Reply #91: LOL. Mitch McConnell, is that you? If not, how do you know what will and will not work?

[No Elephants]

The Republicans have said no to everyone and everything, regardless of facts or merit. So, unless they pick the nominee themselves, they are going to go through a drill, as they did with Sotomayor. So what?

In modern times, SCOTUS nominees are very, very rarely filibustered, no matter what. (cough Clarence Thomas cough)

Put it up for a vote and let Bunning fillibuster as long as he can stay awake, like Thurmond. So freakin's what? The world won't come to and end (though the 75 year old Bunning may).

So-called Democratic "strategists" have been tripping over themselves all over the media, to "establish" that "Obama MUST" appoint a conservative" meme all over the media. They sound just like Pat Buchanan or Mary Matlin, who want to give the impression the minority Party in the Senate and in America must be obeyed. Democratic strategists, however, should be saying that the Constitution is very clear that it is the President, not his opposition in the Senate, who chooses the nominee. It's his choice. And, for almost a century, the unwritten rule has been that Senators do no filibuster SCOTUS nominees. Blah, blah.

But, most Democratic "strategists" these days are media whores whose careers depend upon access to prominent Democrats who give them inside info, such as who is the "frontrunner" for the SCOTUS nomination to fill Stevens's seat. So, the "strategists" pretty much must say ab0ut Kagan (and about most things) whatever said prominent Democrats want them to say, if they want to keep getting inside info they can bloviate about to the media.

If I were a prominent Democrat politician and Obama wanted to nominate Kagan, I would very much want Democratic and Republican strategists to say over and over that Obama had no choice but to nominate a conservative. Geez, liberals need at least that "sliver" of a bone from the Party before they donate, right?

Riddle me this, though: Why is conservative Kagan the Solicitor General of the center right Obama adminstration?

Solicitor General is a highly influential position that is oft nicknamed "the Tenth Justice. That wasn't because Republicans gave Obama no choice.

How very lame would Obama be, if appointing a conservative Justice were truly the very best Obama could do with an unwritten rule, a strong majority in the Senate and some sane Republicans, like Graham and Lugar? Even Republicans recognize that "elections have consequences applies to appointment of Justices more than to anything else? How lame is it to surrender to Republicans before the fight even begins?

I don't think Obama is lame though. I just think he truly wants Kagan and is using Republicans and Blue Dogs for cover, as, IMO, Democratic politicians, including Obama, so often do.

So, no, I am not buying the "no choice" riff. Of course, you certainly can, if you wish. But it's not some kind of unshakeable factual certainty, like the sky is blue. In reality, the certainty is: The great odds are that nomination of a SCOTUS Justice probably would not be fillibustered and, if it were, so what? IF it even came to a fight it would be more than worth it. And, then, we, too, could ignore the unwritten rule and filibuster Republican nominees in the future. Fair trade off, I'd say.