006 at 09:37:51 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Yeah... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I saw this reported in The Hill. I thought about doing a diary. Then I realized that the 20+ student conferences that happened today took priority.

    Glad you caught it.

    "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

    by kredwyn on Wed May 03, 2006 at 06:24:42 PM PDT

  •  i wonder how Lincoln Chaf will vote (0+ / 0-)

    on the fillibuster...

  •  This is how they play the game: (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TealVeal, Power, bree, Timbuk3, adigal, paige

    First they nominate an extremist like Kavanaugh who they know will never get the nod, then they follow up with their preselected 'second choice' -  somebody who doesn't rankle the ire of those of us fighting against certain characteristics of the first nominee.

    Then they win.  It is time we the majority stop this.

  •  Why do conservatives hate spelling? (3+ / 0-)

    Thanks for linking to the VOLPAC comments...they made my day!

  •  Why not -- they always win (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    claude, rjo, MarketTrustee

    Why not create another confrontation? The Republicans not only always win, but it creates more division with Democratic supporters.

    I can see how this plays ot now: Frist brings up the nomination, Feingold or some other Dem calls for a filibuster, the blogosphere gets mobilized, Biden or Lieberman critcize their fellow Democrats for opposing the nominations, Frist threatens the "nuclear" option, blog readers go crazy, Harry Reid starts to back down, Markos writes a post stating that a filibuster is not a good idea, the nominees sail through with half the Democratic Senators voting for them, blog readers wonder if there is any way to stop GWB.

    Gee, we've only seen this a thousand times.

    •  well, there is more support for a (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bree, DemocraticLuntz

      filibuster here than with Alito.

      From when the compromise was made:

      In the privacy of his Capitol office last Monday night, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., asked for commitments from six Democrats fresh from the talks. Would they pledge to support filibusters against Brett Kavanaugh and William Haynes, two nominees not specifically covered by the pact with Republicans?

      Some of the Democrats agreed. At least one, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, declined.

  •  First I have 5 words for you (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    claude, boofdah

    Bush No Credibility Harriet Mier's

    2 more words- Thirty-Two%

    2 more- Incompedant Cronie

    and my last few words Shut Down D.C. Harry

    "The Truth is far more powerful than any weapon of mass destruction." -Gandhi

    by Chamonix on Wed May 03, 2006 at 06:44:14 PM PDT

  •  Please fillibuster (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    So that the Republicans can go nuclear. It's not like we ever use the fillibuster, so it won't hurt us.
  •  I can see the picture clearly in my mind, (0+ / 0-)

    that great photo of a GOP supporter with his sign

    Get a brain you morans!

    And now I guess we know where the moron morans hang out...

    "Congressman DeLay, Colonel Danny Bubp asked me to send you a message - that cowards cut and run" - Representative Jean Schmidt

    by EeDan on Wed May 03, 2006 at 06:46:04 PM PDT

  •  another fight! (0+ / 0-)

    Time to charge up the cell phone!

    -Jordan Wells
    -6.38, -4.77
    High School Deaniac

    by Jordan LFW on Wed May 03, 2006 at 06:49:40 PM PDT

  •  Is this (0+ / 0-)

    the nut who thought Bill Clinton wearing a certain tie was obstruction of justice?

    I'm too disgusted right now to think of a sig.

    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 03, 2006 at 06:53:49 PM PDT

  •  He's got impeachment experience! (0+ / 0-)

    Well then he must be qualified.  Oh, like most Republicans, they only think about SEX.   Next.

  •  Filibuster (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    claude, Timbuk3, Shapeshifter

    I am sick and tired of Democrats threatening filibusters and then caving in.

    What are they afraid of? The nuclear option? Let the GOP go nuclear. For all intents and purposes they have already gone nuclear. If Democrats are so afraid of the nuclear option that they will not filibuster then the filibuster is already dead.

  •  Who cares about any promises made by the gang.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    when it contains John McClain. He sure has proven he goes where it is politically expedient. Why sure any dem care about some ill-conceived promise about filibuster. Let Frist use the nuclear option and see how well that will aid republican congressional incumbents up for re-election.

  •  Kavanaugh must be filibustered. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bree, Timbuk3

    This isn't the Supreme Court, but it's virtually as important.  The Supreme Court can only hear a tiny fraction of all the decisions of the Circuit Courts, so for the vast majority of cases, the Circuit Courts have the final say.

    The D.C. Circuit hears virtually all the important cases regarding the federal agencies and their interpretations of the laws they are supposed to enforce.  EPA?  FDA?  Nuclear Regulatory Commission?  You name it.  This is important.

