I said Alito would be confirmed by a comfortable margin with no filibuster.
Correct.
I also said it is the next vacant spot on the court, not O'Connor's seat, that will provoke the battle royale. With O'Connor's retirement and replacement you get four strong conservative votes, not five. Our side lost one when White was replaced by Ginsburg. A pretty serious swing, but the GOP wasn't complaining, now were they?
The next seat will make the Bork battle look like a party provided a Republican is doing the nominating. If not, the GOP will sit politely by while the Democrats appoint pretty much whoever they wish, AS USUAL.
I think Kennedy is basically Harry Blackmun all over again.
ReplyDeleteOn the other question T raises, I think he has confused the lower courts with the Supreme Court, to which I was clearly and obviously referring. Thus, the lack of "revisionism."
Actually, T, you accused me of revisionism, which would indicate a mistake of history (although revisionism as actually means to correct history). Since I was very clearly speaking historically of the Supreme Court then it would not be "nuanced" to not be speaking of other judicial nominations. It would simply be to speak of what I was specifically speaking about.
ReplyDeleteImprove your aim or get off the court.
Hmmm. 42 votes against. A serious filibuster would have beaten him.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that gloating is reserved for those who can't, or don't, count.