Conservatives Plan To Attack The Supreme Court Nominee No Matter Who It Is

Published on May 16th, 2009

Wouldn’t it be nice if the right were interested in getting the best person onto the Court instead worrying about litmus tests on primarily religious-based issues?

If President Obama nominates Judge Diane P. Wood to the Supreme Court, conservatives plan to attack her as an “outspoken” supporter of “abortion, including partial-birth abortion.”

If he nominates Judge Sonia Sotomayor, they plan to accuse her of trying to “expand constitutional rights beyond the text of the Constitution.”

And if he nominates Kathleen M. Sullivan, a law professor at Stanford, they plan to decry her as a “prominent supporter of homosexual marriage.”

Preparing to oppose the confirmation of Mr. Obama’s eventual choice to succeed Justice David H. Souter, who is retiring, conservative groups are working together to stockpile ammunition. Ten memorandums summarizing their research, obtained by The New York Times, provide a window onto how they hope to frame the coming debate.

The memorandums dissect possible nominees’ records, noting statements they find objectionable on issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, the separation of church and state and the propriety of citing foreign law in interpreting the Constitution.

While conservatives say they know they have little chance of defeating Mr. Obama’s choice because Democrats control the Senate, they say they hope to mount a fight that could help refill depleted coffers and galvanize a movement demoralized by Republican electoral defeats.

Here are some of the cases to be decided on this summer. What kind of judge would you want deciding them?

44 users responded in " Conservatives Plan To Attack The Supreme Court Nominee No Matter Who It Is "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 yankinwaoz said, on May 16th, 2009 at 12:11 pm

The party of “No”.

# 2 Mark T. said, on May 16th, 2009 at 12:42 pm

Um, is that somehow different from what the Democrats have done it in the past? No.

# 3 Patrick said, on May 16th, 2009 at 1:07 pm

Liberals Plan To Attack The Supreme Court Nominee No Matter Who It Is:

Same story, different day.

# 4 deowll said, on May 16th, 2009 at 1:08 pm

“Wouldn’t it be nice if the right were interested in getting the best person onto the Court instead worrying about litmus tests on primarily religious-based issues?”

Considering your posts in the past they have to pass your litmus tests so why shouldn’t others with different views have the right to do what you do?

# 5 Petrov said, on May 16th, 2009 at 1:13 pm

It doesn’t matter what the GOP does. Conservatism in this country is dead. Once the banking system fails under the HUGE gov’t debt, maybe some fiscally conservative politicians will again be in control, of what ever wreckage remains.

# 6 faxon said, on May 16th, 2009 at 1:13 pm

How is it that the “Best Person” is already defined as a woman?

# 7 Higghawker said, on May 16th, 2009 at 1:13 pm

We “right”, are interested in having the best person in our court. Someone who is against “abortion”, which is murder, and someone who doesn’t want to give more rights to people with behavior problems, “homosexuals”

Is that so very difficult to understand?

# 8 heehee said, on May 16th, 2009 at 1:18 pm

Typical repugnant reaction to criticism – “Oh Yeah? What about the democrats!”

How about discussing the subject at hand for once.

And they have the gall to call people who disagree with them commies, socialists, fascists, etc. (none of which they know anything about)

You call yourselves patriots! BAH!

# 9 heehee said, on May 16th, 2009 at 1:38 pm

Since someone brought up abortion (which the overwhelming majority of Americans believe to be a private matter that goverment should stay out of)

- here is a small excerpt from an essay:

“A NEW Conservative: Is a fire-breathing evangelical “Christian,” one who is remarkably intolerant of every religious viewpoint that does not completely coincide with his own. His narrowness of thought and deed extends to his concept of morality. Not content to simply disagree with people’s choice of lifestyle he seeks to actively change it, by force if necessary. He is entirely pleased to suborn the U.S. Government and ignore the provisions of our Constitution, arguing not only that the U.S. is somehow a “Christian nation,” but that his own unique, limited interpretation of Christianity is somehow right, and 260 million other Americans are wrong.”

Jesus would weep!

