Obama, the first filibusterer
From the Committee for Justice blog today:
[T]he Deseret News reports on a February 13 speech by Ken Starr. The article summarizes Starr’s message:
If President Barack Obama is hoping for bi-partisan support of his future U.S. Supreme Court nominees, he may have painted himself into a political corner … because he actively opposed nominees from former President George W. Bush… supported a filibuster against Justice Samuel Alito and voted against John Roberts.
As Starr notes, Obama finds himself in the awkward position of being “the first president of the United States ever in our history to have participated in a Senate filibuster of a judicial nominee.”
Multiple filibusters in fact (Obama also supported a filibuster against Fifth Circuit nominee Leslie Southwick in 2007). Quoting the Washington Times, Starr concludes that Obama’s Senate record on judges leaves him “hard-pressed to call for bipartisan help confirming judges or even an up-or-down vote.”
[Graphic courtesy of barack-obama-tshirts.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Jill is on a roll!!! :)
I know, I’m going crazy here! There’s so much.
How would you like to be in Obama’s shoes. The odds of him appointing a judge while he is in the White house are high. The odds of his being in front of the same court for a criminal misdeed are about 50/50.
Obama is already in front of legal inquiry in Illinois.
Since when have demagogs like Obama been short on facial brass?
They really don’t care how hypocritical they come across… all they care about is power. Like Hitler said when he signed the treaty with Lord Chamberlin, “That’s just a piece of paper”.
Dont tell me….. let me guess.
The reason O supported filibusters for these nominees were because they were pro life. It wasn’t because he didn’t think they were qualified. On the contrary, they were very qualified.
However anyone who is against abortion is automatically disqualified as far as he is concerned.
Why should we support nominees that are unqualified? The first Bush gave us Clarence Thomas who has the intellectual heft of an empty soda can, and the second gave Alito and Scalia, two people more bent on partisanship than on common sense. Face it, Democrats make better member of the Supreme Court.
The irony of Clarence Thomas acknowleging the effect of Affirmative action on allowing him to obtain an education and his disgust with A.A. is rich enough…
But hey… at least he isn’t Bork!
I already see this year as a case of reversals. Democrats finally being like “b*tch we have the power to send through the bills we want to” and Republicans can go “b*tch I’m going to make this as hard for you as possible. It will be so delicious to see Obama fail!”
Why should we support nominees that are unqualified? The first Bush gave us Clarence Thomas who has the intellectual heft of an empty soda can, and the second gave Alito and Scalia, two people more bent on partisanship than on common sense. Face it, Democrats make better member of the Supreme Court.
The irony of Clarence Thomas acknowleging the effect of Affirmative action on allowing him to obtain an education and his disgust with A.A. is rich enough…
But hey… at least he isn’t Bork!
Posted by: Yo La Tengo at February 19, 2009 11:26 PM
I notice your racist rant against Clarence Thomas.
The lefties glorify sexual activity and now porn. appointing a #2 in the justice department that glorifies porn, pedophilia and child sex trafficking seems a little wild but claiming and blaming Clarence Thomas was off color in a remark seems disingenuous YLT
PP should praise Justice Thomas for alleged endeavors for open mindedness. Was his accuser a repeat customer at PP?