TPMDC

Thurgood Marshall Takes Center Stage At Kagan Hearings (VIDEO)


The late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall.

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Looks like Senate Judiciary Republicans have at least one unified talking point today: Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American to ever serve on the Supreme Court, was an "activist judge." As Elena Kagan kept on her listening face, multiple senators slammed both Marshall's judicial philosophy and her service as his clerk in the late 1980s.

Ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) criticized Kagan for having "associated herself with well-known activist judges who have used their power to redefine the meaning of our constitution and have the result of advancing that judge's preferred social policies," citing Marshall as his son, Thurgood Marshall Jr., sat in the audience of the Judiciary Committee hearings.

In an example of how much the GOP focused on Marshall, his name came up 35 times. President Obama's name was mentioned just 14 times today.

Sessions said Kagan's reverence for Marshall "tells us much about the nominee," and he meant that more as an indictment than a compliment.

Kagan has said Marshall, who served as the lead attorney in the Brown v. Board of Education case leading to the desegregation of schools, is one of her heroes. She honored him in her opening statement later in the afternoon: "In his life; in his great struggle for racial justice, the Supreme Court stood as the part of government that was most open to every American and that most often fulfilled our Constitution's promise of treating all persons with equal respect, equal care and equal attention."

While some Democrats praised Marshall today, at least two Republicans quoted Marshall's famed saying that he advised people to "do what you think is right and let the law catch up."

Watch:


Video produced by Rachel Slajda

Democratic operatives think the GOP using Marshall is a dumb strategy given how the Republicans were portrayed as culturally insensitive last year when talking about Sonia Sotomayor being a "wise Latina woman." But Marshall's supposedly terrible judicial activism was the theme of the day for Republicans.

"[I]t is more about his judicial philosophy what concerns me and this has already been mentioned it is clear he considered himself a judicial activist and was unapologetic about it," Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) told Kagan.

"There's no doubt that he was an activist judge," Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said on MSNBC today when taking a break from the hearing. Hatch lauded Marshall's role in helping African Americans "be more accepted in society," but criticized his decisions on the court. "Let's admire the man for the great things he did, but let's not walk over and wipe out the things that really didn't make sense as an obedient student of the practice of law," Hatch said.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said he doesn't consider Marshall's judicial philosophy to be "mainstream," and Kyl said Kagan seems to "enthusiastically embrace" Marshall's philosophy by labeling it a "thing of glory." He pointed to her clerkship record and said it shows "naked political judgment."

Here's a key portion of Kyl's statement:

In another case, Ms. Kagan said that the Supreme Court should take the case because "it's even possible that the good guys might win on this issue."

I'm concerned about her characterization of one party as the good guys. Too often it sounds to me like Ms. Kagan shares the view of President Obama and Justice Marshall that the Supreme Court exists to advance the agenda of certain classes of litigants. In another case, Ms. Kagan wrote that there is no good reason to place an exclusionary rule before this court, which will doubtlessly only do something horrible with it.

And in another memo laced with political considerations, Ms. Kagan wrote, "I see no reason to let this court get a crack at this question." She was even more explicit in a handwritten note after reviewing the government's response in another case, saying, "I continue to believe that the facts did not support the arrest, but I cannot see anything good coming out of review of this case by this court."

Ms. Kagan explains these recommendations as primarily channeling Justice Marshall, but the question is whether she really has any major differences with them and whether she sees anything wrong with taking the same approach. I see no evidence that that is the case.

It remains to be seen what, if any, resonance the GOP's strategy of attacking a famed civil rights activist and esteemed Supreme Court jurist will have either with their base or those unconvinced about Kagan's fitness for the court.


Late Update: Salt Lake Tribune's Thomas Burr caught up with Hatch after the hearings and the senator wasn't sure he would have voted to confirm Marshall.

"Well, its hard to say," Hatch told Burr.


Transcripts courtesy of CQ-Roll Call's legislative tracking services
.

Comments (191) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (2)

June 28, 2010 4:32 PM   

Teabaggers calling her a radical activist Marshall clone.

Firebaggers calling her a right-wing careerist laying low so that she could get on the court and join Scalia in pushing a right-wing ideology.