# 10 robin1943 said, on May 16th, 2009 at 1:52 pm

Isn’t this just what the Dems did to Bush? Sounds a little like the kettle calling to pot black.

# 11 mr. show said, on May 16th, 2009 at 2:03 pm

You mean they plan to scrutinize the nominee? You mean ask hard questions about the nominee’s judicial philosophy and various rulings?

So doing their damn job is attacking? Come on subby you have to try harder than that to sensationalize a story and drive up page views for dvorak.org/blog!

# 12 pedro said, on May 16th, 2009 at 2:07 pm

Uncle Dave pondered: “What kind of judge would you want deciding them?”

One like Pelosi.

# 13 MIkey Twit said, on May 16th, 2009 at 2:15 pm

Everyone is entitled to their personal views on abortion, but forcing an anti stance is not for you or the government to impose on anyone. As far as “homosexuals”, they are people who don’t deserve more rights, but the SAME rights every other law abiding person in society has. Why does the right care about people’s consensual sex lives? Geez!

# 14 Olo Baggins of Bywater said, on May 16th, 2009 at 2:16 pm

#10…the right gets real freaky when the left gets their chance. While it’s largely the same, the venom will be much more potent when Obama chooses someone who isn’t a strict constructionist…code for their litmus tests.

# 15 prh said, on May 16th, 2009 at 2:49 pm

The level of hypocrisy in government is almost amusing, and it would be if it wasn’t so pathetic and corrupt. Now all we need is the Democrats to publicly accuse the Republicans of being obstructionists and change the rules to keep them from holding up the presidents choice, and we’ll have a replay of Bush’s nominations.

# 16 Alfred1 said, on May 16th, 2009 at 3:03 pm

I hope the left gets what they want…someone who can reinterpret language as they see fit…to legislate from the bench…

And then, something odd happens, like what happened when Souter etc were nominated…

They change sides!

And the nominee suddenly gains a new love for the wording of the constitution…and decides to defend the author’s meaning…and not legislate from the Bench!

# 17 JimR said, on May 16th, 2009 at 3:35 pm

Once again, I’m glad I live in Canada.

# 18 Angel H. Wong said, on May 16th, 2009 at 4:00 pm

# 2 Mark T. said,

“Um, is that somehow different from what the Democrats have done it in the past? No.”

The difference? Republicans whine, whine, whine, Whine, Whine, WHINE, WHINE, WHINE until they get the nominee they want; it also applies when one of their politicians gets caught on TV as a big time crook and then they whine, whine, whine, Whine, Whine, WHINE, WHINE, WHINE to make sure the politician remains in his/her seat.

BUT Republicans BITCH, MOAN, COMPLAIN over and over and over and over when a Democrat is caught in the same situation and since they (Republicans) are louder they can get away with their complaints.

# 19 Olo Baggins of Bywater said, on May 16th, 2009 at 4:08 pm

Alfred, too bad, the authors are dead and cannot be asked what they meant.

# 20 EvilPoliticians said, on May 16th, 2009 at 4:58 pm

“Majority of Americans now ‘pro-life’“ poll says.

Yes I am prolife. My natural mother choose adoption vs. abortion. How can I argue against it?

# 5 Petrov – Conservatism is not dead. Look at the polls of people’s reaction to all the bailouts, intrusions into the market, loss of freedoms, etc. The GOP became BIG GOVERNMENT and have been punished for it. The Dems won because the Repugs could not lose. Excepting Obama now, Dems in Congress have just as crappy ratings as Repugs. We are splitting hairs as they are all crooks looking for power and money.

# 21 Nimby said, on May 16th, 2009 at 5:02 pm

#18 – Angel: Take every word “Republican” and replace it with “Democrat” and vice versa. Same BS. different year.

“What kind of judge would you want deciding them?” Dick Cheney for Supreme Court! (Just kidding – no flames, please.) Seriously, I don’t want a strict constructionist but I would like a judge who leans that way. I don’t care about gender or ethnicity. There are nine positions there and they should be filled by the best candidates regardless of their physical or political attributes.

That said, what I rally want is a liberal Republican atheist transsexual halfbreed. Is that too much to ask?