    Plus, as some posters above have said, I dont give half a crap if Frist goes nuclear.  As it stands, our fear of the nuclear option keeps us from filibustering, so we might as well call them on it.  If they go nuclear, then (1) we're no worse off than we are now, and (2) IMHO it'll make the Republicans look petty and vicious, especially if we can get the info out there that this guy is a Bush crony tied to this disastrous Presidency who is unqualified, inexperienced, and morally tainted with everything this Administration has done.  68% of America would seem to agree.  There is nothing to lose here.  Nothing.  Our only hope for the judiciary is to take back the White House in 2008, or the Senate in 2006, or hopefully both.  Continuing to roll over and let these Bush enablers into lifetime bench appointments is the worst possible option.  With public opinion so high against Congress and the President, and with Congress = Republicans so firmly entrenched in the public's mind, this can only help us.  It will fire up the Dems, and I doubt it will fire up the Republican base any more than any of the million other panders (on gay marriage, etc.) will already do.

    Quo usque tandem abutere, George W., patientia nostra?

    by Mr Futomaki on Wed May 03, 2006 at 07:18:57 PM PDT

    •  I agree. Filibuster. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      claude, bree

      There's nothing to lose. If the Democrats don't filibuster, Bush gets what he wants. If the Democrats do filibuster, and the Republicangelicals nuke the Senate, Bush gets what he wants.

      Get it over with, already.

      Then, with the momentum from this and other victories combined with the miserable showing of the GOP (and let me take this opportunity to point out that any solution to gas prices that doesn't involve "the free market" letting prices rise until people can't afford to drive to work is otherwise a Democratic solution) let the Democrats retake the Senate and put a stop to this shit once and for all.

      From Frist's blog:

      By the end of his Presidency, the President will have appointed 1 out of every 3 of the 871 Federal judges in this nation.

      From Alliance for Justice

      Republicans have long been jockeying to control the D.C. Circuit, blocking the nominations of two highly-qualified Clinton nominees and now trying hurriedly to push through Mr. Kavanaugh, currently the favored nominee of "movement" conservatives who have waged a generation-long campaign to transform the law.

      I swear, if the Democrats don't start inspiring their base soon, including me, I'm going to vote for the challenger in every race regardless of party. Throw ALL of them out.

      "Doing My Part to Piss Off the Religious Right" - A sign held by a 10-year old boy on 9-24-05

      by Timbuk3 on Wed May 03, 2006 at 07:41:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Precisely. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sny, bree, Timbuk3

        I swear, if the Democrats don't start inspiring their base soon, including me, I'm going to vote for the challenger in every race regardless of party. Throw ALL of them out.

        I used to see myself as a "pragmatist" and not an "idealist" in these electoral matters up until recently.

        My mind is changing.

        This Democratic strategy of endless triangulation doesn't work.  It hasn't worked in years.  And it can't ever work.  It can work for the Republicans, but not for us, for one reason: the Republican "base" wants either of two things: arch-capitalist corporatocracy, or theocracy.  It's easy for them to triangulate to that.  The Democrat "base" is a coalition of dozens of groups who want dozens of things, all loosely grouped around the central ideas of progressivism.  We are a coalition of many, which is inspiring, and engaging, and great.  But it doesn't make for good triangulating.

        No, I'm increasingly beginning to think the Dems have to say "fuck the conventional wisdom" and stop squabbling over the 5% of "swing voters" -- and instead go after the 50% of the country who doesn't vote because they're too cynical, disillusioned, etc.  (Well, some of them don't vote because of Diebold and Katherine Harris and felony disenfranchisement, but that's another issue).  Triangulating might steal a couple percentage points of that "swing" bloc, but bold, daring, and shocking moves might just wake up some of that sleeping 50%, which is much more than 5%, the last time I checked.

        Quo usque tandem abutere, George W., patientia nostra?

        by Mr Futomaki on Wed May 03, 2006 at 07:55:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  6 months to the election (0+ / 0-)

          I don't know why the Democrats can't just say that with everything on the Senate's plate, from gas prices to immigration to staggering debt to the war in Iraq to nukes in Iran to (insert favorite issue here)...

          ...there's no reason that judicial nominations can't wait until after the elections in November.

          With approval of the President in the 30's and approval of congress in the 20's it's reasonable to say "let's wait until we have a government that represents the American people, again."

          "Doing My Part to Piss Off the Religious Right" - A sign held by a 10-year old boy on 9-24-05

          by Timbuk3 on Thu May 04, 2006 at 04:42:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Discuss Discuss Discuss (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    claude, MarketTrustee

    Take a vacaction become a Republican and stop worring about this shit.  The Democracts are about to lose another one for the people.  While you guys are busy trying to inform the world about what is going on the gang of 14 are busy figuring out who can sell us out!!
    I'm sick of this shit!!