Two sides on the same stupid coin.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 4:41 PM    in reply to FreeRider

Almost makes me yearn for the days of Crossfire. A corrosive, hyper-political, degenerative blight on our level of political discourse and our faith in liberal democracy....but, heck, it was kinda entertaining to watch.

Kagan will be confirmed. By a margin of under 10 votes. It should be a unanimous 99 votes in favour (unless it turns out SHE was the one who killed Vince Foster and Ronald Brown and started ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and gave Saddam nuclear weapons and...well, you get the idea). But we'll be hearing for the next 2 weeks or so about how this relatively centre-left, generally impartial academic is the second coming of Eugene Debs. Or is somehow Robert Bork's illegimiate daughter.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 9:36 PM    in reply to EnnuiDivine

Meanwhile she has to put up with bullshit from people like Orrin Hatch. I wonder if she asked him to elaborate on his assertion that Marshall was an "activist" judge. I bet people wouldn't like to hear what Hatch considers examples of this behavior.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 4:51 PM    in reply to FreeRider

Whew...isn't that no shit. Sessions is the funniest of all...little bat-eared, racist prick. he's the Ridgepole of the right...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 4:58 PM    in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe

Oooh - what a perfect description.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:28 PM    in reply to Powkat

I like the bat-eared part

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

June 28, 2010 5:47 PM    in reply to thomas1

I hearby dub Jeff Sessions "Bat-Boy"!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:56 PM    in reply to slb

i accidently the supreme court

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 5:50 PM    in reply to slb

Perfect!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:31 PM    in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe

Yeah him and some of those other Repugs all but called Marshall an "uppity colored boy". Glad to see how the South has moved beyond Jim Crow.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:31 PM    in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe

That's Jefferson Beauregard Sessions the Third to you, you Yankee heathen! ;)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 1:26 AM    in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe

fucking WORD!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:28 PM    in reply to FreeRider

Isn't that the fricking truth!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:46 PM    in reply to chameleon

Sessions looks like a hybrid between Howdy Doody and Alfred E. Newman and nowhere near as smart.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 6:02 PM    in reply to larsvanness

He looks like most republicans do - pasty white and inbred. That asshole doesn't even try to hide his racism.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 6:03 PM    in reply to larsvanness

I can't remember where I read it, but my favorite description of Session is still "The Angry Leprechaun."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 6:32 PM    in reply to larsvanness

He looks like most republicans do - pasty white and inbred. That asshole doesn't even try to hide his racism.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 8:12 PM    in reply to chameleon

What is up with Kagan's skirt suits. I mean any woman of significant power especially lawyers that were in the Clinton administration all had the pant suits, Ms. Clinton being the pant suit king. Anyways I don't know what that means, but I actually found a story on that check it out

http://apleblog.com/2010/05/19/kagans-skirt-suits/

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 9:07 PM    in reply to republicanblack

I could care less about her skirt suits. Is that your backhanded way of trying to come back with a dig because I said "He looks like most republicans do - pasty white and inbred. That asshole doesn't even try to hide his racism.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 10:15 PM    in reply to chameleon

He kinda resembles Bill McCollum the rabid anti-gay Florida AG for inbred ugliness.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 9:07 PM    in reply to chameleon

Yes it is the truth!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 6:37 PM    in reply to FreeRider

I'm sure there were some people who suggested Kagan would "join Scalia in pushing a right-wing ideology," but that was not the main critique from the left as you surely must know.

Rather it was/is that Kagan's record did not give enough sense as to the kind of justice she would be but there were some indications that she might be a bit more moderate than Stevens, particularly on executive authority. Many progressives thus saw Kagan's appointment as an unnecessary risk when there were other, more reliable candidates out there who would also be able to be confirmed.

Disagree with that if you like but it's hardly the flip side of the Tea Party take on her.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 7:23 PM    in reply to Geoff Johnson

Oh, please! The usual firebaggers were saying she should not be nominated and/or confirmed. Greenwald was all over the media warning that she was the next Bork.

As if, after knowing her personally for 20 years, the president didn't know about her.

As if clerking for uber-liberals Thurgood Marshall and Abner Mikva didn't give you a clue.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 7:53 PM    in reply to FreeRider

Greenwald said she was the next Bork? Where on earth do you get that from? Greenwald just said she would likely move the court to the right and that Diane Wood was a better pick. And, yes, many progressives said she should not be nominated because she was not the best choice--that's not remotely the flip side of the right calling her a "radical activist" which was my whole point.

