Bush Could Name Rove to the Supreme Court

I am thankful that John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg continue to draw breath, since the presence of Dianne Feinstein on the Senate Judiciary Committee means that George W. Bush could name Karl Rove to the Supreme Court and the nomination would fail to be killed before reaching the Senate floor.

Comments

[MrCoffeeCup]

Paul: What a great Idea! Let's expand the court by 7 more members.
Ted Kennedy
Rev. Jesse Jackson
Vice President Al Gore
Paris Hilton
Tony Saprano
Karl Rove
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger

[koolwoman]

What did Diane Feinstein get in return for her sell-out to Bush on the new attorney general. Surely she got something important for her vote in favor, thus moving the nomination out of committee and onto the floor for a vote.

[SRegnet]

You don't suppose this is a serious prediction?

Never has there been a Supreme Court justice
who wasn't an experienced lawyer, though not
necessarily law-school trained. No doubt there
was one or two not a college graduate, if you
go back far enough. Long ago you could be one
without the other. Today? Not at all likely.

As for Mukasey & Schumer. Obviously, there's
some kind of relationship at work there. As
for Feinstein, maybe she just has to do as
Schumer says.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/opinion/06schumer.html

[Tosenseworth]

It's amusing to read and hear appeals to "return the reins of government to the people!"
Of course those who see this as some sort of answer to the ills of any current government somehow overlook that "the people" are just as torn and conflicted and stubborn and corrupted and idealistic and flawed and biased as their elected representatives.
Haven't they listened to "man on the street" interviews? Ever hear anyone that you would want on your local City Council?... and that includes the interviewer.
On these blogs we gravitate toward the messages we agree with and thus begin to assume there are not only others sharing our views, but enough to form a movement of "folks like us".
Except we eventually notice that occasional wackos intrude with outrageous comments and perhaps, perhaps, "we the people" are not of one mind.
So if we expect our elected officials to exhibit significantly different behaviors than we see among our neighbors, family and work colleagues, we may have to hold our candidate searches on a different planet....
Meanwhile, we must in future assume that, excluding the other planet option, we can at a minimum exclude candidates from Texas and Wyoming...

[Twocentsworth245]

EEEEEWWWWW!!!!! Perish the thought! Karl Rove on the Supreme Court?!?! Heaven help us all if THAT were to happen! Frankly, I didn't even know Rove's an attorney. Anyway, just the very idea of the possibility of Rove serving on the highest judicial body in the land sends a paralyzing chill down my spine! EEK!!! After all he did when he was in the White House, I wonder if he could even get approved. Hopefully NOT!

[Me2BFD]

I have no problem with Feinstein or Schumer, or their vote(s). There's only one reason they voted the way they did (while holding their noses), once they got the whiff of stench; because they knew damned well that the Bush administration would just nominate someone twice as bad as a replacement. And, upon further rejection, they'd find someone even more repugnant as a third nominee. That's how they work. Eventually, they'd do a Recess Appointment of some loathsome character that would be five times worse than Mukasey. Why waste the time and energy when there's so much work to be done?

[Dajo]

It is Thanksgiving not April Fools.

[Janelynne]

I am not convinced that Feinstein or Schumer are Democrats. Their recent vote on Mukasey can be interpreted as a tell in two ways: The first tell is content. That they supported this judge is in direct violation of the values of the Democratic party. Mukasey is not a candidate who abhors the concept or who will oppose the practice of torture, much less have respect for the Geneva Conventions. Democrats are not this.
The second tell is the more revealing, however.
Both Feinstein and Schumer had the choice to broker with the Republicans or the Democrats behind closed doors. They chose to negotiate with the Republicans and humiliate their Democratic peers in public. Democrats are not this either.
I do not believe either to be Democrats, and I think they find themselves inside a party they do not support. I think they risk their careers to change parties, but I believe it is in their respective futures, as it was for Leibermann. The Democrats need to deny them their positions of influence in the party and cut its losses.
It is unknowable and unpredictable what mischief they will make in the upcoming election. If past is prologue, their behavior will be hidden from view and probably not in the party's interest, as based on the evidence. For the Democrats to be in denial of what just happened is dangerous and naive. Feinstein must be removed from the judiciary committee now.

[Bobzmcishl]

There is no way in hell that would happen. That would be a travesty of justice and cement George W. Bush's place as the worst president in history.

[KarenZipdrive]

Rove is not only not an attorney, he's not even a college graduate.
I bet Bush could still ramrod that fat bastard into the Supreme Court, though.

[deminmo]

Crap! Then I would go to Canada!

[1dogs2]

The reason impeachment hearings need to begin is not to remove Cheney and Bush from office. That's extremely unlikely even if the House reports out a bill of impeachment, given the slim (and unreliable) majority of Democrats in the Senate, and the lack of loyalty to the Constitution (rather than their party) of the Republicans. The reasons for impeachment hearings are:
1. to educate the public about the assaults on the Constitution by this administration and the effect of those assaults on our national security and welfare, our individual rights and the reputation of our nation in the world; and
(2) to fulfill the constitutional duty of congressmen to protect and defend the Constitution, without which we are no longer a nation of laws.
Further, such hearings might preoccupy C & B enough to prevent them from entangling us in yet another unauthorized and unnecessary war before they leave office.
The Democratic leadership, as well as the troops that fall in line with the "impeachment is off the table" fiat, seem not to understand that impeachment CANNOT be off the table if they are to fulfill their oath of office -- to protect and defend the Constitution. That is their duty -- not checking with pollsters to see where impeachment ranks in a list of voter concerns. Polls by the Democratic party that I've been asked to respond to did not include impeachment as one of the options. No wonder it didn't rank among the top 10 concerns.
As for the excuse by the Democratic leadrship that they haven't time to spare on defending and protecting the Constitution -- their highest duty -- because they have all kinds of other legislation to pass -- what rubbish. First, I'd like to believe that most of our representatives can walk and chew gum at the same time. Second, they are deluding themselves if they think they're going to pass anything of significance before the present administration is out of office, what with vetos, filibusters and signing statements that nullify anything the Dems manage to pass.

[godsbreath64]

You do mean Cheney appoint him, right?

The Minion couldn't even spell Supreme Court without help.

[gray shadow]

no one Bush sends to Congress will be confirmed, especially Rove. Meaning your story is a lot to do about NOTHING

[BoulderSue]

Why did you have to go and add to my list of nightmares? I was trying to have a relatively relaxing long weekend, a little vacation fom all the awfulness of Bush, but I keep getting drawn to the Huff Post because the the news is full of the Holloway case again. C-SPAN is an alternative: Book TV for four days on C-SPAN 2, but half of the authors tell me more awful stuff. I'm reading two books: Naomi Wolf's "The End of America" and John Dean's latest, "Broken Government" but I thought I'd stay away from those 'til Monday. Maybe I'l just have to dip into the Jane Austen compendium I got for my niece for Christmas.