  •  That's it. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    He worked for Kenneth Starr, the independent prosecutor, and helped draft possible grounds of impeachment against President Bill Clinton.

    That's the angle of attack.

    President Clinton is looking mighty good right about now. The Republican rush to impeach Clinton for basically nothing vs. their staunch refusal to even say bad things about President Bush goes with talk about that prosecution.

    Democrats should grill him in the confirmation meetings about his actions and whether they were legitimate or not. He could say "Well, I was wrong then and I admit it..."

    But seriously, here. He's a Republican.

    Then, if you're feeling Rovian launch a separate campaign to bring the Clinton hearings and specifically the nasty tricks and such back into the public's mind.

    The only Republican counter to that is that the Democrats are trying to get revenge for Clinton, but that seems extraordinarily weak. (Then again, knowing the Democrats...)

    The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

    by Shapeshifter on Wed May 03, 2006 at 07:27:02 PM PDT

    •  I like that idea... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Nothing like bringing up an unpopular impeachment of a popular president. It would serve well to remind people how things were under Clinton: balanced budgets, distaster response, a functioning military, world respect, gas at $1.50, an economy that was lifting all boats instead of just the 50 foot yachts.

      Then bring up his involvment in the crafting of the torture policies, his Abramoff/Lobbying ties, and the NSA spying scandal (although someone is going to have to explain this one to the people. It can be rather convoluted for those who aren't paying attention.)

      Most importantly... NO 15 MINUTE QUESTIONS... That means YOU Joe Biden. Most Americans think the hearings exist for the senators to hear themselves talk. They usually don't gardener anything usefull out of them, simply because there isn't a simple ask (short consise question) and answer.

    •  Backfire (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Many of the arguments suggested here have the potential to backfire on a future Democratic President trying to get his/her nominees through the Senate. I doubt contending that "our nominees are moderates, while there's were extremists" will work very well.

      Blocking Kavanaugh simply because he worked for Starr would be pretty much unprecedented, and would invite an awfully close examination of any Clinton administration attorneys nominated by a Democratic President.

      I'd also be wary of suggesting that Kavanaugh is unqualified. He was an editor of the Yale Law Review, clerked for Judge Kozinski on the 9th Circuit & S. Ct. Justice Anthony Kennedy, worked in the Solicitor General's office and was a partner in a large law firm. The ABA OKed him, and he has a lot of support among the leaders of the DC Bar. I'd think a future Democratic President would want the flexibility to appoint similar, or even less qualified, candidates in the future.

      •  Is it appropriate to ever filibuster? (0+ / 0-)

        So far you have opposed its use EVERY TIME.

        Why not just spit it out?

        "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

        by Armando on Wed May 03, 2006 at 10:39:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hardly Ever (0+ / 0-)

          Filibusters of judicial nominees were virtually without precedent prior to the Bush Administration, so I don't really think it's the filibuster opponents that have to justify their stand. I remember when progressives of all stripes viewed the filibuster as an anti-majoritarian device that was inimical to democratic decision making. I still believe that, and also believe that partisan litmus tests shouldn't be applied to judicial nominees.

          I have yet to see anyone on the pro-filibuster side suggest how to keep the tactic from being employed against future Democratic judicial nominees. Escalating the filibuster strategy by employing it against Kavanaugh gives the GOP free rein to employ the tactic during Democratic administrations.

          Furthermore, Kavanaugh isn't a particularly problematic nominee, assuming one can get past the Ken Starr affiliation. He was OKed by the ABA and many leaders of the DC Bar are in his corner. As noted above, contending that he's not qualified is a losing argument. So not only are judicial filibusters a bad idea in general, Kavanaugh doesn't come close to the extraordinary situation that might make the tactic more palatable.  

          •  He is a problematic nominee. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            He's a torture apologist and a spy.

          •  Well... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Filibusters of judicial nominees were virtually without precedent prior to the Bush Administration...

            There's a lot of stuff that was virtually without precedent prior to this President.

            have yet to see anyone on the pro-filibuster side suggest how to keep the tactic from being employed against future Democratic judicial nominees.

            You say that as though the Republicans didn't use procedural methods to stop half of President Clinton's nominees.

            Furthermore, there will be substantial differences between Kavanaugh and future Democratic nominees. If there aren't i would support a filibuster against them, as well. The arguments against Kavanaugh had better not be applicable to future Democratic nominees.

