Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

May 1, 2009

THE REFERENDUM ALREADY HAPPENED.... From the January 29, 2006, broadcast of "Fox News Sunday":

BILL KRISTOL: Let's have a referendum on that in 2006 and 2008. Do they want a liberal Supreme Court, or do they want a moderately conservative Supreme Court?

JUAN WILLIAMS: That's called a presidential election.

What a good point. Remind me, how did those referenda turn out?

Steve Benen 4:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Are you saying Kristol was wrong?

Posted by: memekiller on May 1, 2009 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

Reminds me of that scene in "The Man With Two Brains" where Steve Martin is asking for a sign from his dead wife as to whether he should marry his new girlfriend. The sky darkens, lightning flashes, the house shakes, her portrait spins, and there's a loud "nooooooooooo!". After it's over, Martin says, "really, any sign whatsoever."

See, oblivious clowns like Kristol used to be fodder for comedy movies, is what I'm saying.

Posted by: DH Walker on May 1, 2009 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

NOW is the time for a filibuster.

Now, before Souter's replacement has even been chosen?

Really?

Posted by: DH Walker on May 1, 2009 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

Obama and other Democrats won, which proves that this is a center-right country that wants more tax cuts and a return to Republican ideals.

Posted by: qwerty on May 1, 2009 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

NOW is the time for a filibuster.

You're not even going to wait until someone is nominated? God I hate today's Republicans.

Posted by: Danp on May 1, 2009 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

This just in from Pat Buchanan on Hardball. He says Pres. Obama ought to pick a liberal version of John Roberts, i.e., someone extremely well-qualified. Unfortunately, Buchanan says, he thinks Obama will go after a woman, a minority, or (gasp) both. You're right Pat, it's just too bad that we're going to a get a woman or a minority instead of a well-qualified individual.

Posted by: cardsfan on May 1, 2009 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

My theory is that Bill Kristol's there to make Juan Williams look brighter.

Posted by: HPStevens on May 1, 2009 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

I am actually registered Independent, but don't let the facts get in your way. -JakeD (emphasis mine)

Because JakeD sure won't!

Posted by: doubtful on May 1, 2009 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

Jake:

D H Walker - yes, before the nomination is even announced, the GOP should line up their ducks. They should have been doing that on at least half of Obama's proposals up until this point too.

Are you seriously saying that they haven't already been as obstructionist as they could be? And to the degree that they haven't suffered a tremendous image problem that they themselves have tried to address recently?

What was that about facts getting in the way?

I am actually registered Independent ...

Translation: I am a Republican.

Seriously, this is one of the more common cheesiest dodges I hear. Hey, but if it was good enough for Bill O'Reilly...

Posted by: DH Walker on May 1, 2009 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, JakeD, stop emailing me all of your comments. We're not giving out any more points for blog trolling. I sent you 500 fucking buttons already, and 27 pens (even that one of me that gets naked when you click it). So give it a rest already.

Posted by: Jonh McCain on May 1, 2009 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

Jake:

You aren't going to convince me because you are obviously lying. I've known a few absolute partisan hack conservatives who pretend to be "independents" or "libertarians" because they want to suggest that they came to agree with hack Republicanism "independently".

They are every bit as transparent as you are. No one except a conservative hack would suggest that the Republicans haven't been obstructionist enough, or that doing so was "the right thing".

The fact that you're willing to lie about your political sympathies is just another essential feature of hackery. Or, put another way, you are fooling exactly no one.

Posted by: DH Walker on May 1, 2009 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

DH Walker - I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Republican. Obviously, I won't convince you of that "fact" otherwise, but that doesn't matter to my opinion that the Republicans have not been as obstructionist as they could be, irrespective of whatever PR damage they would get for doing the right thing.

Not sure what the argument is about, here. Do you feel the Republicans should have been more obstructionish, or that they could have done more dog-in-the-manger and we should be grateful they've only nipped a few people instead of biting down and drawing blood?

And, in either case, why? What is the point of the comment?

Posted by: Midland on May 1, 2009 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

The phenomenon is sweeping America. All over Republican hacks are claiming to be "Independents".

Posted by: grinning cat on May 1, 2009 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK

Midland:

I think Jake's point is that Obama needs to be opposed as harshly as possible, whenever possible, no matter what it is.

But he's not a conservative hack. Heavens, no, and aren't we fools for thinking so.

Posted by: DH Walker on May 1, 2009 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

I am a longtime lurker, rarely comment. I have to break my usual custom to laugh out loud (that is, in "print") at JakeD. What a clown. There's no point in engaging his arguments, he has none. He is very funny though ... I particularly loved a comment a couple of threads earlier where he was touting his "top of Stanford Law School" creds. To quote someone else ... what a maroon.

Posted by: westcoastwizard on May 1, 2009 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

All over Republican hacks are claiming to be "Independents".

That certainly matches my experience. I know quite a few people who complain endlessly about "liberals" and "dems", and strangely, never about conservatives. But if I point out something undeniably moronic that some Republican politician has done, they reliably respond with, "well, me, am an independent, you see."

The Republican brand is so toxic that even actual conservatives and people who vote 100% of the time for Republican candidates feel they need to lie about it.

Posted by: DH Walker on May 1, 2009 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

The phenomenon is sweeping America. All over Republican hacks are claiming to be "Independents". -- grinning cat, @17:56

Quite understandable. If you declare yourself as an "independent", you're courted by both the Dems and the Repubs. If, OTOH, you admit to being a Repub, all you get is ceaseless appeals for money. Which, on top of knowing that all the money you pumped into the "cause" in the past hadn't done a blind bit of good, is about enough to curdle your blood.

