History says GOP's (Supreme) court fight will be futile

[babylonsister]

History says GOP's court fight will be futile

It will probably take a scandal to derail President Obama's next Supreme Court pick -- whoever it is
By Steve Kornacki



John Paul Stevens' announcement on Friday that he'll stand down from the Supreme Court after nearly 35 years was hardly a surprise. Nor was the immediate response from Republicans. Mitch McConnell, the Senate GOP leader, pledged to use the forthcoming confirmation process to "make a sustained and vigorous case for judicial restraint and the fundamental importance of an even-handed reading of the law."

As Salon's Mike Madden has already noted, "That doesn't sound like code for, 'Go ahead, Mr. President, don't let us get in your way.'"

Still, history says it will be just about impossible for the GOP to thwart whomever President Obama tabs as Stevens' successor -- unless some sort of personal scandal erupts.

Only one nominee in the last 25 years has been defeated by the Senate: Robert Bork, a conservative hero nominated by Ronald Reagan in the summer of 1987. A hero to the right, Bork had left an extensive paper trail of highly provocative (and very conservative) opinions about sensitive subjects, particularly the right to privacy. The left mobilized to stop him and, with Reagan's clout diminished by the then-unfolding Iran-Contra scandal, the Democratic Senate rejected Bork on a 58-42 vote. (One Republican, Arlen Specter, also voted no.)

Otherwise, recent nominees who have been targeted on purely ideological grounds have all survived. The closest call came in 2006, when Samuel Alito, George W. Bush's pick to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, survived on a 58-42 vote. All but four of the chamber's Democrats (Robert Byrd, Kent Conrad, Tim Johnson and Ben Nelson) voted against Alito; and all but one Republican (Lincoln Chafee) voted for him.

more...

http://www.salon.com/news/the_supreme_court/index.html?story=/news/the_numerologist/2010/04/09/supreme_court_nomination_history