Feel free to disagree with the argument against Kagan from the left, but you could (actually maybe you can't) show a modicum of respect for the views of others, or at the least not mischaracterize them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 9:16 PM    in reply to Geoff Johnson

Thank you for giving me permission to disagree.

You firebaggers are all worthless tools.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 9:36 PM    in reply to FreeRider

Wasn't giving you permission to disagree since that's a given, just using an expression.

And I'm afraid I've never really even looked at the "firebagger" web site and indeed didn't even know what in the hell you were talking about when I first read that childish slur weeks ago. I disagreed with Hamsher's decision to work with the right to block health care reform, even though in point of fact I am well to the left of her and the netizens of her little web site.

Thanks for keeping your reply 100% ad hominem and substance free as usual!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 12:28 PM    in reply to FreeRider

Don't care how much you defend her. She wasn't the best choice.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 4:29 PM    in reply to blackandtan

So you say. The president disagrees and, guess what? That's all that matters.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 8:16 PM    in reply to Geoff Johnson

I think the idea of many on the left that if Obama did not pick someone as liberal as Stevens to replace him then the court would move to the right was a flawed assumption. That might be true in electoral politics, but the SCOTUS is a very different body from the senate; in fact, that logic is reversed in the SCOTUS.

Clarence Thomas is the furthest right and LEAST powerful justice in the Supreme Court. He is never the deciding vote on any issue and he doesn't seem to have any influence over the other justices. His arguments are so rightwing and so predictably ideological, that there is no way his arguments would persuade any of the liberals to vote with him and I doubt he ever convinced the moderates of anything they didn't already believe either.

Sandra Day O'Connor, on the other hand, was the most powerful SC justice for decades precisely because her views fell almost exactly down the center (meaning she had strong beliefs on different issues on both sides of the ideological divide). She was almost always the deciding vote on divisive issues, and so her particular preferences controlled jurisprudence for decades. Now, that role goes to Kennedy who is center right. He is particularly right-leaning when it comes to corporate vs. individual and affirmative action issues. If Obama wants to move the courts to the left, his best bet is to nominate at least a few center-left justices who can sometimes wrest that power from Kennedy and still have the respect from their colleagues to actually influence their decisions. Sotomayor and Kagan seem like they could both fit that bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 8:32 PM    in reply to boo_lala

This makes no sense to me. There are nine of them. Five of them are conservative. Of those five, four are radicals. Four other justices are moderates. Until one of the conservatives gets replaced, Kagan's appointment is largely irrelevant--at least, on most of the big social issues (guns, campaign finance, etc). There may be other areas (fourth amendment, statutory construction) where she provides a fifth where before there were only four, but in general I don't see it. Now, if we were replacing Thomas or Scalia, then you'd see a real food fight. The NRA would go crazy, as the dissent in the Chicago case pretty much lays out the idea that the minority does not think that Heller deserves stare decisis. That will be a nasty fight, and it's a good thing we're not having it now because there would be real violence.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 9:41 PM    in reply to rumpole

You leave out the personal motivation part of the equation. Kennedy knows he has to move to the left to have the personal power that O'Connor had. Ironically, Kennedy's personal power and importance increases every time he votes with the liberal wing. True, if he moves to the right, and always votes with the conservatives, the court will move to the right with a 5-4 decision on everything, but Kennedy's relative personal power will decrease, because he will just be voting with his bloc every time. In that case, Scalia would be the most powerful figure in the court because he is the intellectual heart of that bloc and will probably continue to be that. Kennedy understands this. Remember that once these people are in the Supreme Court they are not beholden to the party that elected them and the only real outlet for their ambition/ego is to have more influence than their colleagues.

Yes, right now the balance is 5-4 towards the conservatives, but this is a decades-long game. Obama can't change those numbers unless a conservative retires, and none is likely to do so while he is in office--although Scalia and Kennedy are both 74. He can, however, set up a young center justice on the left who might one day wield O'Connor-like power over the court or at the very least dilute the power of the center right.

