The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Block Kagan Until September?

Text Size

The always-thoughtful Gary Palmer of the Alabama Policy Institute does a great job advancing and explaining the same idea I first broached on these pages, namely that Senate Republicans really ought to consider blocking a final vote on Elena Kagan until September, after the senators have had a chance to hear from their constituents on the nomination during town meetings, etc., during the August recess. Really, there should be no debate about this: Debate is enhanced when, well, debate is enhanced. And debate is enhanced whent he public gets to weigh in. GOP senators who do NOT adopt this strategy aren't worth the space they take up on the Senate floor.

View all comments (32) | Leave a comment

victoria_29| 7.11.10 @ 5:50PM

They should but our RINO senators won't have the intestinal fortitude to do so. 2 or 3 conservative senators are just not enough-they would all have to stand.

John - TMF| 7.11.10 @ 6:37PM

The GOP should delay the vote until after the November election. Then hang an "It's Over Flag" on the Capitol. It will need to denya quorum for any "Lame Duck Session from Hell" that the Dems are planning.

Please, make no bones or have no doubts the Democrats are scheming as to how they are going to ram through a host of unpopular laws after November. The GOP will need to be strong, united, and not in DC.

After January 2011, then the Senate can vote her down, and move on to the job of beginning to defund and eliminate the Regime's power base.

... tick ... tick.. tick...

OK, will that happen? I hope so, but the Republican tendency to snatch defeat from the jaws of certain victory is one thing... I fear its tendency to make nice and try to look "good" for the Mainstream Media... when it governs.

We shall see....

r/TMF

Nate| 7.11.10 @ 9:13PM

I'm not sure on what grounds the Republicans could filibuster or block Kagan.

The Constitution says that the Senate enjoys the power of "advice and consent" when it comes to these nominees.

But it's largely been interpreted as something other than a simple veto power if the minority power prefers to inconvenience the president.

Bork -- let us on the left admit -- was a huge mistake. I don't think I would have liked him, but the Democrats shouldn't have attacked him the way they did, and I'll go further and say the same thing about the Thomas hearings. It was bad; it was cynical; and it debased the Senate and the whole process of choosing Supreme Court nominees.

That said, we DO have the power to reverse this process. BOTH sides should urge their senators to question closely and aggressively but vote FOR any qualified nominee the president sends.

By "qualified" we mean a trait that is fairly ascertainable objectively, and by any such measure Kagan -- as every Republican on the committee allowed -- is qualified.

tonypal| 7.11.10 @ 11:46PM

Nate:

First for the easy part: I don't think Kagan is qualified. I don't want to get into that, since that's a completely different discussion. But if Kagan is qualified, so is any other person with a law license, such as myself. In fact, given what we know about her utter disdain for such silly little items as the first amendment, she should never be allowed near a courtroom again, unless she's there as a defendant.

As for the main thrust of your post, it's nice to hear someone on the left admit that the process is severely tainted. If I understood you correctly, you're also admitting what ought to be obvious to any fairminded person, that the Bork hearings started the whole process down the bitter partisan road. So well done.

However, I must disagree with you regarding your solution. In a perfect world, the republicans on the judiciary committee would, one after another, state that they are going to pass her out of committee in the hopes of putting all the ideological wrangling behind us, thus setting the stage for a more edifying process in the future. If the republicans did that, they would simply confirm that most of them are inhabiting a fantasy world.

The only way hyper partisans such as Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Pat Leahy, etc., are ever going to learn is to have their own tactics shoved down their throat. I truly believe if the republicans filibustered the pick and prevented Kagan's elevation to the high court, democrats would be forced to give serious consideration to abandoning their approach when future republican presidents send nominess to the senate. The democrats learned a long time ago that republicans just don't have the stomach for these kinds of fights, so they quite properly take advantage of this weakness. But like any bully, they can easily be put in their place if the strategy or tactic is used successfully against them.

