The Supreme Court Justice Boogey Man and John Kerry

[HFishbine]

One of the reasons we are supposed to line up behind John Kerry is so that we don't end up with any more Supreme Court justices like, oh, Antonin Scalia, let's say. Right?

Sounds good, huh? Or is this yet another example of an uninformed electorate projecting their wishful thinking onto John Kerry without knowing the facts?

Scalia was approved by the senate (during John Kerry's first term) 98 - 0.

So tell me again how Kerry is different?

http://conlaw.usatoday.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/scalia.html

[BootinUp]

1. He must know when to pick his fights. 98-0

:think:

[HFishbine]

2. I guess

'cause he sure doesn't know when to stand on principle. But then again, that's something best left to leaders.

[shindig]

3. the president

is shown great deference by the senators when voting to approve or disapprove the nominee. Unless it can be shown that the nominee is "unqualified," the desire for a nominee more in line with a senator's particular ideology, is usually not cause for the senator to vote against that nominee.

I don't know that much about Kerry yet, frankly. But I assume, as president, he would never nominate a Scalia.

[bushwakker]

4. I couldn't care less who you vote for

you would feel betetr if the vote were 97-1? Would that do it for you? I doubt it. Have fun voting for Ralph again.

[corporatewhore]

25. would you care if he boted for Pickering

[eileen_d]

29. Well, let's look at the record.

Senate Democrats filibuster judicial nominee Pickering
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/31/pickering.ap/

Excerpts:

The GOP needed 60 votes to break the filibuster, but the final vote was 54-43.
...
Miller, Sen. John Breaux, D-Louisiana, and Sen. Jim Jeffords, I-Vermont voted for Pickering, while the rest of the votes fell along party lines. Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, John Edwards of North Carolina and John Kerry of Massachusetts missed the vote.

Neither Kerry nor Edwards voted for Pickering. They missed the votes, and you can read between the lines all you like on that, but in the end Pickering did not get their vote.

[corporatewhore]

31. i am glad but it just doesnt sit well that he voted for scalia

[eileen_d]

33. What was the context of Scalia's nomination?

Frankly, I don't know. It was 1986, I was 15 and very bitter about breaking up with my first boyfriend, who hooked up with my best friend later that year. That's all the context I have to work with. (PM me for more lurid details! lol)

Here's one person's take:
When his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court was voted on by the Senate in 1986 he received a 98-0 vote of approval, with the two missing votes belonging to Barry Goldwater and Jake Garnes (two conservative senators). He did not dwell on the obvious point that, if it occurred today, his confirmation vote would be much more controversial.

http://www.ernietheattorney.net/ernie_the_attorney/2003/10/justice_scalia_.html

So I'm not going to claim to be an expert on the atmosphere surrounding Scalia's nomination and confirmation - maybe someone else could step in. But another factor to consider is whether Kerry could predict the future regarding Scalia's decisions. It was his second year in the senate.

[bushwakker]

36. Who knew

he'd turn out to be then devil in a black robe? 98-0 though watcha gonna do? 1986 I wasn't even following politics in '86.

[eileen_d]

5. And in more recent news...

http://www.moveon.org/pac/cands/kerry.html

June 17, 2003

A letter to MoveOn members from John Kerry
Dear MoveOn Members,

Three words sum up why we need to take action today: The Supreme Court. I need you to join me in keeping the Supreme Court out of the hands of right wing ideologues. I am prepared to filibuster, if necessary, any Supreme Court nominee who would turn back the clock on a woman’s right to choose, on civil rights and individual liberties, and on the laws protecting workers and the environment.

If you agree with me that there should be no equivocation, no double-speak, no avoidance of the issue, then sign my online petition today at:

http://petition.johnkerry.com

[eileen_d]

8. A good resource for people concerned about nominations

http://www.independentjudiciary.com/

WELCOME TO THE ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE's website, IndependentJudiciary, which provides current information and the latest news on nominations to the federal bench. The Alliance for Justice's Judicial Selection Project examines judicial nominations and encourages public participation in the confirmation process. Since 1985, the Alliance for Justice has led the fight for a fair and independent judiciary. For more information about the Alliance for Justice, visit www.allianceforjustice.org.

[KFC]

6. I think Kerry will be a better president than Bush

That is why I will vote for him.

You can fish for anti-Kerry minutia all you want and I will still not support Bush.