I'm not disparaging Stevens, nor saying that all the nominees should be centrists; I'm just saying it's a fallacy that you can only move the court to the left by nominating people who are further to the left than the others. I think Obama saw that he was not going to get any really leftwing judge through confirmation in this political climate and he made a very savvy decision to play the long game.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 8:34 PM    in reply to boo_lala

I agree with a lot of what you are saying about the power being in the center of the court, but I don't agree with the logic of your overall argument.

You say there need to be some center-left folks on the court and I wouldn't disagree. But surely you would agree there also need to be strong voices from the "liberal" side (really not that liberal at all given past courts) a la Scalia and Roberts on the right? That was Stevens' role, in part. Stevens also had a great deal of power and did an excellent job working Justice Kennedy, in part by letting him write the majority decision on at least a couple of key cases when Kennedy came over to the liberal side. Stevens was not a left-wing ideologue with no power or ability to bring the center into a liberal majority on individual cases--quite the contrary.

Like many I wanted someone in the Stevens judicial mode--reasonably "liberal" but with the ability to weld together actual majorities by reaching out to moderates. Diane Wood seemed the perfect choice in that respect and would have almost certainly been confirmed. Kagan might prove to be powerful in winning people over to the liberal side (or she might not--remember she has no record of doing that on a court since she's never been on one), but she also might side with the conservatives on certain issues including executive power (even siding with Obama's view of executive power would be bad, and that seems distinctly possible).

The point is she's a risk if you are coming at this from the left and we had what seemed to be a much better alternative in Wood. However I'm still hopeful that Kagan ends up working out and freely admit that could be the case.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 6:05 PM    in reply to boo_lala

Excellent observations boo_lala. Kagan may end up wielding lots of power.

Now if only we could get rid of thomas, alito, roberts or kennedy things might become normal.

One can only dream and hope.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 3:31 AM    in reply to Geoff Johnson

Yeah, and *YOU* goddamn well understand that the Obama administration's strategy was to name someone who might have an **effect** on decisions, rather than writing poetic dissents in the 4-judge liberal minority, right?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 9:34 AM    in reply to Overreach THIS!

If so then I think Diane Wood would have been the better choice since she has a record of doing precisely that on the Seventh Circuit. I have no idea why you are so certain Kagan will excel at "having an effect" on the court when she has never done that before anywhere, while Wood has brought the likes of Richard Posner and Frank Easterbrook (conservative titans on her court) over to her side.

I certainly would not have wanted a nominee that was just going to write poetic minority decisions and explicitly said otherwise in the comment immediately above yours.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 12:57 PM    in reply to Geoff Johnson

"I have no idea why you are so certain Kagan will excel at "having an effect" on the court"

So certain? When did you imagine *I* said that specifically? Most of the left's criticism, especially Greenwald and his cheering section, was shallow and idiotic -- the point is to have a strategy, which may or may not work -- *they* did not.

I don't know why Diane Wood wasn't picked, no idea. Another person who definitely does not know this is yourself. Maybe she would have been okay for that strategy -- don't know.

The "executive authority" red herring is high sophistry, lazy and skin-deep nitpicking masquerading as thoughtful analysis.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 1:42 PM    in reply to Overreach THIS!

The "executive authority" red herring is high sophistry, lazy and skin-deep nitpicking masquerading as thoughtful analysis.
The trend of expanding executive power is one of the most important things the Court will ever rule on, and Kagan has made it clear by her writings that she's on the wrong side of the issue. That's not nitpicking at all.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 5:02 PM    in reply to Overreach THIS!

"The "executive authority" red herring is high sophistry, lazy and skin-deep nitpicking masquerading as thoughtful analysis."

A lot of words and negative descriptors without actually backing up the argument, and I can't take seriously anyone who can make a claim like that, particularly since I'm fairly certain you would have said precisely the opposite if John McCain was president, and probably did say the opposite when Bush was president.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 12:05 PM    in reply to Geoff Johnson

Zzzzzzz...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 12:22 AM    in reply to FreeRider

Kagan is even less qualified to sit on the supreme court than Obama is to sit in the oval office. Kagan's supreme court nomination is akin to going to down to the local homeless shelter and choosing somebody at random to take over NASA.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 3:27 AM    in reply to Steve

See Robert Jackson, Earl Warren,and Hugo Black as refutations of your fact-free paroxysm.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 1, 2010 12:56 PM    in reply to Steve

