7/4/2005

8 Responses to “Satire or Not? You Be the Judge”

1. […] HT: Patterico. No responses to ‘“Kennedy Slams Unnamed Supreme Court Nominee”’. RSS feed for comments and Trackback URI for ‘“Kennedy Slams Unnamed Supreme Court Nominee”’. […]

   Confirm Them » “Kennedy Slams Unnamed Supreme Court Nominee” (e203ab) — 7/4/2005 @ 4:52 pm

   
   

2. So, more of the same, then?

   There is not such thing as a predictable enemy. If your opponents are predictable, they are no enemy at all; merely a tool to be used.
   –Bizarro Ras

   ras (f9de13) — 7/4/2005 @ 5:01 pm

   
   

3. Whoever the nominee is, the ties to Haliburton, Enron and Fox News are also troubling.

   Shredstar (91b3b2) — 7/4/2005 @ 10:23 pm

   
   

4. Judicial Nomination Wars

   Dennis Prager writes that it doesn’t matter who the president chooses as a replacement for Sandra Day O’Connor. Whoever it is—unless, of course, the president picks a pro-life Democrat, the Senate

   QandO (e6fca8) — 7/5/2005 @ 9:45 am

   
   

5. It would be satire were it not for the fact that Bush will
   a. not consult at all with the dems
   b. will nominate someone ideologically extreme, and
   c. will withhold documents.

   After 5 years of Bush, he has gotten sort of predictable.

   kj (45ed40) — 7/5/2005 @ 1:31 pm

   
   

6. Good find, Patterico. I found a similar bit of comedy in an AP article this morning:

   Clearly, there are some specific stances that Bush will examine. For example, he has said he will not choose someone who would say the Pledge of Allegiance should be banned in public schools because it contains the words “under God.”
   […]
   Bush opposes most abortion rights. But he has said he won’t have a “litmus test” for judges on that or other issues.

   neil (6482f1) — 7/5/2005 @ 1:57 pm

   
   

7. Allow me to rephrase that:

   The remaining Democrats with spines signaled that whoever the nominee is likely to be, given their past experiences with Mr. Uniter-Not-A-Divider, their three likely lines of attack will be to assert the White House did not consult them sufficiently, then paint the nominee as ideologically extreme and finally assert that the Senate had not received sufficient documents about the candidate.”

   I wouldn’t know about sufficient documents, that does sound silly in advance. (It also seems unsubstantiated in the rest of the article, unlike the other 2 prongs of the strategy.) But the rest of it would be par for the course.

   To me, a Supreme Court nomination is an extraordinary circumstance anyway. Whether the Ben Nelsons and Joe Liebermans of the world agree or not: if the candidate is too ideologically extreme, I’d support a filibuster, even if that leads to a nuclear option defeat, rather than roll over for it. And I’d support the defeat any “Democrat” who voted for cloture in such a filibuster.

   Thomas Nephew (9a68b6) — 7/5/2005 @ 2:09 pm

   
   

8. I wouldn’t know about sufficient documents, that does sound silly in advance.

   You’re right. They should wait till there’s a nominee before telling that particular lie, like when they asserted they needed all the internal documents related to Estrada’s time as solicitor general. They should wait till there’s a nominee before telling the other two lies also.

   What amount of “consultation” is sufficient anyway? What if he gave them a list and asked which ones would be acceptable and then he picked one they said wasn’t acceptable anyway? Would he have consulted sufficiently at that point? Or is he supposed to give them a veto? OF COURSE HE IS!! Just like Clinton did with his nominees right?

   Gerald A (fe1f90) — 7/6/2005 @ 8:58 am