And of course Republicans have never ever nominated someone who was to the right of the retiring Justice.

To the victors go the spoils, right?

Note to right wing nut jobs: You people represent about 20% of the American electorate. In America, majority rules.

Oh, one more thing, you people lost. Don't like it, get the fuck out.

I hear Somalia has a very limited government, no taxes at all, and is ruled by very conservative religious fanatics. Sounds right up you people's alley.

Actually, Republicans often nominate liberals and moderates (Brennan, Warren, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter). JFK actually nominated a conservative (Byron White). Who knows what we may end up with?

But, really, what do she and Sekulow expect to happen here?

Dude, you have friends on the right? You need some new friends.

@ Speed,

Tossing off that list of names doesn't do justice to the trend over the past thirty years, which has been for Republicans to nominate radical ideological conservatives: Bork, Scalia, Thomas, Meiers, Roberts, Alito. Souter is the exception, but he proves the rule -- Bush 41 felt blind-sided by him.

Too bad William Kunstler is dead. Heads would explode. Maybe Ron Kuby!

"But, really, what do she and Sekulow expect to happen here?"

Steve, you again give us a 'softball' question to answer!

What they want is for Obama to make a 'non-controversial' nomination! To be non-controversial, Obama will have to let The Federalist Society provide him with a list of candidates from which to chose among. The final selection would, of course, be subject to the approval of Pat Robertson.

The reich-wing and their corporate media echo chamber will proclaim any nominee to be 'controversial'. If they do not, we can be sure that Obama will have screwed up. Let them scream, the louder the better!

To quote Jon Stewart, "That's not tyranny. That's democracy."

That's how the game works. Democrats tend to nominate more liberal judges, Republicans tend to nominate conservative judges.

Actually, aren't Democrats supposed to nominate moderate centrist justices while Republicans nominate extremist conservative justices, thereby skewing the center far to the right? That seems to be the prevailing Villager consensus.

Vanity Fair's Nell Scovell makes an interesting suggestion for a nominee: Anita Hill.

It would be just way too much fun.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2009/05/the-case-for-appointing-anita-hill-to-the-supreme-court.html

The country is predominately leaning left. More people are pro-choice. More people are for gay marriage or at least civil unions. More people are for universal health care. More people don't want to go to war with people who didn't attack us in the first place, and they don't believe in Cheney's One percent Solution.

So naturally, if Obama nominates a Justice who reflects the prevailing mood not only of the President, not only of Congress, but of the vast majority of the American people, but who will nonetheless respect the rule of law as written in the Constitution, heads must roll.

You ask what the right expects? They expect Obama to nominate someone who has never heard of Roe v. Wade and has no opinion on the matter whatsoever, who is a member in good standing with an evangelical church (maybe someone from Rick Warren's congregation?), has a record on economic law that would make Richard Posner blush, and is willing to at least consider both the death penalty and individual rights under the second amendment. But no litmus tests, right?

On the theory that the Right has forgotten what an actual leftist might look like, I am spreading baseless rumors that among the candidates being considered are Ron Dellums, Jerry Brown, and Tom Hayden.

I would also offer the exact same advice regarding expectations to my progressive friends, myself included.

Jake D, I'm sorry to hear you're staying, this country would be much better off without but alas, it is America.

And yes, majority does rule. I guess you folks didn't teach your civics when you were being home schooled, and I seriously doubt it was on the curriculum at Oral Roberts U.

Plus, filibuster away. A small, fringe right wing minority impeding the will of the majority of Americans who support the very popular agenda of a very popular president is certainly a formula for future electoral success.

:-)

Kay Daly, president of the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary

She's not only the president, she's the entire coalition*. Not suprised that these bogus "groups" come out of the woodwork now.

*http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/coalition-fair-judiciary

I'm not usually into this kind of nit-picking, but now I am interested in the complete list of names of people who would be qualified and decent at this job. Just how many would there be...really?

Toss out the Right-wingers, Federalist Society types and how big is the list?

But JakeD, I heard somewhere that these judicial appointments deserve a simple up-or-down vote.

"Coalition for a Fair Judiciary"? Shouldn't they be dedicating all their efforts to ousting Scalia then?

but all bets are off now

Why? What's changed?

Well, this kind of explains why President Obama was so warmly welcoming of Senator Specter into the Democratic fold, doesn't it? NPR said that Souter informed the White House a month ago. Having the votes to stop a filibuster looks pretty good; and most of the conservative Democratic senators should fall in line on these appointments. At least, one can hope.

...(I graduated at the top of my class from Stanford Law).Where did you graduate from? -JakeD

Oooooo...a credentials pissing match!

This must be the first time *ever* on the intertubes that someone has asserted expertise by virtue of stated credentials in hopes that would eliminate the need for cogent argument and reason.

Seriously, if you're looking for people on the internet who are impressed with credentials, especially those of the most-likely made-up variety, you've made a wrong turn at Albuquerque.

What a maroon.

In the immortal words of Jon Stewart, "See, now you're in the minority. It's supposed to taste like a shit taco."

JakeD,

I looked up 'usurper' and it doesn't mean someone who got more votes than his opponent, so either you're confused or my dictionary is wrong.

Of course, then I looked up 'tool,' 'dipshit,' and 'waste of bandwidth,' and they all said see JakeD, so I think it's you and not the dictionary.

a usurper has taken over the White House.

You slept through the presidential election, yes?

Do try to keep up.

.

