DRScoundrels

From Politico via the Mark Levin Show today regarding the retirement of Associate Justice John Paul Stevens:

Democratic senators are urging President Barack Obama to abandon any hope of winning broad Republican support for his upcoming Supreme Court pick — and to nominate, instead, a dominant liberal voice who will counteract the current conservative majority.

Top Democrats say the partisan fights over health care reform, the stimulus and other issues show that the GOP won’t play ball and that Obama shouldn’t compromise his principles — or theirs — in an attempt to win more than a handful of Republican votes.

You know, the hypocrisy of this group of representatives is absolutely astounding.  Do they actually believe the pap that they spout?  Does anyone remember what George W. Bush went through just for Appellate Court Nominees?

From Wikipedia:

On May 9, 2001, President Bush announced his first eleven court of appeals nominees in a special White House ceremony. There was immediate concern expressed by Senate Democrats and liberal groups like the Alliance for Justice. Democratic Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York said that the White House was “trying to create the most ideological bench in the history of the nation.”

From June 2001 to January 2003, when the Senate was controlled by the Democrats, the most conservative appellate nominees were stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee and never given hearings or committee votes. However, after the 2002 mid-term elections in which the Republicans regained control of the Senate by a 51-49 margin, these same nominees began to be moved through the now Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee.

With no other way to block confirmation, the Senate Democrats started to filibuster judicial nominees. On February 12 2003, Miguel Estrada, a nominee for the D.C. Circuit, became the first court of appeals nominee ever to be filibustered. Later, nine other conservative court of appeals nominees were also filibustered. These nine were Priscilla Owen, Charles W. Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl, David W. McKeague, Henry Saad, Richard Allen Griffin, William H. Pryor, William Gerry Myers III and Janice Rogers Brown.Three of the nominees (Estrada, Pickering and Kuhl) withdrew their nominations before the end of the 108th Congress.

Democrat Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa whined and moaned about the fact that the Republicans always get a conservative Supreme Court appointment, but they (the Dems) never get to appoint a liberal judge.  Huh?  Does the name Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg ring any bells?

From Wikipedia:

Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg (born March 15, 1933) is an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. Ginsburg was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton with the support of Republican Senator Orrin Hatch. Ginsburg took the oath of office August 10, 1993. Generally she votes with the liberal wing of the court. She is the second female Justice (after Sandra Day O’Connor), and the first Jewish female Justice.

Ginsburg spent a considerable portion of her career as an advocate for the equal citizenship status of women and men as a constitutional principle. She engaged in advocacy as a volunteer lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, and was a member of its board of directors and one of its general counsel in the 1970s. She served as a professor at Rutgers School of Law—Newark and Columbia Law School. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter appointed her to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

And that is just ONE of the very liberal judges currently benched on the Supreme Court.  What is with these Democrats?  Why do they have such a narrow, blindered view of history?  And I am not referring to distant history, I am talking about the history of their own careers.  Why do they not recognize how absurd and blatant their hypocrisy is?  Or, maybe they actually do; and it is the fact that they are counting on Americans’ typically short memory.  I don’t think that We The People are going to continue to let the absurdity slide.

The Republicans continue to maintain that they will keep an open mind when it comes to the nominees presented:

Republican leaders insist they are keeping an open mind about Obama’s second Supreme Court pick, saying they will do their due diligence in thoroughly reviewing the nominee’s record before taking positions.

Arizona’s Sen. Jon Kyl, the No. 2 Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said that most Supreme Court nominees have been approved by wide margins — and there’s hope this one could be as well, despite the raging judicial wars in recent years.

“We try to take a measured approach,” Kyl said. “I don’t approach it on a tit-for-tat basis.”

But, the Libs have had their feelings hurt because the Republicans have fought against the series of bad policies that their (the Liberals) agenda has produced.

But Democrats on Capitol Hill are skeptical, having witnessed a sustained GOP effort to block their agenda, which has, in turn, buoyed Republicans’ standings in the polls and put them on solid ground to win seats in the midterms.

Thirty-one Republicans voted no on the confirmation of Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor last fall, and that was before the political winds were blowing so strongly in the GOP direction.

“I don’t think you can count on any Republican support — no matter who he nominates,” said Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.). “Even if he nominates a conservative, it wouldn’t be conservative enough.”

It never really occurs to liberals that the reason that their agenda is blocked (or attempted to be blocked) is that what they propose is against the Constitution, against what our Founding Fathers fought for, against the Will of the People, and against everything that America has stood for for over 200 years.  No, to them it is purely personal… an “us against them” proposition.  And they have to win.  At all costs.  Unfortunately, those costs are exorbitantly high and growing higher daily.

Arlen Specter, that paragon of virtue hopes that Obama nominates someone who agrees with his personal ideals:

Party-switching Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter, who led the charge for the confirmation of Alito and Roberts when he was the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, now says Obama should make the selection “without regard to any threats of a filibuster” and should pick a nominee whom he “feels comfortable with ideologically.”

Fortunately, John Cornyn (R-Texas) understands that it isn’t a personal issue, it is that liberals don’t really care about the Constitution.  They are also more apt to legislate from the bench; which is something that we do not want to happen.

But National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn of Texas warned that going that route could backfire on Democrats at the polls.

“Folks that vote Republican and independents that lean Republican — they understand this debate and the importance of nominating and confirming judges who are impartial ideologically,” said Cornyn, who also serves on the Judiciary Committee. “I think there’s one way the president can guarantee a big fight … nominate an ideologue.”

Another aspect to consider here too; Obama is once again issuing strict time constraints.  He wants to have the position filled before the Senate breaks for their August recess.  Diane Feinstein (D – California) says that with this imposed deadline it would be highly beneficial if a bipartisan nominee could be named.   In response to this, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D – Rhode Island) had this somewhat snotty input:

But doing that (having the bipartisan nominee) could require that Obama nominate someone considered fit for the Republican right — and doing that could further empower the “right-wing activist judges” on the high court, warned Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a junior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Asked if Obama should nominate a moderate, Whitehouse responded: “Moderate as defined by whom? A traditional moderate, I’m all for. Or is it somebody who the activists on the right wing will consider a moderate? That’s a whole new kettle of fish.”

Why is it that the Republicans in the Senate are being considered “right wing activists”?  Again, the hypocrisy that is oozing out of the left side of the aisle is becoming almost more that I can bear.  I don’t know how those people live with themselves.  I certainly do not know how they sleep at night.  I am just a blogger and I am having trouble sleeping at night and that is just from considering what these people are doing to our Nation.

This issue of the Supreme Court vacancy is important for We The People to be aware of and involved in, even if only peripherally.  There is nothing that is happening in our government today that does not have far reaching and mostly devastating effect on us.  Our Muslim in Chief and his Congress of Evil will continue to try to slip and slide things past us.  They will continue to demonize us, We The People who dare to confront them on these issues.  They will continue to try to demoralize us.

And we will  continue to catch them and call them on it.