[poskonig]

7. Sorry, but I'm NEVER supporting Bush.

Kerry is committed to a set of issues. I'm not letting Tom Delay pick the next four Court justices, thank you very much.

[shindig]

9. that's right

Don't be confused by the democrats somewhat successful attempts to keep the right-wing ideologues off the DC circuit court. There will be an up or down vote, no matter how extreme the nominee. Don't expect a filibuster, like in the case of the circuit judges. If the pubs have the senate, Bush will get his justices. A filibuster to stop the up or down vote for the circuit court was borderline scandulous. I am glad we did it, mind you. But that's not going to happen regarding supreme court.

[goobergunch]

11. I know

We shouldn't expect the Senate Dems to have any spine on Supreme Court nominations.

[eileen_d]

12. Why not? eom

[shindig]

13. well, it's not so much having a spine

it's a matter of an up or down vote. If the republicans are in the majority of the senate, all the democrats could vote against an extreme nominee for supreme court justice, but the justice still gets in. I'm assuming, of course, the republicans would all vote aye.

A fillibuster to derail an up or down vote in the senate on the supreme court justice nominated by the duly elected president, would be hard to justify.

[tedoll78]

10. My third grade niece

could tell you that having Kerry make appointments would be far, far, far, far superior to Bush making appointments. Even Clinton - much villified for being too moderate - put-up Breyer and Ginsburg.

Furthermore, I suggest you look at Kerry's overall voting record. He's quite liberal. You can sour grapes this all you want (and I say this as a Dean man), but cherry picking certain votes from Kerry's past is a null-and-void argument tactic that can easily be seen through. Judging by his overall voting record, any liberal with a good head can see that a Kerry administration would be a godsend to liberals.

But go ahead.. vote for Nader or the Green or the Libertarian or whomever you like. And know that in doing so, the blood will be on your hands, for you will be an accomplice.

Edit: grammar/spelling

[shindig]

14. I agree!

I think the reason Rehnquist and O'connor haven't retired during this Bush term is because they don't want to go down in history as having been accomplice to the "selection" of this president who then got to choose their replacements. That obvious tarnishment would be just too much for them to bare. However, if Bush is actually elected this time, they can justify "in their own minds, anyway," whatever happens in the future after they retire.

[NightNurse]

15. I Agree Wholeheartedly. Some folks Just Love to Flame Bait, I Guess

See what happens when the NFL season has come an end?:spank:

[HFishbine]

16. Hmmm

People put forth the argument that one better vote for Kerry if one is concerened about the make-up of the supreme court. One observes that the most conservative justice on the supremem court was approved by Kerry and that's flame bait? Sounds like an issue in judgement to me.

[eileen_d]

17. Well, if you look at Kerry's positions from THIS century

it's pretty easy to understand what side he's on regarding Supreme Court appointments.

At Critical Time for Supreme Court, Kerry Criticizes Bush Supreme Court Conservative Political Agenda

Vows to Filibusters Nominees who will Turn Back the Clock on Civil Rights

October 03, 2003

In remarks before the National Council of Negro Women, John Kerry today criticized the Bush Administration’s stealth agenda on Supreme Court and vowed to appoint Supreme Court justices who don't make politically-driven decisions.

<snip>

Kerry laid out his criteria for Supreme Court appointments, should he become President. He also pledged to block the nomination of any Supreme Court nominee who would threaten to turn back the clock on civil rights.

“If I am elected President, I will appoint Justices with a broad understanding of American life today and with a commitment to diversity, fairness, and equality. People who understand that the battle against racial discrimination continues, who know working people deserve protections on the job, who recognize that our natural environment is a trust we hold for our children, and who have an unshakeable commitment to a woman’s right to choose.”

“I will oppose, and filibuster if necessary, any Bush Supreme Court nominee who would turn back the clock on civil rights and protections against discrimination, on the right to privacy and the right to choose, on individual liberties and on the laws protecting workers and the environment. I have applied and will apply a similar standard to lower court judges. The stakes cannot be any higher.”

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2003_1003.html

[HFishbine]

19. Does that mean

I should look only at his positions on pre-emptive war from this century?

There is nothing wrong with comparing a candidates record to his rhetoric, it's coming one way or anther. We can address it now or later.