# 22 bob said, on May 16th, 2009 at 5:04 pm

John, you should play the “Real News” jingle….this is normal, you doofus! The libs have and will do the same to Republican choices, and in a far nastier way.

# 23 Breetai said, on May 16th, 2009 at 5:55 pm

Ohhh Republicans don’t want a democrat in the supreme court?

Nothing like this has ever happened before! Scandalous I say!

/sarcasm off

# 24 brm said, on May 16th, 2009 at 6:11 pm

#19:

“Alfred, too bad, the authors are dead and cannot be asked what they meant.”

But we have tons of their letters, papers, and other writings. And their dictionaries.

Seems pretty easy to reasonably figure out what they meant, and the process that got them there.

# 25 brm said, on May 16th, 2009 at 6:13 pm

#9:

“Since someone brought up abortion (which the overwhelming majority of Americans believe to be a private matter that goverment should stay out of)”

Replace ‘abortion’ with ‘concentration camps,’ ‘Americans’ with ‘Germans.’

Poor logic. The majority isn’t always right.

# 26 Patrick said, on May 16th, 2009 at 6:25 pm

# 9 heehee said, “Since someone brought up abortion (which the overwhelming majority of Americans believe to be a private matter that goverment should stay out of)”

Wrong.

# 27 OvenMaster said, on May 16th, 2009 at 7:07 pm

It’d serve the GOP right if Obama nominated someone in the vein of Robert Bork.

# 28 Ralph, the Bus Driver said, on May 16th, 2009 at 8:00 pm

#25, Paddy-O

Once again, you posted something you obviously didn’t read.

Gallup has inundated us with the news this morning that more Americans now call themselves pro-life than pro-choice, according to its latest poll, by a margin of 51 percent to 52 percent, a drastic shift from the last time Gallup posed the question and the first time since 1995 that a majority of Gallup respondents have self-identified as pro-life.

By 51 to 52 %. Yup, them’s numbers any moran, such as the Ayatollah can comprehend.

The rest of the article doesn’t agree with your “wrong” comment either.

# 29 Ralph, the Bus Driver said, on May 16th, 2009 at 8:08 pm

Here are the numbers of the Gallup poll

A new Gallup Values and Belief national survey of 1,003 adults (conducted 5/10 through 5/13) finds:

* 49% of Americans consider themselves “pro-choice,” 45% say “pro-life.”

* 56% say abortions should be “legal under any certain circumstances,” 26% say “legal under any,” and 18% say “illegal in all.”

* 53% would not like to see Roe v. Wade overturned; 35% would.

Yup, looks like most Americans don’t think the Ayatollah or his mullahs should be sticking their turbaned heads into some woman’s womb.

# 30 GregA said, on May 16th, 2009 at 9:59 pm

Bwhahaha,

Go ahead, attack away! No one gives a shit what you think and you lack the power to do anything about it. The nominee could be Ralph Nader and he would get the nod.

# 31 Billy Bob said, on May 16th, 2009 at 11:40 pm

The politicization of the courts, and the Supreme Court in particular, has led to an era where major government policy is dependent upon which party is in power at the time one of nine people die or resign.

If the courts stopped legislating from the bench, they wouldn’t be exposed to these political processes.

# 32 pedro said, on May 16th, 2009 at 11:52 pm

Is it a coincidence that Uncle Dave chose that new Daguerreotype to illustrate his piece of “news”?

Nice bait, Uncle Dave. Let’s see how many fall.

# 33 Uncle Patso said, on May 17th, 2009 at 2:52 am

“Conservatives Plan To Attack The Supreme Court Nominee No Matter Who It Is”

Well, DUH!

The fragile alliance between the Movement Conservatives and the Neo-Conservatives has been all but obliterated by Bush and the overwhelming awfulness of his administration. The Republican party is imploding. Like a grievously injured dog, it keeps biting itself. All it can think to do publicly is criticize and complain, and they have been complaining about and criticizing Obama’s Supreme Court nominee since minutes after rumors about Souter started circulating, even though there is no nominee yet.

