Skip

What my political views or my constitutional views are just doesn't matter.
August 5, 2010 3:16 PM   Subscribe


 
][===
posted by Senor Cardgage at 3:22 PM on August 5, 2010 [7 favorites]


I just wanted to say how great it is to finally see some chicks on the bench.
posted by mazola at 3:27 PM on August 5, 2010 [5 favorites]


Republicans once again, rather than showing leadership, attempted to exploit ignorance by saying that the holder of a position often called "the tenth justice" due to its importance and influence within the Supreme Court was not experienced enough to serve on that court. I'm glad it didn't work, again.
posted by grouse at 3:28 PM on August 5, 2010 [3 favorites]




I, for one, welcome our new asexual Jewish overlord.
posted by Tyrant King Porn Dragon at 3:29 PM on August 5, 2010 [2 favorites]


This appears to be a Very Good Thing.

What is needed now is a vacancy in one of the seats currently held by Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas or Kennedy.
posted by bearwife at 3:30 PM on August 5, 2010 [14 favorites]


Now if we could just get a few more.
posted by Seamus at 3:32 PM on August 5, 2010


Awesome!

Kagan: Previously on MetaFilter.
posted by zarq at 3:35 PM on August 5, 2010


Meh. I mean, good for her, but she isn't really anything to get too excited over. Obama probably could've done a lot better, but I guess personal relationships also count for something.
posted by gyc at 3:37 PM on August 5, 2010 [2 favorites]


Republicans once again, rather than showing leadership, attempted to exploit ignorance by saying that the holder of a position often called "the tenth justice" due to its importance and influence within the Supreme Court was not experienced enough to serve on that court.

So you'll go on record now supporting the next conservative nominee if they've previously been Solicitor General?
posted by Jahaza at 3:39 PM on August 5, 2010


I just wanted to say how great it is to finally see some chicks on the bench.

...completely discounting the presence of O'Connor or Ginsberg for many many years.
posted by hippybear at 3:42 PM on August 5, 2010 [4 favorites]


"Not supporting" and "not supporting specifically due to lack of experience" are two different things, Jahaza.
posted by nat at 3:42 PM on August 5, 2010 [9 favorites]


I wish we had a real proper leftist liberal up in that decrepit old house of cards instead of someone who seems slightly left of center moderate compared to nutjobs like Scalia.
posted by Burhanistan at 3:43 PM on August 5, 2010 [10 favorites]


mazola: "I just wanted to say how great it is to finally see some chicks on the bench."

You dames like that, right? When we call you chicks? Hey, where you going? Ol' Gil is desperate here, come on!
posted by boo_radley at 3:43 PM on August 5, 2010 [12 favorites]


So you'll go on record now supporting the next conservative nominee if they've previously been Solicitor General?

Uhhh, I certainly wouldn't consider it a mark against him/her.
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 3:45 PM on August 5, 2010 [1 favorite]


"Elena Kagan confirmed for the Supreme Court" would be accurate.
posted by yclipse at 3:45 PM on August 5, 2010 [1 favorite]


So you'll go on record now supporting the next conservative nominee if they've previously been Solicitor General?

I'll go on record now that I will not argue that they were "inexperienced" because they were previously Solicitor General.
posted by grouse at 3:46 PM on August 5, 2010 [1 favorite]


Republicans once again, rather than showing leadership, attempted to exploit ignorance by saying that the holder of a position often called "the tenth justice" due to its importance and influence within the Supreme Court was not experienced enough to serve on that court.

So you'll go on record now supporting the next conservative nominee if they've previously been Solicitor General?


I guess basic logic is also too hard for some conservatives to understand. Quality A should not be a disqualifier != Quality A is an automatic qualifier.
posted by kmz at 3:47 PM on August 5, 2010 [8 favorites]


we have Kagan, the anticonstitutionality of Proposition 8, NY's Miss America candidate running on a marriage equality platform and Mexico's supreme court upholding the constitutionality of gay marriage. it's been a good week.
posted by liza at 3:49 PM on August 5, 2010