[eileen_d]

21. Of course Kerry's entire record is important

And no, you should not "look only at his positions on pre-emptive war from this century"

But if you are comparing Kerry's vote as a senator in 1986 to his stated goals as a presidential candidate in 2003, you might also want to factor in his record on the issues in question.

Here are some interest group ratings to get you started:
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0421103

[goobergunch]

22. I've been looking at his record from the 21st Century

and it's not pretty.
Kerry voted "YEA" on the following questions:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313'>Senate Vote 313 - 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00371'>Senate Vote 371 - 2001 (No Child Left Behind Act)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00094'>Senate Vote 94 - 2002 (Energy Policy Act)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00207'>Senate Vote 209 - 2002 (Trade Act)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237'>Senate Vote 237 - 2002 (Iraq Resolution)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00248'>Senate Vote 248 - 2002 (Cloture on Homeland Security Act)

IMHO, these are some of the most important votes of 2001-02 - and Kerry supported Bush* on all of them.

[eileen_d]

26. Gee, I've been on DU all this time and had no idea!

:eyes:

The topic is Kerry's position on Supreme Court appointments. I think Kerry's position on that matter is quite clear. I'm dreadfully sorry that my mention of the 21st century has proved to be so distracting.

[goobergunch]

27. You can't have it both ways

If we confine Kerry's record on Supreme Court appointments to the 21st century, then to be fair we must confine all of Kerry's record to the 21st century.

[eileen_d]

32. I am not confining Kerry's record to either century. Please see post #21.

I am simply giving more weight to one aspect of his record, based on far more than a single vote from 1986. It makes sense to me.

[tedoll78]

18. If that's the case..

When a nominee has a 90%+ liberal voting record and "judgement" issues, I'm willing to risk a vote on him. What's my other option? Voting Green? Only if I were illogical.

[HFishbine]

24. At this point

Your other options are Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean.

[tedoll78]

37. And that's exactly..

why I' voting Dean in the primaries.

[shindig]

20. unless the nominee for Supreme Court

Justice is practically foaming at the mouth, even the senators from the other party usually vote for him or her. I don't think it is right for you to hold it against Senator Kerry for voting for Scalia. I think most republicans voted for Ginsburg, for example.

The point I want you to see is just how far from a possible filibuster we are when discussing the nominee for Justice.

If most senators from either party always vote for the nominee, unless that nominee is practically foaming from the mouth, imagine what it would take to go beyond a simple "no" vote and to an organized fillibuster to derail the voting.

Green chunks spewing as the nominee's head turns round and around would be necessary to justify the filibuster.

Of course, we know ALL the republicans would happily vote "yes" for such a nominee, if the filibuster was broken.

[arwalden]

23. Hmmm. I Don't Believe Kerry Would Have Actually NOMINATED Him...

or anyone LIKE him. There's a difference.

How does one come to the conclusion that Kerry would actually NOMINATE someone like Scalia in the first place. That type of logic is a bit disjointed. I'm not buying.

-- Allen

[saltpoint]

28. Dude. Get clear on this.

Bush is a handpuppet to the Far Right. They send fat checks to the GOP and by the time they're cashed, more civil liberties and environmental safeguards are rolled back.

Men and women Bush nominated in his first term are -- to a person -- polarizing ideologues.

I would have assumed you were familiar enough with Kerry's voting record in the Senate, in its entirety, to make more sure-footed distinctions between an established New England liberal and a mindless pro-corporate monkey.

I vote Democratic against strong GOP candidates and I vote Democratic against very weak ones. Judiciary appointments matter, and I trust Kerry on this issue, not the incumbent.

As Bruce Springsteen said of Dubya's old man:

"Don't vote for that fuckin' Bush."

______

edited for diction, punctuation

[Dr Fate]

38. Lets end this Rightwing nightmare in 2004...

...let's bring progressives and moderates together and fix this mess...

[MurikanDemocrat]

No sale

Kerry won't nominate any Scalia's.

[DU GrovelBot]

30. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

34. Gee, let's take history out of context to prove a point

As someone who was in my second year of law school when Scalia was appointed, I might add that the FEDERALIST society was NOT on anyone's register then. Mostly judges were vetted by the ABA and our media was more muckrakers than smutrakers. The contentious nomination of Judge Bork had not yet happened and the right wing attack on judges was just getting underway.

[eileen_d]

35. Thank you for providing that context

As I posted above, I was too busy being 15 and lovelorn to notice. ;)