The Spectacle Blog
The reason I was never as upset as other conservatives about those two making it onto the high court bench was that only the president can nominate somebody so eventually he’s going to get his choice(s) even if it is not his first one.
That being the case, if you are on the other side of the president, you might as well let him nominate bland nonentities that are uncontroversial enough to get through. Those types are never very impressive intellectually.
I think we’ve seen that this week. Yes, Kagan and Sotomayor are down-the-line liberals but anybody else the president picked would have been one as well. So the question of how they would vote was never really at issue. The more pressing question is whether they are smart enough, sharp enough, to sway any of the other justices or poke serious holes in the conservative lawyers’ cases. Neither has shown that ability. They are in fact pretty clearly mental mediocrities. Another Thurgood Marshall or a John Paul Stevens would definitely have been able to win over Kennedy and — who knows? — maybe even Roberts.
View all comments (27) | Leave a comment
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/03/28/the-bright-side-of-kagan-and-s
ADVERTISEMENT
- Nuts to Nutter
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- Screwtape Talks Turkey
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Bob| 3.28.12 @ 3:40PM
When you have a president whose Justice Department only decides cases based on race, this is all you can expect. It doesn't take too many brain cells to decide race, and it also doesn't take too many brain cells to swallow the sludge pushed by progressives.
Ed| 3.28.12 @ 3:42PM
Uh, Marshall was a doddering non-entity on the bench. He couldn't even stay awake during the majority of his tenure
The American Hitman| 3.28.12 @ 5:10PM
Agree; moreover, the idea that Roberts would defer to him is laughable.
Biggy G| 3.29.12 @ 2:02PM
Besides that, he often told his clerks just to vote as "Bill" (meaning William Brennan) did. A complete zero.
Oldefarte| 3.28.12 @ 4:50PM
I strongly and respectfully disagree. THIS is the very primary reason WHY a POTUS such as the current one should have been defeated in 2008. The power to nominate SCOTUS justices is a presidential power that should not be entrusted to radicals or even to Democrats IMHO. These justices are lifetime appointments and that is why this power to appoint is so immense. These two latest appointments should never have been allowed to be selected and confirmed. As stated by others here and elsewhere, the SCOTUS has assumed far too much political power over the lives of us citizens, and these judges cannot be impeached or removed. It's not a casual matter and never has been so!!!!!!!!!!
Junius| 3.28.12 @ 6:01PM
McWormwood was starting from the reality that Obama WAS elected and WAS going to nominate liberal justices. Given that premise as a starting point, he has a point.
Occam's Tool| 3.29.12 @ 5:28PM
Yes, it is good that he nominated non-entities; but the problem is that they are YOUNG non-entities---early 50s for both asshats.
That is why THIS election is so important---Ruth Bader Scumbag is going to retire or die in the next presidential term, sleeazeball Breyer is in his 70s, Scalia is in his 70s, Kennedy is in his 70s. Easier for Scalia to retire for a Republican President, and we want Kennedy out of there. We can but hope that Romney is as good a picker of justices as Bush. But Obama in will allow Ginsberg and Breyer to retire to be replaced by young vermin.
The American Hitman| 3.28.12 @ 5:09PM
They do what they are told. And therefore are far more destructive of constitutional government than a JP Stevens would be, for example.
Ed| 3.28.12 @ 5:28PM
Of course, how many R's voted to confirm Eric Holder, the most contemptible person to hold his position in the last, oh, 50 years.
Brian Richard Allen | 3.29.12 @ 1:51PM
.... Eric Holder, the most contemptible person to hold his position in the last, oh, 50 years ....
Or since he worked with one Janet Wood Reno, anyway.
Trinacria| 3.28.12 @ 6:04PM
With all due respect, anyone who suggests that Thurgood Marshall had the intellectual gifts to prevail in a debate with either Justice Kennedy or (worse) Justice Roberts has lost all credibility.
Marshall's stature, like that of the current occupant of the WH, derives neither from his intellect nor the significance of his contributions, both of which were in fact rather modest.
Rather a shame after all these years to see that we're still grading on the curve...
albert constantine jr.| 3.28.12 @ 6:14PM
Justice Marshall was conjoined with Justice Brennan, though, so perhaps that is to what Mr. McWormwood was referring.
W| 3.28.12 @ 10:01PM
Justice Brennan was the brains and politico of the liberal wing of the Warren Court. He worked to build majorities for the liberal opinions.
In 1990 I was in DC for our school's Supreme Court dinner, and Justice Brennan attended. He could hardly walk and was accompanied and helped by Justice Souter. Souter helping and accompanying Brennan meant Brennan was working on Souter, and sure enough Souter joined the lib wing.