Oh good lord, a Birther.

.

I've not made anything up, and I don't care whether you are impressed or not. -JakeD

Well, just in case, I'll cross Stanford off the list of acceptable schools, since their standards are so obviously lax.

Tell me, does a Stanford education get you a nice bridge to live under?

Haha. Seriously, JakeD? Rice?

Miss 'If the President does it, it's not illegal' Rice? Yeah, real master of the legal realm there.

You're a mole for the University of California, Berkeley, aren't you? Seriously, you've got to be. Otherwise, why would you be throwing the Stanford name around while acting like a complete moron?

There seriously could not be another explanation for such utter buffoonery, such as this "you are "certain" that Obama is a "natural born" citizen? Were you there?"

Man, I'm am glad you happened by today. I needed a good laugh.

spork_incident - I did not sleep through the presidential election. Obama certainly won. Whether he is a "natural born" citizen is not as certain.
Posted by: JakeD

Only to an obvious imbecile such as you.

"This is not my ideal situation," said Kay Daly.

Dear Ms Daly,
You may not believe this, but it's not *my* ideal situation, either. I don't like Thomas, can't stand Scalia, despise Alito, mistrust Roberts and am, shall we say, "libra-ish" on Kennedy. Had any of *them* resigned, I'd have been much happier.
Yours,
Sister in dissatisfaction

Whether he is a "natural born" citizen is not as certain.
Posted by: JakeD

Would you not normally accept a certification by a State government with respect to a birth?

DJ - perhaps you can answer the question then: where you there?

I didn't need to be (I wasn't even born yet, actually). The State of Hawaii says he was born there on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

DJ - please see my comments to Johnny Canuck - neither was anyone from snopes.com nor FactChecker.org present for Obama's birth.

Dunce. Both Honolulu newspapers published contemporary announcements of the birth of a son to Barack Obama and his wife, on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php

Yes, DJ, when *did* you stop beating your wife?

The state of Hawaii says Obama's birth certificate is valid. His birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii.

His birth announcement appeared in the newspaper there when he was born.

On the other hand, JakeD, I've seen no official confirmation that you were born at all, let alone that you graduated from Stanford Law.

On the other hand, JakeD, I've seen no official confirmation that you were born at all, let alone that you graduated from Stanford Law.

His abysmal reasoning skills belie the claim.

DJ - contemporary birth announcement(s) are completely possible with out-of-State births as well. What, you think the newspapers VERIFY something like that?

And where do you think the newspapers get their information from in these instances? The hospital, of course.

But you would assume that two separate newspapers would make the same mistake at the same time.

Really, if you're the valedictorian at Stanford Law, it makes me glad I didn't get my law degree from there.

JakeD: Whether he is a "natural born" citizen is not as certain.

Oh. My. God.
Conversation Ender

Wow, JakeD! That's proof if I ever saw if! Everyone stop arguing with JakeD! He put a URL in his comment that proves everything. I never should have doubted you.

Here's a website about me! Hope you enjoy it JakeD.

Sorry I doubted you. Kisses!

Angelina

Something about a not letting a door hit something comes to mind.

As I understand the law, Hawaii allowed for foreign-born children of Hawaiian residents to register said children back in Honolulu for a "Certification of Live Birth". That's why I need to see Obama's LONG FORM birth certificate"

JakeD: Do you think such a document would list the birth place as Honolulu and not whereever they were born? Why do you discount the statement by the Hawaii Secretary that she had actually looked at the original on file?

ckelly - a usurper has taken over the White House.
[and suchlike garbage]
Posted by: JakeD

wow. rarely does a troll so definitively step in his own shit. way to go, jake! say hi to the other stanford alums at the next reunion!

your pal,
blake

Makes you wonder if JakeD was present at Dubya's birth, or McCain's? Scalia -- now that is a foreign name -- was he there for his birth? Typical BS argument -- "I'm not saying he wasn't born in Hawaii, just that no one who wasn't there can't be absolutely sure." How do we know that JakeD graduated from LSJU Law? Just because some book says so? Who was there to see it?

Oops -- "no one who wasn't there CAN be absolutely sure ..." Dang double negatives! And how do we know JakeD is the same guy noted on the California Bar website? Did anyone see him pass the Bar?

And if somehow they manage to take down Obama's nominee, and the president picks someone else, they're going to hate his second choice, too.

That's why I supported Clarence Thomas.

I wasn't going to LIKE anyone Bush sent me.
Why not vote in the guy who I can at least count on to stand up for (adult) free speech?

I wonder if the GOP thinks they can keep a vacancy going for 3 and a half years. Realistic expectations has not been their bailiwick as of late.

I'm especially fond of the phrase "radical liberal." Has the same flavor as "radical poodle" or "radical librarian."

The poor Right. They've never realized that all the things America is supposed to stand for, are, in their current reality "radical left." Poor guys. They've never understood that they live in a total fantasy world.

Until now.

Suck. On. This. Guys. Suck. On. It. Hard.

You lost. We won. Fuck you.

What the distinct majority of the American electorate gets, what even Specter gets now, is that the only way to rid this country of the virulent fungus known as modern conservatism is to kick it to the curb, with prejudice. (Sorry about the mixed metaphor.) I mean keerist, these folks only have one setting: SHRILL. I know we've moved away from that descriptor, but now that Calm Hand Obama is setting the tone, innit clear? And what's actually rather heartening is that a significant majority of voting Americans get it as well. Can't wait for 2010.