Personally, I'm against the use of the filibuster when it comes to the nomination of judges. The filibuster is to be used in the legislative process. The President should be given deference on his picks and the senate should conduct an exhaustive inquiry into the merits of the nominee. That's the way it should be done. But the republicans will be repeating the same mistake they've made countless times before if they think the democrats will respond in kind to fair play. So even though I'm opposed to filibustering judicial nominees, for the sake of ending this pernicious approach, I would advise the republicans to filibuster the Kagan pick until she either withdraws from consideration or Obama does it for her and nominates someone else.

Nate| 7.11.10 @ 11:55PM

tonypal --

Well ... the Republicans are simply NOT going to filibuster Kagan. (Let's admit this whole thread is an academic dispute.) They're not going to filibuster her because they don't want the Democrats to do it to them next time around -- and, to be fair, probably because they just know it would be wrong.

I disagree with you about Kagan's qualifications. She is certainly qualified and every Republican on the committee publicly admitted it. There only question was whether it mattered that she had no experience as a judge. I think something like 1 out of 3 justices that have served on the court had no experience as a judge before joining it.

I see what you're saying, anyway, and yes I do think the Bork hearings tainted everything.

However, I think the Thomas hearings were a bigger injustice. They let that turn into a circus unnecessarily. With Bork there were at least some legitimate questions and concerns about his views. But I still think they should've let him onto the court. That's the way it works. The president nominates Supreme Court justices and he ought to have wide latitude to make his choice.

dollface| 7.12.10 @ 6:44AM

Only thing is that we KNOW that the hyper-partisan dems WILL filibuster the next Republican nominee to the Supreme Court, or any appeals court for that matter. Its what leftist democrats do.

fiddle| 7.13.10 @ 1:24AM

they can filibuster until they get the documents from the CLinton library--that's a valid request and should be honored before any vote taken.

Nate| 7.11.10 @ 9:37PM

Hillyer --

Limbaugh's trope "the regime" (used in reference to the administration of Barack Obama, whom the people of the United States of America voted into office as president) was sort of lamely funny for the first week or so he used it.

But its humor died and now it's just another dead metaphor waiting to be buried.

Now, Hillyer, when you use it, you're using someone else's stuff, which is fine, if it's good stuff. It seems a little lame, though, to use someone else's stale stuff.

This is just my opinion, and you can take it or leave it. It's a FREE COUNTRY, after all.

tonypal| 7.11.10 @ 11:50PM

Trust me Nate, we on the right never get tired of hearing him say regime. Not only is it spot on, but as you 've proven, it has the desired effect. Liberals have been getting under the skin of conservatives for years. Every day we have to put up with some empty headed Hollywood clown belittling conservative icons and values. Limbaugh's use of the term is done to "tweak" (his term, not mine) those on the left . Evidently its working.

Nate| 7.12.10 @ 12:14AM

Yes and no.

It does "tweak" me, but I don't think for the reasons he thinks it does.

"Regime" -- as we referred to the administration of Saddam Hussein (you've heard of him, no?) -- comes from the Latin root "rex" meaning "king."

The thing is, tonypal, in this country we elect chief executives.

And we DID elect our current president. He didn't seize power in a military coup; he doesn't execute people who criticize him, like Limbaugh. This is a great country, and it can start to seem like gross ingratitude (not to mention poor sportsmanship) when people start getting hysterical -- on the right or the left.

Saddam Hussein's regime, incidentally, governed a country we're at war with. You might not like the president, but there's a little matter of like 100,000 soldiers still in theatre, and those soldiers' commander in chief was elected by the people of this country. Rush Limbaugh's fat ass never left an air conditioned room to do anything for anyone, let alone make that kind of sacrifice. So yes, it does sort of "tweak" me.

Nick| 7.12.10 @ 12:46AM

Nate,

I'm sure you got your panties in bunch when liberals, in print and on TV, called President Bush's administration a "regime," didn't you?

