A Liberal Case for Chief Justice Scalia

[tk2kewl]

Don't shoot the messenger. Here is the piece:

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vplub034102814jan03,0,3584860.story?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines

<snip>
The burning question, of course, is who would succeed Rehnquist as chief justice. While many names have been floated, President George W. Bush has repeatedly expressed his admiration for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, who strongly shares his conservative philosophy on issues from abortion to affirmative action to the relationship between the federal government and the states. The prospect of Scalia as chief justice sends most Democrats into a near panic, fearing that a court dominated by his jurisprudence would be a disaster for progressive concerns such women's rights, workers' rights, environmental protection and a host of other mainstream interests.

Many liberal advocacy groups are ready to demand the filibuster of a possible Scalia appointment, which is the only way he could be defeated in the Senate. But that would be a mistake. The filibuster is a scorched-earth tactic that cannot be used endlessly, and it would be better to hold it in reserve than to use it in Scalia's case. In fact, liberals (like me) might almost welcome Scalia's nomination as chief, for at least the following reasons...
<snip>

[rolleitreks]

1. 100% agreement.

Save your fire for when it can do the most good.

Also not overly worried about the replacement justice, since she or he will merely replace another conservative.

[kodi]

2. ah another case of philosophic banckruptcy masking as political judo

let him get it because he is horrible and ineffective, and save the filibuster for new court nominees?

and what pray tell is wrong with throwing down the gauntlet each time the GOP attempts such judicial buggery? apparently the author only wants to have principles when it doesn't hurt to have them; which is exactly the opposite of why to have them.

[tk2kewl]

4. I agree

i think the filibuster should be used to block every aspect of the right-wing agenda. and examples of republican filibusters should be liberally stated as a history lesson during these filibusters along with laying down the general tone of a progressive politic for '06. makes for a good soap box as while blocking the agenda.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OneBlueSky]

5. actually, this is probably a pretty good tactic . . .

Scalia is going to be on the court no matter what . . . whether he's an Associate Justice or Chief Justice is irrelevant; he still gets one vote . . . and if it's not Scalia as Chief, it will be someone equally odious . . . might just as well let him have what is largely a ceremonial office, and focus instead on blocking the next Associate Justice . . . who will undoubtedly be a far-right winger intent on overturning Roe v. Wade . . .

[Strawman]

6. I agree with you. It's the best tactic, but it still might fail.

The best we can hope for in the next 4 years is to maintain the ideological status quo on the court. I think there is probably more risk involved with filibustering a meaningless appointment like Scalia's elevation or Rehnquist's replacement (unless the nominee is just beyond horrible) than there is with compromising there and saving the filibuster for any nominations of swing justices that might occur. If we blindly filibuster and show no willingness to compromise, we put the GOP moderates that we need to oppose the nuclear option in a tough position. On the other hand, if we think that when it comes time to vote on a swing justice, the GOP moderates will go along with the nuclear option and cram an ideological conservative down our throats anyway, then it might be better to just force their hand early and make life as miserable as possible for them for the Republican Senate leadership for the next 4 years. Either way, there is risk.

I tend to believe that a centrist coalition can be formed in the Senate when it comes time to appoint a swing justice that would result in another O'Connor at best or another Kennedy at worst. Even if it doesn't end up happening, I think the best chance at maintaining the status quo on the court is by being strategic in our use of the filibuster on SCOTUS nominees. They will replace a terrible justice (Rehnquist) with another terrible justice. He will only have one vote. Maybe they will elevate Scalia to Chief Justice. He will still only have one vote. Every Democrat should vote against both to show their disapproval, but they shouldn't filibuster unless Bush tries to appoint a conservative to replace a moderate or liberal justice. That's the only way we have a chance to appoint a moderate swing justice is with some GOP help. That's just the reality of the situation. It may not be as emotionally appealing as the fantasy that if we just tell Bush to shove every conservative SCOTUS nominee straight up his stupid ass then the public will rally to our cause and force Bush to appoint John Edwards as the next Chief Justice, but I think it's the best course of action. There is at least some chance that it will at least preserve something close to the status quo on the Court. But I could be wrong. This is a really shitty situation.