I believe Ike appointed both Brennan and Warren. Warren had been the Republican governor of California, and Brennan was the Irish Catholic seat.
albert constantine jr.| 3.28.12 @ 11:20PM
I believe you are correct about Ike appointing both, though I think Ike was on record saying that the biggest mistake of his Presidency was the appointment of Warren (who in his earlier career as Governor of California led the movement to inter the Japanese, Issei and Nisei there during World War II).
During the Burger Court, Marshall joined in dissents with Brennan so frequently that some thought the dissenting Justice was named Brennan Marshall.
Biggy G| 3.29.12 @ 2:04PM
Souter didn't have to be worked on by Brennan: Souter said he admired Brennan in Souter's confirmation hearings. George H.W. Bush went ahead with the appointment anyway, which should disabuse people of the idea that the Bush family cares about the Constitution.
Occam's Tool| 3.29.12 @ 5:29PM
Thomas, on the other hand, has a very nice brain.
Cuffs| 3.29.12 @ 10:28AM
Kagan and Sotomayor are warm bodies, that's it.
They were appointed to do what they are told to
do and vote they way they are told to vote.
Neither of them impress me as being above
average in intelligence, quick witted or
analytical. They are shills, but they have
the same vote weight as the others.
This case will be the turning point of whether
or not we have a justices who value the
constitution.
Ginsburg, Kagan & Sotomayor have their
own liberal agenda. We will see how far
they push it.
Crassus| 3.29.12 @ 11:31AM
Kagan and Sotomayor are just female versions of David Souter. Mediocrities with almost no judicial track record who were nominated precisely because they were mediocrities with no judicial track record. The administration wanted easy confirmation with these two and that's what they got. Neither will go down in history as a great Supreme Court justice. They'll both be barely remembered 50 years from now.
Casey Abell| 3.29.12 @ 11:38AM
I don't mind "nom de cybers" but Thirsty McWormwood is pretty far out there. Though if you're gonna praise Thurgood Marshall for intellectual brilliance, you better use some kind of fake name.
Biggy G| 3.29.12 @ 2:01PM
Thurgood Marshall? No one ever confused him with Frankfurter or Scalia.
B-rob| 3.29.12 @ 2:12PM
Interesting that the poster seems to know how ineffective Kagan and Sotomayor "were" in convincing Kennedy to vote their way, even though the opinions have not even been written yet. This is just more magical thinking by conservatives, convincing themselves that the world is "like so" because , dammit, they WANT IT to be that way!
We shall know in a few months how persuasive Kagan and Sotomayor were . . . maybe. For all we know, they may not NEED to be persuasive at all because they have the votes already.
TrickleUpPolitics| 3.29.12 @ 3:52PM
Liberals divide people by race, gender and class. Sotomayor was chosen because she's Hispanic, and Kagan was chosen because she's gay. We can all predict how they will vote on any given issue because they only vote on ideology, not legal analysis. They are nonentities and will be forgotten. Or they will be held up as examples of the failure and danger of progressivism.
rigdum_funidos| 3.29.12 @ 5:24PM
right on Sotomayer. wrong on Kagan, who is smart, clever, and charming--and will always be a threat to lead astray one of the 5 more conservative me.
LiveFreeOrDie| 3.29.12 @ 5:43PM
Charming?
Occam's Tool| 3.29.12 @ 5:30PM
Kagan is an intellectual non-entity, sorry. Good interpersonal skills, but lightweight.
JA| 3.31.12 @ 4:51PM
You say;
"The more pressing question is whether they are smart enough, sharp enough, to sway any of the other justices or poke serious holes in the conservative lawyers' cases. Neither has shown that ability. They are in fact pretty clearly mental mediocrities."
Of course this works both ways. If they are intellectual lightweights they them hold on to their "belief" system regardless of the weight of any evidence contrary to their belief system. This means that THEY cannot be convinced to change an opinion by a conservative justice.
In the end, the anti-constitutionalists (i.e, the socialists and communists) have two automatic votes to destroy our republic. Combine that with the communist element in Congress (Pelosi, Reid, Shumer, etc) + our marxist president, barry HUSSEIN oCOMMIE, and this nation is not long for the world.
The Village Idiot| 4.1.12 @ 2:47AM
20 Posts all saying the same thing. Sotomayor and Kagan are nonentities, intellectual mediocrities. Maybe, maybe not, but I have to assume that each of you think that you are their intellectual superiors. Not by the evidence of your posts.
I wish we had 7 Scalias on the Court. The Supreme Court plays a vital role in protecting the Constitution when the President and Congress are left wing ideologues who care nothing for our constitutional republic.