The left's hypocrisy on this issue has been thoroughly exposed by both Byron York and Rush.

tonypal| 7.12.10 @ 8:59AM

Nate, as I'm sure you read Nick's response, Rush calls it the "regime" in response to the countless number of liberal commentators who used the same term to describe the Bush presidency. He started using the term after hearing Chris Matthews and his guests whining over his single use of the term to describe Obama and company.

Now please help me to remember, because I've never heard of Rush being indicted for murder, so perhaps you were mistaken when you said he has "executed" people for disagreeing with him. Oh, I got it. You were being metaphorical. Well the metaphor is lost on me, since Rush simply defends his positions the same way you defend yours. If anyone out there is performing metaphorical executions, it's the people on the left. The best recent example I can give you is the relentless effort to destroy Sarah Palin. Leftists don't just seek to defeat, they seek to destroy. It's part of the playbook.

Lastly, before you make ignorant statements about what Rush has or has not done, ask yourself this question: How many people do you know personally contribute millions of dollars every year to various charities? Here's the link for at least one of his charities, to which he gave over $4 million in 2008, which is the first one that came up on google. http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....3034/posts

Know your facts before you speak.

Nate| 7.12.10 @ 2:30PM

tonypal --

Just a second for a quick note: my grammar was correct technically but amiguous. I didn't mean to suggest that Limbaugh had executed people who disagreed with him. I meant that Obama does not execute people -- like Limbaugh -- who disagree with him, as a "regime" would do.

Limbaugh may give money to charity. Good for him.

I don't think conservatives should temper their criticism of Obama all that much. We live in a free society. I think it might be wise and good for our troops to make claims about the president that suggest he is a) illegitimate; or b) a dictator, tyrant, fascist, communist, etc.

But let me go on record and admit that this sort of thing went WAY over the top during the last administration. I know you have no reason to believe me, but I didn't like it then either.

Nate| 7.12.10 @ 2:33PM

Hah. I meant it might be better NOT to make claims that the president is illegitimate, etc.

But again, it's not like I advocate for LAWS restricting this kind of speech. Limbaugh can call Obama whatever he wants.

Nick| 7.12.10 @ 2:45PM

Nate,

"But let me go on record and admit that this sort of thing went WAY over the top during the last administration."

And still is.

Shouldn't you, then, be at KosKids, huffPo, et al, lecturing them about being civil and not making over-the-top statements?

Why are you admonishing Rush, and the rest of us, for fighting fire with fire?

Daphne| 7.12.10 @ 7:59PM

Excellent idea!! Now if Republicans will only grow a pair!!

fiddle| 7.13.10 @ 1:26AM

Nate--please see Gigi Gaston's documentary--its on YouTube. No Pres. O was NOT duly elected he stole the election thru the caucuses, disenfranchising Hillary delegates.

Spicy Joker| 7.11.10 @ 11:06PM

The Repubics should filibuster Kagan and all of Obama's Supreme Court future nominees. After all, Obama voted against Roberts and Alito. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Nate| 7.11.10 @ 11:49PM

But that's no reason. It's stupid, snarky politics.

I agree Obama shouldn't have voted against Roberts or Alito. (Although remember: the Democrats didn't filibuster either nominee. They let them both come to an up or down vote in the Senate.)

tonypal| 7.11.10 @ 11:53PM

No, they just filibustered a series of highly qualified circuit court nominees. By the way, many of those nominees were minorities. I can't imagine what democrats would have said if republicans had filibustered the wise Latina last year. Can you?

Nate| 7.12.10 @ 12:08AM

tonypal --

The Republicans are filibustering boatloads of appointments now, including lower court nominees.

As for what Democrats would have said had Republicans filibustered Sotomayor -- I don't know. I do know it was refreshing to have hearings this summer that were not centered around two sentences from a speech the nominee gave at a girls' college ten years ago.

Right wing radio tends to make this all into some big apocalyptic drama.