It's difficult to convey, in the absence of audio, just how tense some of these exchanges actually were. At the Citizens United argument last fall, Roberts openly criticized Kagan for abandoning one rationale for restricting corporate campaign spending and then pummeled her again in his concurring opinion in the case, dismissing the government's argument as "at odds with itself."
Heh. Well, honestly this stuff just seems like pageantry these days, I mean all the judges just vote their ideological base in the important cases. Maybe in some situations where the case isn't very political this stuff makes a difference. I don't know.
So you'll go on record now supporting the next conservative nominee if they've previously been Solicitor General?
Wait what? not that it, you know, matters or anything but I'll choose to support or not support nominees based on how I think they'll vote. Since I had no idea how Kagan would have voted, I didn't actually support her. I would have supported a candidate with less relevant experience but better known views if I agreed with them.
posted by delmoi at 3:52 PM on August 5, 2010


Not to toot my own horn, but some of us on the blue saw this coming 18 months ago.

/toot
posted by allen.spaulding at 3:55 PM on August 5, 2010 [11 favorites]


Release the KAYYYYYYYYYY-GUN!
posted by Talez at 4:00 PM on August 5, 2010 [12 favorites]


Talez, that was stupid, but I laughed.
posted by ocherdraco at 4:02 PM on August 5, 2010 [2 favorites]


gyc: Meh . . . Obama probably could've done a lot better, but I guess personal relationships also count for something.

Umm, how? Do you have a suggestion or did you just want to come in to the thread and shit all over an incredibly qualified, thoughtful, smart and accomplished individual (with a sense of humor, for a fucking change) who will, I suspect, make a spectacular addition to the Court? Who would you have put up as a better candidate? There are certainly other great jurists out there, some of whom might even have been confirmable, but unless you supply some alternatives for discussion you're not really adding to the debate.
posted by The Bellman at 4:03 PM on August 5, 2010




Do you have a suggestion or did you just want to come in to the thread and shit all over an incredibly qualified, thoughtful, smart and accomplished individual (with a sense of humor, for a fucking change) who will, I suspect, make a spectacular addition to the Court?
Well, what does being a 'smart and accomplished' individual have to do with voting the way I would want her to vote? I mean, really what else matters?
posted by delmoi at 4:20 PM on August 5, 2010


Umm, how? Do you have a suggestion or did you just want to come in to the thread and shit all over an incredibly qualified, thoughtful, smart and accomplished individual (with a sense of humor, for a fucking change) who will, I suspect, make a spectacular addition to the Court?

Somebody here is the master of the hyperbole. Not being overwhelmingly excited with Kagan != shitting all over her.
posted by gyc at 4:20 PM on August 5, 2010 [2 favorites]


Kagan getting confirmed was never really in doubt. The next question is who's next to leave the court and who is the next likely appointee.
posted by nomadicink at 4:22 PM on August 5, 2010 [1 favorite]


For me, there was one overwhelmingly important issue in the last presidential election: limitation on the power of the executive, which has grown insanely since the Clinton administration. I had some slight hope that Obama would back off on that insanity, and that his Supreme Court appointees would help to rein in future administrations. For me, that is a huge issue for the next few presidential terms, and it is THE issue for Supreme Court nominees in particular.

Obama didn't back off. He got worse.

Kagan is almost universally believed to be way over on the wrong side on executive power. Yes, most of her record on that was as Solicitor General, when it was her job to advocate for the executive... but she apparently supported executive excesses when she didn't have to, too. Anyway, anybody I'd be happy to see on the Supreme Court would have resigned as SG rather than advance some of the arguments she did. This is a person who argued, basically, that the President could lock up anybody he wanted indefinitely, without trial, and that teaching moderation to somebody the executive had designated as a Bad Person could itself be a criminal offense.

I have every reason to expect her to help to dismantle the Supreme Court's established role in forcing the other branches to live up to their constitutional responsiblities. I am not happy.
posted by Hizonner at 4:34 PM on August 5, 2010 [10 favorites]


Huzzah for a confirmation process that ended with a good candidate on the bench, for whom the most notable moment was a well-played laugh.

“Where were you on Christmas Day?” Graham asked, setting up his line of questioning.

Kagan could see where he was headed and attempted to dodge the question. “That is an undecided legal issue,” she said.

Graham persisted. “I just asked you where you were on Christmas?”