Posted by: exlibra on May 1, 2009 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

What amazes me is that someone, JakeD for instance, posts and receives the responses s/he does and continues to post. This, alone, leads me to believe that this person is really out of touch with reality. It is clear that the positions taken are contrary to almost all PA posters, and the kind of derision to which s/he sumbits is tantamount to self-abuse. So, spitting into the wind seems only to generate a shower of one's own spit. If that is what turns h/h on, so be it.

peace,
st john

Posted by: st john on May 1, 2009 at 7:11 PM | PERMALINK

Do people actually vote with Supreme Court nominations in mind? I don't think so really.

If you asked John Q. Voter, on his way outta the booth, what issues he voted on I don't think Justice nominating is in the top five. Nor do I think 85% of voters could tell you that conservative "Federalist" judges are generally "strict constructionists" while liberal appointments are generally said to be more "activist".

And the labels "activist" and "constructionist" are more markers for philosophy on certain issues - conservatives can be activist and liberals constructive when the issues aren't the classics (or when it suits them).

Perhaps only on abortion, and somewhat for the second amendment, is this issue on voters' minds.

Point is, conservatives tend to see a mandate for their issues when people vote for them, and now lefties say they've got one, but I think it's a bit of a fallacy given the level of voter knowledge.

Posted by: flubber on May 1, 2009 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINK

The phenomenon is sweeping America. All over Republican hacks are claiming to be "Independents".

They're just embarrassed that's all - wouldn't you be ?

Posted by: I'm John McCain and I approved this message. on May 1, 2009 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

You're right Pat, it's just too bad that we're going to a get a woman or a minority instead of a well-qualified individual.

Well, of course. Everyone knows that there's no such thing as a woman or a minority who's equally as qualified as a random white dude, and there certainly isn't one who's more qualified than any random white dude. Therefore, if any woman or minority is ever picked for a job, it was solely because of their minority status and not because the employer (like, say, the American people) thought they were the best person for the job.

You think I'm kidding, but people on Buchanan's side spend a lot of time claiming that the only reason our current president graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law is that he was given automatic A's because of affirmative action.

Posted by: Mnemosyne on May 1, 2009 at 8:32 PM | PERMALINK

Do people actually vote with Supreme Court nominations in mind? -- flubber, @19:26

You betcha, also! Throughout the campaigns I was *acutely* aware that, during the coming 4 years, the attrition was most likely to happen in the left, not right, wing of the SCOTUS.

Scalia has stopped hunting with Cheney. Roberts is prone to fits but, what had been a serious problem 100yrs ago, is now being dealt with, very effectively, by modern medicine. Thomas may look like he'd been bitten by a tse-tse fly a while back, but he keeps waking up from his semi-comatose spells. So, no joy there. OTOH, Ginsburg looks like a walking corpse, Stevens is long past his due date (and, likely, truly pissed off with Souter, for preempting him in the "race to retirement" stakes -- both had been waiting for a Dem "nominator") and Souter hadn't been the same ever since that case about "eminent domain" (? something like that), after which he got *tons* of hate mail from both sides of the ideological fence; he didn't enjoy DC before, but hated it afterwards.

So, yeah, it sure made a great deal of difference to me who was gonna name the successors to those guys. The ways of crossing the Potomac (Roe vs Wade) is only a part of that. Don't think I haven't noticed that *the only time* Roberts gave an opinion that was favourable to an Arab/Muslim petitioner, he gave it for religious reasons (the army couldn't force the petitioner to shave his beard). I remember what the court had to say about Leadbetter and which side of the court it was. And some other instances as well. The fact that they have emboldened Kennedy to act like a dedicated Republican arsehole most of the time had some little importance for me too.

Towards the end of the campaign, I had very little use for Hillary Clinton, for all I'd started, in '07, liking her quite well. But, by gum, had she been the nominee, I'd have voted for her *twice* (if allowed) just because her nominations to SCOTUS were likely to be miles better than what The Third and Least could have come up with.

Posted by: exlibra on May 1, 2009 at 9:05 PM | PERMALINK

First time for a long time that Juan Williams makes sense. http://manchestersquare.blogspot.com/

Cannot wait to see this 'drama' begin. The last time I pulled my chair up close to a ring ready to see slugfest was that of Justice Thomas. Anita Hill was center stage then. Hope we wont see a part II of that in Souter's replacement.

Posted by: Travis on May 2, 2009 at 1:38 AM | PERMALINK

You betcha, also! Throughout the campaigns I was *acutely* aware that, during the coming 4 years, the attrition was most likely to happen in the left, not right, wing of the SCOTUS.

Scalia has stopped hunting with Cheney. Roberts is prone to fits but, what had been a serious problem 100yrs ago, is now being dealt with, very effectively, by modern medicine. Thomas may look like he'd been bitten by a tse-tse fly a while back, but he keeps waking up from his semi-comatose spells. So, no joy there. OTOH, Ginsburg looks like a walking corpse, Stevens is long past his due date (and, likely, truly pissed off with Souter, for preempting him in the "race to retirement" stakes -- both had been waiting for a Dem "nominator") and Souter hadn't been the same ever since that case about "eminent domain" (? something like that), after which he got *tons* of hate mail from both sides of the ideological fence; he didn't enjoy DC before, but hated it afterwards.

exlibra, you continually crack me up. I just read this paragraph to my husband as a stellar example of entertaining political analysis. He's admiring you, too!

Posted by: shortstop on May 2, 2009 at 8:59 AM | PERMALINK

Surprised that Myke K has not done one of his parodies of Doc Mikey K and suggested that a minority be appointed in the spirit of bi-partisanship, and thus, John Yoo be named.

Posted by: berttheclock on May 2, 2009 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

Bill Kristol 2009: Do-over!

Posted by: SqueakyRat on May 2, 2009 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly