Conservative interest groups and Republicans are already lining up to oppose the nominee of President Obama before they even have a nominee named.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/con ... 05-01.html" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank
part of the article
A group of more than 50 conservative groups held a conference call early Friday to begin plotting strategy, sources on the call said.
"You're already having chatter between conservatives on who is going to be the nominee, what type of nominee is going to be put forward by President Obama," said Brian Darling, the Heritage Foundation's Senate director and a former top Judiciary Committee staffer.
Groups like the American Center for Law & Justice, the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary and the Committee for Justice will all prepare background research on potential nominees, setting up the eventual, inevitable attacks on the nominee as a left-wing extremist.
Those groups are gearing up for the first time since helping doom the nomination of former White House counsel Harriet Miers in President Bush's second term and replacing her with Samuel Alito.
"We'll be organized. We're more organized than ever before," said Jay Sekulow, the prominent conservative lawyer who heads the American Center for Law & Justice. "The reality is we've got quite a challenge here with a Democratic Senate that's virtually filibuster-proof."
This next article is written by a law school dean who warns about the dangers in a pick for the President and the Court:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 96306.html" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank
a portion of it
First, don't think that the selection is irrelevant because President Obama is certain to replace a liberal justice with another liberal, leaving the "balance" on the Court intact. Even if justices only came in two flavors, with no other differences than the L or C label, having a justice ten or fifteen or twenty years younger makes a huge difference in the expected composition of the Court ten or fifteen or twenty years from now.
Second, the whole notion of "balance" is fundamentally off target. Justices don't fit simple, bipolar patterns. Justices Scalia and Thomas, for instance, disagree vigorously over questions of deference to administrative agencies. Justices Breyer and Ginsburg part company over critical aspects of intellectual property rights. In its 2002 decision in Verizon v. FCC, Justice Breyer wrote the lone dissent - joined only by Justice Scalia. Justice Souter, despite the liberal label, wrote opinions such as MGM Studios v. Grokster (2005) and Bell Atlantic v. Twombly (2007) that have been applauded by most of the conservative business community.
Justices differ along many dimensions. They take different approaches to interpretation, lean in different directions on issues of administrative law, criminal law, federalism, national security power, and individual rights. Even within a broadly defined category, justices will differ. At bottom, law is complicated and the threads that run through it form patterns far more complex than any set of labels can hope to capture - which is equally true for the judges themselves.
Beyond the cross-cutting substantive and methodological divisions, justices have different personalities and different strengths. Some are gregarious, some diffident, some sharper writers, others better grounded in practical judgment. These at times have greater impact than commonly attributed ideological affinities. Justice Souter is an incrementalist, uncomfortable with grand theory, and profoundly disconnected from many aspects of social life that help shape other justices' views. In the end, neither the work of the Court nor assessments of prospective justices' performance on it are as simple as pundits and politicians make them seem.
Third, think beyond today. The politics of judicial appointments always is framed in immediate terms. But the issues that define a justice's legacy often are entirely invisible at the time he or she is appointed. A majority of the Court that decided Roe v. Wade (1973), for example, consisted of justices appointed by Presidents Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, and Franklin Roosevelt - none selected with an eye to deciding cases on abortion rights. What can be foreseen is the general difference that particular approaches to deciding cases will bring and the difference that having justices of intellectual depth, judicial temperament, and congeniality will make for how the Court does its work. Those concerns, not the predicted outcome of any particular vote, should guide both the President and the Senate.
CG - please be and adult here and keep to the thread subject. There is no "bet" between anyone here but you with your own self and it was a false one based on a lie that you told yourself. I have absolutely no problem with telling you directly what I think of your positions on the issues and have done so thousands of times.
Yet again, for times beyond numbering, you rephrase, you reword, you reinterpret, you reframe, you twist what was said, you pervert what was said, you outright change what was said into a straw man and rail against it.
"only racists say what you just said but I didn't call you a racist" - you are safe from refutation, aren't you?
Either please show me where I said that or please kindly retract it like a gentleman.
And lets stick to the subject of the thread.
Others are beginning to notice.
from TED
Apparently, CG can dish it, but can't take it.
Please stop this personal attack and discuss the thread subject.