I think the President should spread the rumor that he will nominate himself (or maybe Michelle), just to see if he can make Boehner’s head explode…

# 34 Dallas said, on May 17th, 2009 at 5:17 am

I’m hoping that Obama picks Chelsea Clinton. That will give the Repukes something to really bitch about.

Second choice is any 17 year old liberal whose parents lived to be 130.

# 35 Steve S said, on May 17th, 2009 at 8:09 am

brm said,
“But we have tons of their letters, papers, and other writings. And their dictionaries.
Seems pretty easy to reasonably figure out what they meant, and the process that got them there.”

You would think so but even the most simple and short statements like the 2nd amendment (27 words) can be debated and re-interpreted seemingly forever.
One thing that will always be true is the the only group of people who will consistently benefit from the continued legal debate of any issue is lawyers.

# 36 Patrick said, on May 17th, 2009 at 8:20 am

# 28 Ralph, the Bus Driver said, “Once again, you posted something you obviously didn’t read. ”

Apparently, you didn’t read the post I was responding to…

# 37 Ralph, the Bus Driver said, on May 17th, 2009 at 3:48 pm

#36, Paddy-O

I did read the post BUT your posted response obviously wasn’t read by you.

Moran, you were caught fudging again.

# 38 Olo Baggins of Bywater said, on May 17th, 2009 at 5:13 pm

brm…the authors’ peripherals do help, but with each new generation and political wind the prevailing interpretation varies. There is no “proper” interpretation, just opinions.

Otherwise, there’s no need for SCOTUS, eh?

# 39 Greg Allen said, on May 17th, 2009 at 7:29 pm

If the conservatives are going to oppose ANYONE, then Obama shouldn’t try to compromise with them AT ALL.

We need a justice who is as far-left as Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Roberts are far-right.

And that’s pretty darn far-left.

# 40 pedro said, on May 17th, 2009 at 9:34 pm

#39 The US needs an enema

# 41 Patrick said, on May 18th, 2009 at 5:14 am

#39 – Actually we need a Justice that will follow the constitution, not legislate from the bench. Political leanings shouldn’t be part of a jurists job function.

# 42 qsabe said, on May 19th, 2009 at 8:26 am

So whats news. The people that screwed everything up just want to keep it screwed up so they can say the current batch hasn’t been able to fix what they screwed up. They know how because Limbaugh and Cheney has told them what to do.

# 43 Jeff said, on May 19th, 2009 at 8:42 am

“Wouldn’t it be nice if the right were interested in getting the best person onto the Court instead worrying about litmus tests on primarily religious-based issues?”
Wouldn’t it be nice if you had asked the same question about the left when Bork, Thomas and Roberts were under consideration? Typical hypocrisy of the left.

# 44 Jon said, on May 21st, 2009 at 7:09 am

SEPARATION OF RAUNCH AND STATE !

(It’s still legal – and always God-honoring – to air messages like the following. See Ezekiel 3:18-19. In light of government backing of raunchy behavior (such offenders were even executed in early America!), maybe the separation we really need is the “separation of raunch and state”!)

In Luke 17 in the New Testament, Jesus said that one of the big “signs” that will happen shortly before His return to earth as Judge will be a repeat of the “days of Lot” (see Genesis 19 for details). So gays are actually helping to fulfill this same worldwide “sign” (and making the Bible even more believable!) and thus hurrying up the return of the Judge! They are accomplishing what many preachers haven’t accomplished! Gays couldn’t have accomplished this by just coming out of closets into bedrooms. Instead, they invented new architecture – you know, closets opening on to Main Streets where little kids would be able to watch naked men having sex with each other at festivals in places like San Francisco (where their underground saint – San Andreas – may soon get a big jolt out of what’s going on over his head!). Thanks, gays, for figuring out how to bring back our resurrected Saviour even quicker!

[If you would care to learn about the depraved human "pigpen" that regularly occurs in Nancy Pelosi's district in California, Google "Zombietime" and click on "Up Your Alley Fair" in the left column. And to think - horrors - that she is only two levels away from being President!]

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!