A gleam appeared in Kagan’s eye. She laughed out loud. “You know, like all Jews, I was probably in a Chinese restaurant.”

posted by Cool Papa Bell at 4:36 PM on August 5, 2010 [8 favorites]


The question is, once the majority of the supreme court is left(ist), will they suddenly start "disappearing"?
posted by blue_beetle at 4:37 PM on August 5, 2010 [1 favorite]


The Supreme Court softball team just got a whole lot better.
posted by stargell at 4:45 PM on August 5, 2010 [1 favorite]


Kagan: unsure about natural and inalienable rights, but sure that a law banning books would be ok because it wouldn't be enforced.
posted by thescientificmethhead at 4:46 PM on August 5, 2010


delmoi, you're not grouse so I wasn't addressing you.

I'll go on record now that I will not argue that they were "inexperienced" because they were previously Solicitor General.

I assume you mean "if they were previously", not "because they were previously"?

I guess basic logic is also too hard for some conservatives to understand. Quality A should not be a disqualifier != Quality A is an automatic qualifier.

No Republican that I'm aware of has argued that she should be disqualified, because she was solicitor general.

"Not supporting" and "not supporting specifically due to lack of experience" are two different things, Jahaza.

Sure, but the position that some special level of experience is sufficient qualification for the Supreme Court assumes a framework where it's not acceptable or discouraged to oppose people based on their views (a position taken even by many conservatives, such as Ken Starr). I don't really accept that framework, but if Grouse doesn't then his complaint about the Republican opposition ignores its diversity (for example):

The NRA:
On the contrary, the facts reveal a nominee who opposes Second Amendment rights and is clearly out of step with mainstream Americans.

Therefore, the NRA is strongly opposed to Kagan’s confirmation to the Court.
American Life League:
Elena Kagan has revealed herself as the pro-abortion activist she is. ... this pro-abortion ideologue is not fit to serve on the Supreme Court.
Sen. Inhofe:
Now as a nominee to the Supreme Court, her lack of judicial experience and her interpretation of the Constitution also play an important role in my decision to once again oppose her nomination. [My emphasis]
posted by Jahaza at 4:50 PM on August 5, 2010


if Grouse doesn't then his complaint about the Republican opposition ignores its diversity...

To the contrary, I think that Republican opposition to Kagan's appointment is driven by fear of her judicial philosophy rather than by her inexperience. The latter is, in my opinion, mere rhetoric used by Republicans who think it will make an effective sound bite, assuming that the electorate is unaware of the role of the Solicitor General or Kagan's experience. It is the worst kind of "truthiness" as Stephen Colbert calls it—the kind of politics that is damaging our national discourse.
posted by grouse at 5:03 PM on August 5, 2010 [1 favorite]


Wait what? not that it, you know, matters or anything but I'll choose to support or not support nominees based on how I think they'll vote. Since I had no idea how Kagan would have voted, I didn't actually support her. I would have supported a candidate with less relevant experience but better known views if I agreed with them.
...
Well, what does being a 'smart and accomplished' individual have to do with voting the way I would want her to vote? I mean, really what else matters?


What's your opinion on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Act? Or the proper role of judicial notice with regards to social context? How much deference should be given to administrative tribunals when they're ruling on an issue of mixed law and fact that falls within their area of expertise? How much should the need for protection from indiscriminate liability matter compared to the right of a victim of malpractice to sue? What's your opinion on the enforcement of foreign (both inter-state and international) judgments? Should a court refuse to accept such a foreign judgment if it believes that the foreign court should have chosen to decline jurisdiction, or only if it believes that the foreign court did not have jurisdiction? What's your position on qualified immunity, or the defence of 'responsible journalism' for defamation? How much should international and/or foreign law influence decisions of the Court? What's the liability of the State for a state-run residential school where employees abused the children? Should a class action be allowed when the remedy is purely declarative, or does the fact that it's declarative mean that a class action isn't needed and therefore not the 'preferable procedure'? What should happen in the case of frivolous lawsuits meant solely to force an ISP / content provider to provide the names of certain users, with no intention of carrying through the libel against said users? In what situations should access to information laws override any of State Secrets / Solicitor-Client Privilege? What remedy should be given for a breach of one's constitutional rights that is minimally intrusive, but clearly a violation of rights, and has been resolved at this point? At what point does an erroneous instruction to a jury in a criminal trial become serious enough to harm the administration of justice and require a new trial? How exactly should First Nations' land claims be treated at trial, when their proof of prior occupation is based on oral histories, which normally fall under the hearsay rule? What's the boundary of a bona fide occupational qualification/pension plan requirement/etc? How should the (possible) common-law tort of discrimination interact with a Human Rights Act? Should absolute liability offenses have the possibility of jail time? What about strict liability? What's the appropriate judicial review for government appointments to tribunals/labour boards that are based on (it is argued) arbitrary or political considerations? Should the government, owed back taxes, be considered a secured creditor? How should the law of nuisance work when the activity is legal but causes disruptions to their neighbours? How should that work in Louisiana, with the different legal code? How quickly must an accused who fails a breathalyzer at a road stop be advised of their rights, right there on the road or back at the station? Are they entitled to counsel? Is the government required to have 24-hour public defenders, in that case? In what situations is a 'piercing of the corporate veil' to be acceptable? To what degree are foreign policy decisions reviewable by the court? What level of statistical evidence is acceptable in proving a violation of one's right to life? When should the defense of mistake of fact come into play for sexual assault, and when should it be considered wilful blindness? For that matter, what's the appropriate balancing act between the right to make a full answer & defense, versus the right of a sexually assaulted individual to not have their prior sexual conduct used as evidence of (implied) consent?

