Conservatives Map Strategies on Court Fight

[Faygo Kid]

Source: New York Times

WASHINGTON — If President Obama nominates Judge Diane P. Wood to the Supreme Court, conservatives plan to attack her as an “outspoken” supporter of “abortion, including partial-birth abortion.”

If he nominates Judge Sonia Sotomayor, they plan to accuse her of trying to “expand constitutional rights beyond the text of the Constitution.”

And if he nominates Kathleen M. Sullivan, a law professor at Stanford, they plan to decry her as a “prominent supporter of homosexual marriage.”

Preparing to oppose the confirmation of Mr. Obama’s eventual choice to succeed Justice David H. Souter, who is retiring, conservative groups are working together to stockpile ammunition. Ten memorandums summarizing their research, obtained by The New York Times, provide a window onto how they hope to frame the coming debate. . .

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/us/politics/17conserve.html?hp

---

Bipartisanship, my cyst-free ass. They are ruthless and relentless. Let's see if Obama finally takes them on over this.

[blue_onyx]

1. I think the GOP will oppose anyone

even if the nominee was a more conservative/moderate person just because it's Obama's pick. As the article indicates, the Republicans will have list of talking points ready for any of the possibilities.

[CatholicEdHead]

16. I agree

It is all about getting credit for themselves.

[kimmylavin]

2. Some rebuttals.

Judge Diane P. Wood - NOBODY is an outspoken supporter of abortion. People support choice.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor - USA PATRIOT ACT, assault weapons, corporate personhood... was any of that in the Constitution? Would it be better if we were trying to limit constitutional rights beyond the text of the constitution, ie. DOMA or the "one man, one woman" amendment * fought so hard for?

Judge Kathleen M. Sullivan - good for her. I wish there were more of them.



Seriously, is this the best they've got?

[DissedByBush]

4. "Assault weapons" weren't

Because there is no such thing. It is a political term fabricated by people who don't like others having the constitutional rights that the Second Amendment recognized.

People of constitutional time were expected to own what were the personal arms of the common solder. So-called assault weapons aren't even as deadly as the modern equivalent of such weapons.

[kimmylavin]

7. Okay, enjoy your guns.

:eyes:

[DissedByBush]

9. Enjoy your speech too

One should never have to make an excuse or give a reason for wanting to exercise constitutional rights.

[kimmylavin]

11. Wasn't asking you to do either.

Thanks for this trip into "completely off the point land".

[Spinzonner]

10. So, go join a militia

[DissedByBush]

12. Not interested

I'm not a gun nut. I'm a rights nut.

The issues was whether "assault weapons" are protected under the Constitution. They definitely are.

[Winterblues]

13. Laws can be made that counter what you say

Like the no knock law for instance, or the free-speech zones, or the right to Habeas Corpus, or any "right" granted under the Constitution can be altered at will and has been many times over the decades. If Lawmakers want to make "assault weapons" illegal they can do that just as they can use the "no knock" law to enter and search your house without a warrant. Don't be Naive and think anything is sacrosanct. They already have laws against the common American owning machine guns and grenades and rocket launchers and nuclear bombs so all they have to do is expand the limits..

[DissedByBush]

14. None of those are legal under the Constitution

Our rights certainly have gone downhill, haven't they? All politicians do it. We know all the rights Bush thought were too inconvenient for him. The War On Drugs lost several rights for us. And our own democrats have been mounting an assault on the Second Amendment for decades.

Too bad we can't have the politicians put in jail for violating our rights.

[benEzra]

17. Except that the Court has already declared guns "in common use for lawful purposes" protected.

They did slap down the Bush administration on habeus corpus, and I dare say that if a good "free speech zone" case comes along, they may slap that down, too. Unfortunately, the Court did not stand up for the Fourth Amendment in the warrantless searches case, and they have gone the wrong way on asset forfeiture and eminent domain, so it's a mixed bag.

With regard to "assault weapons," machine guns and nukes have never been in common use for lawful purposes by U.S. non-LEO civilians, whereas "assault weapons" are the most popular civilian target rifles and defensive carbines in the nation; more Americans lawfully own so-called "assault weapons" than hunt. Hence, a ban on "assault weapons" would fail the D.C. v. Heller common use test, whereas the ban on nukes, machineguns, howitzers, and grenades does not.

[Winterblues]

19. Actually the Free Speech Zone came from a court decision

It was about Family Planning Centers and Protesters having to maintain a certain distance from their doors. Protesters, it was ruled, had to maintain a distance, like a buffer zone, from the entrance to any Family Health Center or the like so people entering didn't have to pass through a gauntlet. It was from that decision that the Bush* Cabal came up with "Free Speech Zones".

[benEzra]

20. It's quite a stretch to go from a decision preventing de facto obstruction of clinic entrances

to "the only place in this city you are allowed to peaceably protest anything is in this spot away from cameras." I don't believe the latter would necessarily stand up to a good court challenge, but perhaps I am an incurable optimist.

[benEzra]

15. You familiar with 10 USC 311?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

I'm 38, so I do belong to the militia.

Having said that, the right to keep and bear arms is ascribed to the people at large in the Second Amendment, not just those who are legally considered part of the militia.

[Hawkeye-X]

3. Fuck the Republicans. Let them take their toys and go home.

Let them fucking sit in a corner.

Oh, and seat Franken for crissake!

And kick Specter out!

[Still Sensible]

5. Let'em Bitch and Moan

elections have consequences and this is one of the most important.

[Robb]

6. Ha ha ha! Oh, the Party of No lost its secret fileses!! To the dreaded

New York Times, no less. :rofl:

New plan: fuck 'em.

[pstokely]

8. Will they have another Jusice Sunday?

Another lame sequel

[Overseas]

18. I like what you said-- great example of Republican bipartisanship.

And I hope the Democratic legislators don't forget the very right wing judges the Republicans foisted upon us when it was their turn to choose.

I hope they have the courage to push ahead to appoint very liberal judges to counteract the very right wing Sammy Alito and pro-corporate John Roberts.