            And the Ken Starr affiliation is no small problem. We're talking about what amounts to an attempted coup: trying to remove an elected President without just cause. (The investigation, of course, is legitimate--but it should be obvious to anyone who examines Starr's activities that they were not concerned with investigation.)

            The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

            by Shapeshifter on Thu May 04, 2006 at 03:34:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  No, no... (0+ / 0-)

        That's not why we block him. That's the story we present to the public. That's the narrative. We ask him questions that have really unpleasant answers and use that as the attack.

        We block him because he does not have the qualifications, of which the Starr nastiness is only the leading edge and banner.

        If they can't make it through a confirmation hearing then why the hell should they go on the court? I was shocked when Alito and--especially--Roberts managed to get through without actually presenting reasons why they should be confirmed.

        If you interviewed for a job, but totally fumbled it and didn't answer any of the questions and were generally sullen and uncooperative would you expect them to give you the job anyway because you went to the right school or have important friends?

        Now, in the real world, you probably would. But we're talking something a little bit more important than almost any other job...

        The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

        by Shapeshifter on Thu May 04, 2006 at 12:41:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Went to Frist page (0+ / 0-)

    you can be an iFrist volunteer! Wowsa!

    Up and Down We Go!

    inspire change...don't back down

    by missliberties on Wed May 03, 2006 at 07:30:43 PM PDT

  •  God Fucking DAMN It!! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bree, Timbuk3, Shapeshifter

    What is wrong with these people?

    ``There were a handful of cases over the years in which it appears that recusal was warranted,'' said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. ``But Judge Boyle has never intentionally participated in any matter in which he should have recused himself, nor has there been any suggestion that he overlooked any conflict or used his office for private gain.''

    This time, Reid and other Democrats are pointing to a report by and the Center for Investigative Reporting. The report said that since Boyle's May 2001 nomination to the appeals court, he has issued orders in at least nine cases that involved five different corporations in which he reported stock holdings.

    WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE!!  A judge that is clearly a corporate shill.  Fuck.  When is it going to be okay again?

    We're all just monkeys burning in hell.

    by smokeymonkey on Wed May 03, 2006 at 07:37:51 PM PDT

  •  A simple tactic to take (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bree, Timbuk3

    Rather than go through long explanations about why a candidate doesn't measure up, give the American public something they can easily understand. "We oppose this nominee because, frankly, we don't want a moron to sit on that bench".

    It's the beat generation, it's be-at, it's the beat to keep, it's the beat of the heart, it's being beat and down in the world and like all time low-down

    by Splicer on Wed May 03, 2006 at 07:46:38 PM PDT

  •  Lots of good info... (0+ / 0-)

    on Brett Kavanaugh and his legal history can be found at the Alliance for Justice website.

  •  Up or Down (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The quickie "up or down" vote amounts to an abdication of the "advise and consent" duty.

  •  Will Joe Lieberman support a filibuster or will (0+ / 0-)

    he continue his love for the GOP?

    Two words, fuck Lieberman.

  •  The Bush Judiciary will haunt us for years and (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Timbuk3, EconAtheist

    continue the totalitarian policies for the next generation, all thanks to corrupt Republicans and spineless Democrats.

    America is close to beyond redemption and this would be another nail in the coffin.

  •  This version of the GOP? Political capital = GONE (0+ / 0-)

    Filibuster any and all right-leaning judicial nominees, across the board.

    Reclaim Democracy: It's not just politics - it's economics, too

    by EconAtheist on Wed May 03, 2006 at 08:52:41 PM PDT

  •  Republicans like to have it both ways (0+ / 0-)

    If they filibuster we hear the dreaded "Up or Down Vote." And then when the Dems allow for a vote they whine and complain when many Dems voted "No" on Roberts and Alito. Then we hear them blab on and on about how all the Repubs voted for a liberal like Justice Ginsburg and Breyer.

    And of course we always hear about "Liberal judges." Last time I checked 7 out of the 9 justices on the Supreme Court were appointed by Republicans.

    The Liberal Court myth is a believable as the existence of the Liberal Media.

    Can anyone cure my political nerdiness?

    by LeftistIndependent on Wed May 03, 2006 at 09:02:27 PM PDT

    •  Well... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Realist2004, bree

      ... being appointed by Republicans doesn't necessarily mean that the SC justice is conservative, just as being appointed by a Democrat doesn't necessarily mean that the justice is liberal.  Justices change in court, and every justice has his or her quirks.  Just off the top of my head - JFK appointed Byron White, who was moderately conservative and was one of the original dissenters in Roe v. Wade (and remained one of Roe's strongest critics).  Many Republicans are famously furious at the appointment of Souter, who has been anything but conservative.  And there will always be the case that throws everyone's "predictions"  off, such as Texas v. Johnson, the flag burning case where Scalia joined Brennan's majority opinion striking down flag burning laws, while Stevens wrote a vigorous dissent and also joined (IIRC) Rehnquist and O'Connor in dissent.