I could go on for PAGES. You don't have an opinion about everything that a Supreme Court Judge has to decide on. I don't think they do, either. And if you have an opinion, it's not an informed one (you in the general sense, realistically. Nobody does.)
Being 'smart and accomplished' means that they can incorporate this into a legal-theoretical framework. A lot of these issues are not (or should not be, at least) really left-right divides.

Stop dumbing down the law into "they agree with me or not".

Sorry for the word-dump. For the record, almost all of these issues have come up before the Canadian Supreme Court in the past 30 years, or have the potential to do so in the next 10 and have a decent amount of secondary literature. My apologies if I've used the wrong terms in places, I'm speaking off-the-cuff and from a Canadian context, but the issues have their analogies in US law. This issue gets me het up.
posted by Lemurrhea at 5:10 PM on August 5, 2010 [12 favorites]


...completely discounting the presence of O'Connor or Ginsberg for many many years.

[sheepish] Heh heh, "chicks on the bench". [forced laughter]
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:26 PM on August 5, 2010 [3 favorites]


Jahaza: "delmoi, you're not grouse so I wasn't addressing you."

If you'd like to have a private conversation with Grouse, email him. Otherwise, get used to people interacting with you.
posted by boo_radley at 5:26 PM on August 5, 2010 [3 favorites]


Why can't the oppose her for both reasons (as Inhofe said he would). To have one reason for yourself that you believe and to try to suggest other reasons that other people might use to oppose her even if they don't agree with all your reasons is good political discourse, consensus and coalition building.

I happen to think judicial experience is overrated as a criteria for Supreme Court Justices, but it's among the current Supreme Court Justices nominees, Kagan is the only one without prior judicial experience.
posted by Jahaza at 5:26 PM on August 5, 2010


If you'd like to have a private conversation with Grouse, email him. Otherwise, get used to people interacting with you.

I get that. But delmoi's comment reads weirdly like I'm addressing him.
posted by Jahaza at 5:29 PM on August 5, 2010


Grr... my comment is all over the place in terms of typos...

Why can't they oppose her for both reasons (as Inhofe said he would)? To have one reason for yourself that you believe and to try to suggest other reasons that other people might use to oppose her even if they don't agree with all your reasons is good political discourse: consensus and coalition building.

I happen to think judicial experience is overrated as a criteria for judging nominees for the Supreme Court, but Kagan is alone among the current Supreme Court Justices in having no previous judicial experience.

posted by Jahaza at 5:31 PM on August 5, 2010


In the event, however unlikely, that the Supreme Court refuses to review the 9th Circuit's likely upholding of Walker's ruling, what do you want to bet that the right wing will blame that refusal on Kagan's presumed (to them) lesbianism?

Anyone want to bet?
posted by Joe Beese at 5:39 PM on August 5, 2010 [1 favorite]


Yeah, let 'em.
posted by thirteenkiller at 5:40 PM on August 5, 2010 [1 favorite]


Bill Rehnquist had no judicial experience.

Neither did Earl Warren, Felix Frankfurter, or Louis Brandeis. I don't think Hugo Black or Abe Fortas did either.

It's simply not a predictor of their ability as a supreme court justice or their approach to jurisprudence.
posted by GodricVT at 5:57 PM on August 5, 2010 [3 favorites]


Parts of the right wing or the whole right wing?