The truth is that party leadership will make it so senators that need to vote against Kagan will get to vote against her, but she'll still be put on the court. Republicans who are not running this time around, or who are retiring, will vote for her. Kagan is eminently qualified, as they all know, and she'll be a justice in short order. All these debates can be fun, but sometimes it feels like bread and circuses.

tonypal| 7.12.10 @ 9:05AM

Come on Nate, you're smarter than this. You know damn well that had republicans filibustered Sotomayor, there would have been an endless parade of democrats accusing republicans of being racist and anti-hispanic.

As for her qualifications, again I simply disagree. Part of what I look at is fidelity to the US Constitution. Ms. Kagan, by all outward appearances, has little use for our founding documents, kind of like a current President we all know.

You seem like a bright guy, so instead of leaning on a few clown senators to support your point of view, I'd be interested to see you make the case for her being qualified. Is there some record of achievement in the courtroom, or perhaps a substantive record of scholarship on weighty constitutional matters that has not yet been made public? Just make the case and I'll let it go.

Harold English| 7.12.10 @ 12:47AM

Quin I could not agree with you more. I fear that they won't at all consider this. They should all be voted out if they don't block final vote
until Sept., I don't give a darn who they are!!

Yosemeti Sam| 7.12.10 @ 1:18AM

"Block Kagan Until September?...."

Indeed!

Thereafter, the question is whether just one Republican Senator in a moment of
HUMANITY will have the BRAINS to search their heart and resolve that Ms. Kagans' confirmation hearing revelations of her
soothing medical scripts re-scripted via personal memos facilitating a green light to the partial birth abortion procedure - leaves her unworthy
of a SUPREME court judgeship ruling over other classes of human lives.

FILIBUSTER!

There we'd have it on display - a show of BRAIN(S) spotlighting an EMPATHETIC
nominee who's on record of facilitating the puncturing and suctioning out of babies BRAINS!

Republicans - doth thee have any BRAINS? Or will thee join this baby ass-kicker in IGNOMINY by letting her creep onto the SCOTUS?

martin j smith| 7.12.10 @ 7:55AM

I agree with the idea of stalling--and forcing a debate on this nominee. Great idea!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 7.12.10 @ 12:43PM

First off, the dictionary meaning of FILIBUSTER is
".....filiation filiform > fil·i·bus·ter (fl-bstr) KEY NOUN:The use of obstructionist tactics, especially prolonged speechmaking, for the purpose of delaying legislative action. An instance of the use of this delaying tactic. An adventurer who engages in a private military action in a foreign country......VERB:To use obstructionist tactics in a legislative body. VERB:To use a filibuster against (a legislative measure, for example).....". That said, the word implies a successful obstruction, as in Robert Bork. As stated, Democrats opposition tactics are always different than those of Republicans. The latter argue, debate, and [way too often] give in to Democrats; whereas the former historically use POLITICAL TERROR TACTICS to demean, destroy, obliterate Republicans. In reference to SCOTUS nominations/hearings, the two standout examples are Bork's and Thomas' opposition by Democrats; who sleazily used gutter political practices to attempt destruction of both men. Kennedy's assault upon Bork was worthy of his filthy personae [ie once reported as drunkenly having sex on the floor of a restaurant; encouraging his nephew Smith to rape a disagreeing bar patron in Palm Beach; and of course the Chappaquidic murder]. Instead of being lionized, he should have been tarred and feathered for his unconscionable behavior in the Senate at the Bork hearings. Additionally, the gutter political tactics that Democrats used to smear Clarence Thomas [for being a black man with conservative values] should have resulted in slander charges against all of them. Yes, Republicans sadly always play politics by the rules of Queensbury, and we conservatives have to pay the price for their politeness [when they should get down into the gutter and fight the disgusting Democrats by their own methods/procedures]. The awful truth of this is that this country is straddled with the welfare redistribution policies from Democrats [via their SCOTUS judges' decisions] for the extreme lifetimes of their appointed justices!!!!!