      Just my two cents.

      •  Ummm ... (0+ / 0-)

        If you're going to say that Justice Scalia has some liberalism in him, then you must be delusional.  Justice Scalia once argued that

        [i]t certainly cannot be said that a constitution naturally suggests changeability; to the contrary, its whole purpose is to prevent change -- to embed certain rights in such a manner that future generations cannot readily take them away.  A society that adopts a bill of rights is skeptical that "evolving standards of decency" always "mark progress," and that societies always "mature," as opposed to rot.

        Does someone who believes that social change isn't always a good thing sound like even a moderate?  It sure doesn't to me.

        Justice Scalia argues that the Constitution is some elite, intellectual document under seal at the National Archives, "should only be written about poetically, and little, grubby people should not be allowed to get their mitts on the document."  That is not what even a moderate argues.  Most people believe that the Constitution is not merely some intellectual foundation, but actually meant to serve the interests of justice.

        For these reasons, Justice Scalia should not have been confirmed to the Supreme Court.

        Today, the Court purports to be the dispassionate oracle of the law. - Justice Blackmun

        by jim bow on Thu May 04, 2006 at 12:59:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  a few points in response ... (0+ / 0-)

          First - yes, if I understand your question correctly, I think "social change" is not "always a good thing."  It can be a good thing; it can be a not-so-good thing, depending on the issue at hand.  Advocates of social change should always articulate their reasons for social change, just as advocates of the status quo should always articulate their reasons.  Overturning Roe v. Wade would be "social change", would it not?  Many people want it overturned; many don't.  "Change" for the sake of "change" is not wise, in my opinion.

          Second - how would you describe Scalia's decision to join Brennan's majority opinion in Texas v. Johnson without comment?  (Unlike Justice Kennedy, who - if I remember correctly - agreed with Brennan but wrote a separate concurrence to acknowledge the emotions the case generated)  I would not call it conservative.  I would not call it liberal.  I would call it correct, because I believe it was (and remains) a correct interpretation of the First Amendment on the issue of flag-burning laws.

          Third - Not sure what your phrase "some liberalism" means (I'm not a big fan of conservative / liberal labels anyway, as such labels can be manipulated endlessly) but in fact, "Scalia has a libertarian streak that can yield surprising results." See  

          Finally, where did you get the "grubby people" quote that you attribute to Scalia? I'd be interested to know.  Not necessarily doubting you, just genuinely interested in the source of that quote.


  •  I'm a big fan. (0+ / 0-)

    Of the up and down vote. Having done many mock congress type things when I was in school, simply yelling yes or no doesn't cut it. Standing up makes sure that each person is accounted for when the votes are counted for. Up and down is the only way to go.


    "Yesturday is a canceled check; tomorow is a promisary note; today is a gift; treasure it"

    by earthy crunchy1 on Wed May 03, 2006 at 09:06:03 PM PDT

  •  Hey, G-10: It's *Brett* Kavanaugh (0+ / 0-)
  •  Mad Frist (0+ / 0-)

    Anyone else laugh when they see ugly old Frist's mug?  That photo of him on VolPAC always reminds me of this:

    Bug-Eyed Frist seperated at birth? Young Bill Frist

    You can even hear how Bill talks at his Mad Cow Science Page

  •  Funny? (0+ / 0-)

    Speaking of Frist, if you want a good chuckle, head on over to Frist's VOLPAC and check out the comments on Kavanaugh's nomination.

    I fail to see the humor in bunch of functional illiterates wanting to push unqualified candidates onto the bench, oil rigs in ANWR, Florida, and California, and the death penalty for thinking liberal thoughts.

    Maybe it's just me.

  •  CNN (0+ / 0-)

    CNN is reporting that Specter has agreed to another hearing.

  •  I find (0+ / 0-)

    Empty beer cans work good for throwing at the TV. The're too light to damage it, but they make that awsome metallic "smack!"

    Just keep a recycling bin next to your seat, so there's always a ready supply.

    Anyone who voted against the patriot act is too good for the Senate

    Feingold for President

    by Goldfish on Thu May 04, 2006 at 02:50:35 PM PDT

  •  gator bait (0+ / 0-)

    I see dead people    I see dead people

    from the head of a dead mackerel: A Rose is a Rose

    Demogator ..a word to the wise is won't help a fool..

    by Demogator on Thu May 04, 2006 at 02:52:24 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site