Supreme goal: 'No more Mr. white guys'

Cue the radical right to complain that picking anyone other than a white guy will prove that Obama is biased against white guys.

I hope Obama appoints a far left half hispanic half black gay woman just to pay back the Rethugs for cramming rightwing knuckle-draggers Alito and Roberts on us during the BushCo reign of terror.

And I expect an up and down vote on this nominee seeing as how Republicans from 2000 - 2008 claimed that filibustering a court nominee was "unconstitutional".
.
http://mediamattersaction.org/items/200905010001

* * * * *
Posted by: Teresa | May 4, 2009 3:54 PM
.
Obama’s appointment won’t make 5¢ worth of difference for a very long time. He is going to replace one liberal for another. If the liberal he chooses turns out to be a radical, it only means that he or she will be isolated, marginalized and unable to make much of a positive contribution to the court for an even longer period of time. The Supreme Court works by consensus. For the foreseeable future, that consensus will require some of the more conservative judges to participate. They are, for the time being, in the majority. Thus, one can be fairly certain that someone with a far-left bend may write mostly concurring or dissenting opinions, but few representing the majority.
.
As for the rest, you should be very careful in what you ask for. When it comes to judicial nominees, it is not always a fair bet that all Democrats will like Obama’s appointees. Some Democrats in the Senate can be a bit conservative when it comes to this issue. Choosing a middle-left justice, like Breyer for instance, would insure limited opposition from Republicans and conservative Democrats. I don’t think that Obama is looking forward to have any of his nominees “Borked.”

The Supreme Court works by consensus. For the foreseeable future, that consensus will require some of the more conservative judges to participate. They are, for the time being, in the majority. Thus, one can be fairly certain that someone with a far-left bend may write mostly concurring or dissenting opinions, but few representing the majority.
Posted by: John W. | May 4, 2009 5:25 PM
**************

"Consensus", is that what you called Bush v Gore?

And since when do far right Ron Paulite anti-gov nutjobs like you care about the Supreme Ct?

My guess is that your minions would rather blow up the Supreme Ct building than listen to any ruling that you might disagree with.

“‘Consensus’, is that what you called Bush v Gore?
.
“And since when do far right Ron Paulite anti-gov nutjobs like you care about the Supreme Ct?
.
“My guess is that your minions would rather blow up the Supreme Ct building than listen to any ruling that you might disagree with.”
.
Posted by: unemployed lawyer | May 4, 2009 6:05 PM
.
Actually, like it or not, Bush v. Gore was a consensus opinion because it wasn’t decided by nine opinions each representing a different view from each justice. Consensus refers to a general group decision, as opposed to splintered decisions from various group members. You should really look up words before you decide to be contrary.
.
I am neither “far right” nor “anti-government.” In fact, I think it is curious that you would try to describe anyone with such contradictory and mutually exclusive terms. Those on the “far right” of any political spectrum seek to promote a strong, authoritarian government and obedience to it. The only people who are trying to do that right now are Democrats, and I’m not one of them. But that doesn’t mean I’m anti-government either. You should have guessed that from my prior posts. I simply don’t favor BIG government. Since men are no angels, some government will always be necessary to protect people and to enforce freedom and equality. But it doesn’t take a HUGE government to do that. The founders were well aware that allowing government to grow too big could, itself, pose a serious threat to liberty.
.
I care about Supreme Court rulings because, for better or worse, they can profoundly impact people’s lives. In addition, it is important for me to keep abreast of relevant Supreme Court decisions since I DO have an active law practice defending people charged with crimes. The Supreme Court spends a lot of time talking about criminal law and procedure.
.
And, no, people who think like me would rather not blow up the Supreme Court building. In fact, the only person of whom I am aware with friends who like to blow up government buildings is Barack Obama (e.g. Bill Ayers).

"Those on the “far right” of any political spectrum seek to promote a strong, authoritarian government and obedience to it. The only people who are trying to do that right now are Democrats, and I’m not one of them. "

Make up your mind John. Yesterday you were claiming the Democrats had lurched far to the left. Now you are claiming they are far to the right. I know you believe that the Democrats are the synthesis of every possible political evil, but try to be at least a little bit consistant in your over blown rhetoric against them, OK?

* * * * *
Posted by: Mel | May 5, 2009 9:16 AM
.
There are two “left-right” sliding scales in political discourse. Yesterday, when responding to you, I was speaking about the popular “egalitarian vs. traditional” left-right scale. I made that clear. The problem with the “egalitarian vs. traditional” scale is that it only accounts for one’s attitudes toward man and social justice, and doesn’t account for one’s views on the size and function of government. That’s because government models can be big or small, intrusive or non-intrusive, and still foster either “egalitarian” or “traditional” ideals. Communist Russia, for instance, purportedly tried to push itself to the far left end of the egalitarian v. traditional scale through distributive justice, yet had a totalitarian government.
.
Instead, when someone raises the question of a person’s views on government size and function, one must resort to the ORIGINAL left-right scale, which is the libertarian vs. authoritarian scale. The original designations “left” and “right” referred to the seating arrangements in the French Parliament. Those who sat on the “right” were the monarchists, aristocrats, and anyone else who believed in absolute government control. Those who sat on the “left” were those who believed in less government control and more in the rights of the individual against the state. Today we call those on the left on the original scale “classical liberals.” Those on the far left side were anarchists. On this scale, both Democrats and Republicans would be significantly to the right of center because of their implicit acceptance of the large government model, as well as their willingness to curb individual rights to attain the goals on their respective agenda.
.
Now, right about this time, you are probably thinking, “This is nonsense. Left-wing on one scale can be right-wing on the other?” And you would have cause to think so. There is absolutely no consistent application because the two scales describe two different sets of values. When people normally grumble about Democrats, they grumble with the egalitarian vs. traditional scale in mind (e.g. “Oh, those dang pinkos”). When they grumble about Republicans, they grumble with the libertarian vs. authoritarian scale in mind (e.g., “What a bunch of fascists!”). Yet, it is nevertheless true that Democrats, while pushing for “egalitarianism,” do so by using larger and more intrusive government. In which case, their position can be plotted on the left in the first scale, but to the right on the second scale. I think this potential for confusion and inconsistency might be a good reason to give up on “left-right” language altogether. Maybe we should plot this stuff on an X-Y graph instead. Now all we need to do is arrive at a consensus (harrumph).
.
The person who called me a “far right Ron Paulite anti-gov nutjob” raised a special problem of definition. Regardless of which scale one uses, nobody with traditionalist or authoritarian views can be simultaneously described as “anti-gov.” As such, the poster’s terms were truly inconsistent and mutual exclusive. And, yes, I admit that I was incorrect in claiming that, “Those on the ‘far right’ of any political spectrum seek to promote a strong, authoritarian government and obedience to it.” It is only on the second scale that this is true. However, due to the language employed by the poster, I viewed it as appropriate to analyze the matter on the second scale. I’m sorry I didn’t make all of the foregoing analysis clear.