pudge's Journal: Senator Leahy Lies About Alito Filibuster

On This Week this week, Senator Leahy said the Senate of course should not filibuster Supreme Court nominees. That's just something they don't do! So George Stephanopolous asked, "You filibustered Justice Alito, didn't you?" Leahy said they didn't. George pressed him on it, and he explained, well, we had a cursory vote we knew was going to fail.

No, the Democrats actually had a filibuster. There was a cloture vote to end the filibuster, and everything. And worse, Leahy voted against cloture (for continuing the filibuster), but now he says "we never filibuster justices of the Supreme Court."

Except when they are Republican nominees, apparently.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Well, let's just hope...

[cmacb]

that Obama picks someone far, far, FAR, more qualified than himself, the alternative being almost impossible. I fully expect it to be a fruit cake of some sort anyway (all puns intended). And the Dems will surely be able to force his first pick through no matter who it is unless the Reps can successfully mount a PR campaign discrediting the nominee to the public (as the left tried to do with Thomas, and did with Bork, creating a verb in the process). Of course if the Obama staff does the same sort of vet

Re:

[pudge]

Here's my question.

Let us assume that the Congress passed, and the President signed, a law that allowed gender discrimination on the third Thursday of every month. On this day, women could have reduced benefits, including salary, merely because they are female. This law was challenged and made its way to the Supreme Court. As a Supreme Court Justice, would you overturn this law?

From where I sit, if you say you would overturn it, you are an activist judge who legislates instead of following the law. Ther

Re:

[Bill Dog]

Simple answer:
So the proper answer to "would you overturn it" would be neither yes nor no, it would be "we would refuse to even hear the case"?

More complex answer:
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment only applies to the states, and there is no such protection in the U.S. Constitution, so it would be constitutional for the federal govt. to discriminate in this way (and of course for any private entity to do so as well)?

Re:

[pudge]

So the proper answer to "would you overturn it" would be neither yes nor no, it would be "we would refuse to even hear the case"?

Can't do that: in my scenario, the case is going to be heard. One justice cannot block it.

Re:

[cmacb]

Silly answer: I think that would run afoul of the 4th Amendment, "unreasonable search and seizure" the same so called "privacy" guarantee on which so many of our current set of bad laws are allowed to stand (Roe vs Wade among them). After all, how would you KNOW it's a woman?

But seriously, I'm sure legal experts turn those brain teaser questions over in their cocktail get-togethers all the time. Real questions are going to be on current hotbed issues of stem-cell research, gay marriage, right-to-work law

Re:

[pudge]

Silly answer: I think that would run afoul of the 4th Amendment, "unreasonable search and seizure" the same so called "privacy" guarantee on which so many of our current set of bad laws are allowed to stand (Roe vs Wade among them). After all, how would you KNOW it's a woman?

Nice try, but she marked the "F" and not the "M" on her employment application. And she uses the women's restroom (which this law allows to not be cleaned on Discrimination Day! :-).

But seriously, I'm sure legal experts turn those brain teaser questions over in their cocktail get-togethers all the time.

Fine, but there's only really two answers. You would overturn it, or you wouldn't. Or you could choose not to answer, of course, in which case I may assume you would overturn it.

Real questions are going to be on current hotbed issues ...

Those are the ones they legitimately will avoid answering, because they are not supposed to talk about an issue they might rule on later.

Of course a Congress that would pass such a loopy law would have to exist in a very different country than the one we have now.

Of course it

Re:

[multimed]

Real questions are going to be on current hotbed issues ...

Those are the ones they legitimately will avoid answering, because they are not supposed to talk about an issue they might rule on later.

I haven't yet wrapped my head around the original premise here so I'll have to get to that later, but on the immediately above point: Did anyone see Kelo coming? I don't follow the court as closely as most, but I just don't remember anyone who had that issue on the road map of potential hotbed issues and yet it was a monumental expansion of eminent domain.

I find the whole issue of not answering issues they might run into very reasonable but also extremely unhelpful and it can clearly be a cop-out. I'm extre

Re:

[pudge]

Did anyone see Kelo coming?

Not really.

I find the whole issue of not answering issues they might run into very reasonable but also extremely unhelpful and it can clearly be a cop-out.

But if they say what their opinion is it can prejudice them and others going into a case. So it stinks, but that's how it needs to be.

I'm extremely cynical on this issue though and imagine the President and/or committee member having a private conversation with the potential nominee and asking for and receiving a very explicit answer on these issues.

They SAY they do not. Who knows.

Re:

[Bill Dog]

They prolly would, as to them the only thing that makes a bad SCOTUS justice is someone who only focuses on the Constitution.

Predictions (for fun, not for profit):
* Expect Obama to pick a far Left justice (i.e. with disdain for the Constitution to about the same degree as Thomas and Bork and ilk are respectful of it) while he's still currently wildly popular.
* Expect Begala and Carville and other upstanding, non- dirty tricks types to get together before a name is officially announced and call the distracti