Cause, "parts", yeah of course... there are parts of the right wing who'd believe the earth is flat the sun revolves around the moon, and there where no such things as dinosaurs, no means yes, and that their shit smells like gardenias...
posted by edgeways at 6:36 PM on August 5, 2010 [2 favorites]


I could go on for PAGES. You don't have an opinion about everything that a Supreme Court Judge has to decide on. I don't think they do, either. And if you have an opinion, it's not an informed one (you in the general sense, realistically. Nobody does.)

Being 'smart and accomplished' means that they can incorporate this into a legal-theoretical framework. A lot of these issues are not (or should not be, at least) really left-right divides.
Well, look. Take your average lawyer, that a minimum level of intelligence. Put them on the Supreme Court. I'm not talking about putting Sarah Palin on the bench here. Most lawyers, I would imagine, or at least the average lawyer could probably come up with reasonable sounding opinions about those issues, after being presented with all the evidence in a Supreme Court hearing.

But while there are a lot of issues that come before the court, there are a handful of critically important ones too. Stuff like citizens united. And since then, their votes have been pretty predictable. If the judges are so smart and thoughtful, then why are their opinions so predictable?

The pedigree of the individual judge is totally irrelevant to the outcome. And I don't really understand exactly why anyone would care?

Clarence Thomas isn't really regarded as an intellectual powerhouse. But conservatives probably love him, because he always votes the way they want. And why wouldn't they?

I'd rather have a mirror equivalent of Thomas or Scalia, or Roberts then some "sensible centrist" who will vote to allow indefinite detainment of terror suspects and warrentless wiretapping, or whatever.
I get that. But delmoi's comment reads weirdly like I'm addressing him.
I assumed "you" meant "all of you" or "everyone who supports Kagan". Something along those lines.
posted by delmoi at 6:56 PM on August 5, 2010


Finally, a softball playing woman on the Supreme Court. And we all know what that means.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 7:03 PM on August 5, 2010


Elena Kagan has revealed herself as the pro-abortion activist she is

And the simple fact they call it "pro-abortion" tells me all I need to know. Nobody is "pro-abortion".
posted by inigo2 at 7:40 PM on August 5, 2010 [5 favorites]


I could go on for PAGES. You don't have an opinion about everything that a Supreme Court Judge has to decide on. I don't think they do, either. And if you have an opinion, it's not an informed one (you in the general sense, realistically. Nobody does.)

My old boss, a few years back, mentioned once that he thinks there should be at least one non-lawyer on the Supreme Court, just so that whatever they do will pass some kind of smell test for the general public and not be tied up in legalese.

One of those "not even wrong" situations, I think.
posted by kafziel at 7:51 PM on August 5, 2010


there should be at least one non-lawyer on the Supreme Court

I'm picking up what you're putting down, but it's kinda like saying there should be a couple non-scientists keeping tabs on the Hadron collider.
posted by snofoam at 8:10 PM on August 5, 2010 [2 favorites]


][===

I'm sorry. But could someone explain this to me?
posted by SPrintF at 8:23 PM on August 5, 2010


It's a gavel.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:24 PM on August 5, 2010


it's kinda like saying there should be a couple non-scientists keeping tabs on the Hadron collider.

I don't think that is a terribly BAD idea, dependent on exactly what qualification you put in I think intelligent well versed non-specialist may well serve as legitimate ethics watchdogs for large scientific endeavors.
posted by edgeways at 8:25 PM on August 5, 2010


I'm sorry. But could someone explain this to me?

Honestly, no need to apologize. It took me a couple of mental attempts to figure it out too, and I'm a lawyer.
posted by joe lisboa at 9:03 PM on August 5, 2010


Does the junior Associate Justice of the Supreme Court ever use a gavel?
posted by grouse at 9:04 PM on August 5, 2010


Sometimes Scalia gets grabby.
posted by kafziel at 9:13 PM on August 5, 2010 [1 favorite]


"Grr... my comment is all over the place in terms of typos..."

Always thus with those who reply to delmoi.

'And the simple fact they call it "pro-abortion" tells me all I need to know. Nobody is "pro-abortion".'

Fuck you. I happen to think the world would be a much better place with more abortions. But only if they're mandatory. I'm pro-abortion, anti-choice. Stick that in your pipe and sit on it.

"The next question is who's next to leave the court and who is the next likely appointee."

My plan is to get a job in Thomas' office. I'll apply several pubic hairs a day to his beverages (I can spare them), for as long as it takes. Then, we wait. The rest is up to you.
posted by Eideteker at 9:37 PM on August 5, 2010 [1 favorite]


I'm sorry. But could someone explain this to me?

Ever seen that animated bit at the end of The Wall? Yeah, me neither.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:02 PM on August 5, 2010


Does the junior Associate Justice of the Supreme Court ever use a gavel?

They use the little plastic one that squeaks.
posted by dirigibleman at 10:19 PM on August 5, 2010 [3 favorites]


allen.spaulding: Not to toot my own horn, but some of us on the blue saw this coming...

My much-too-visual imagination needs an NSFW tag.
posted by rokusan at 11:07 PM on August 5, 2010


Will there be friction between the chief justice and Elena Kagan?

One can dream.
posted by rokusan at 11:08 PM on August 5, 2010


Finally, a softball playing woman on the Supreme Court. And we all know what that means.

They finally have a pitcher for league night?
posted by krinklyfig at 12:01 AM on August 6, 2010


I like this two year old quote from John McCain:
"When President Bill Clinton nominated Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg to serve on the high court, I voted for their confirmation, as did all but a few of my fellow Republicans. Why? For the simple reason that the nominees were qualified, and it would have been petty, and partisan, and disingenuous to insist otherwise. Those nominees represented the considered judgment of the president of the United States. And under our Constitution, it is the president's call to make."
He then voted against both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
posted by ninebelow at 2:11 AM on August 6, 2010 [3 favorites]


Does the junior Associate Justice of the Supreme Court ever use a gavel?

In the alternative, Plaintiff contends that a gavel was probably used in the Senate session that confirmed her.
posted by Clandestine Outlawry at 6:35 AM on August 6, 2010


In the event, however unlikely, that the Supreme Court refuses to review the 9th Circuit's likely upholding of Walker's ruling, what do you want to bet that the right wing will blame that refusal on Kagan's presumed (to them) lesbianism?

Psh, at this point I'm pretty sure SCOTUS should grant cert, because I'm pretty sure they'll uphold. And that means it applies to everyone outside the 9th District.
posted by shakespeherian at 7:21 AM on August 6, 2010


He then voted against both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

yeah, but the current John McCain not only is still holding a grudge (which is also why Lieberman is acting so shirty, cause they are notorious BFFs), but needs to play to the worst in the GOP to keep his seat
posted by edgeways at 8:57 AM on August 6, 2010


Yeah McCain is very much in danger of being Tea Partied out, so he's acting accordingly (hmm... why does that seem familiar?).
posted by shakespeherian at 8:59 AM on August 6, 2010


it's kinda like saying there should be a couple non-scientists keeping tabs on the Hadron collider.

I suspect many non-scientists have influential roles in the Hadron collider project (e.g., engineers, technicians, environmental health and safety inspectors, lawyers, ...)
posted by gruchall at 10:07 AM on August 6, 2010


He then voted against both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.


Perhaps McCain thought that Obama lost that deference when Obama voted against both Roberts and Alito in the Senate.
posted by gyc at 10:36 AM on August 6, 2010


Perhaps McCain thought that Obama lost that deference when Obama voted against both Roberts and Alito in the Senate.

I don't think, when he was Senator, that Obama ever made the statement McCain did about the basis on which he assessed Presidential Supreme Court nominees.

Also, That One is now the President, and it was to the Presidency, not to Bill Clinton, that McCain said he owed deference. To quote him again: "Those nominees represented the considered judgment of the president of the United States. "
posted by bearwife at 11:44 AM on August 6, 2010


Perhaps McCain thought that Obama lost that deference when Obama voted against both Roberts and Alito in the Senate.

As I recall, Obama actually voted for cloture on Roberts. The way the senate has been working lately, the cloture vote is the "real" vote and the final vote is mostly just symbolic.
posted by delmoi at 2:50 PM on August 6, 2010


You know, Bush pulled Harriet Miers on us, and the Daily Show was really funny after that.

This isn't the change we voted for.
posted by mccarty.tim at 4:22 AM on August 7, 2010




« Older Conference Video Organizer   |   Super Face-io Brothers Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post