You can't argue that she is not smart!! But your argument that she is not qualified and have no experience, would sound much much better!!http://www.sandiegocalocksmith.com/

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 1, 2010 12:57 PM    in reply to Steve

You can't argue that she is not smart!! But your argument that she is not qualified and have no experience, would sound much much better!! http://www.sandiegocalocksmith.com/

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 4:36 PM   

I hope the Democrats on the committee are smart enough to attack the Republicans for attacking Marshall. The Democratic operatives who say the Republican attack on Marshall is "dumb" will be correct ONLY IF the Democrats openly attack the Republicans.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 6:27 PM    in reply to DCCyclone

I hope they're smart enough to go after the GOP for attacking Marshall too, but they've appeared rather timid (or sleepy) for years now. But yeah, it would be nice to see an attack dog on the left rip their face off. I want to see one mean son of a bitch on the left that the GOP (and blue dogs) are truly afraid of crossing. Don't know who that would be though.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 6:34 PM    in reply to Billy Shears

Grayson.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 7:28 PM    in reply to Big River Bandido

Anthony Weiner (D-NY)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 8:52 PM    in reply to Ugot2bkidnme

Weiner is a much more likely candidate than Grayson--the latter is a bit of a clown.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 10:48 PM    in reply to Geoff Johnson

Grayson provides cover for Weiner, we need more of both.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 1:48 PM    in reply to expat46

Amen to that and I disagree with the poster above that Grayson is a bit of a clown. The guy is very smart and astute. He knows how the game is played and has the chutzpah to carry it out.. I actually hope he runs in 2016 for President. I would like to see if this country is ready to elect a Jew.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 5:09 PM    in reply to expat46

You might well be right about that--certainly Grayson is the kind of person who can be distracting to the right, given that he's a bit of a bomb thrower.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 7:05 AM    in reply to Ugot2bkidnme

you guys realize that the house doesn't confirm nominees, right?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 8:25 AM    in reply to nova voter

Confirmation isn't the issue. The issue is mounting a coherent Democratic response for the gratuitous attacks on Thurgood Marshall. It needs someone who is smart, fearless and articulate. There are a few Democratic Senators (Brown-OH, Whitehouse-RI) but the real political warrious are in the House. It would be great if several Democratic firebrands (both House and Senate) would team up on these repugnant asshats and hammer away until midterms.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 9:26 AM    in reply to Ugot2bkidnme

ok, for elections, maybe. my point was just that no one is going to be interviewing house members about this particular issue, since they don't have a dog in the fight.

al franken is on the judiciary committee. he would be a great one to take the GOP to task.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 10:38 AM    in reply to nova voter

I understood your point and completely agree. Had forgot about Franken and you're right. I guess I was trying to make a broader point. GOP attacking Justice Marshall for short-term political gain should be paid for with long-term political pain. Some of the best pain-givers are in the House. But I do agree Franken is an excellent warrior.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 4:40 PM   

I'm at work right now with 6 other people, all of whom are moderate to extreme right-wingers. I went through the building and asked each of them (all in their 20s and 30s) who Thurgood Marshall was. Nobody had ANY idea, although two of them had quizzical looks and claimed they had heard his name before.

I'm sure they'll suddenly become Marshall experts after watching Hannity tonight, but as of 1pm on the west coast, Generation X and below has never even heard of him...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 4:50 PM    in reply to tctundra

Once they find out he's black, and not a self-hating ignoramus like Justice Thomas, they will draw the conclusion the KKK, I mean the GOP

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

June 28, 2010 5:50 PM    in reply to tctundra

I guess the Texas Board of Education had him written out of the textbooks a couple of decades ago...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 4:40 PM   

These hearings are retarded. I turned them off. Let me know when I can turn the news back on.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:00 PM    in reply to rbeats

TPM is not your freaking sentry.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:26 PM    in reply to FreeRider

Ohh I didn't realize that.

Jeeze get a life kid.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:42 PM    in reply to rbeats

Then I wouldn't be around to tell you when it's OK to turn on your TV again.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 7:35 PM    in reply to FreeRider

...okay.

Did you consider the possibility that his comment wasn't meant to be taken literally?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 9:17 PM    in reply to know_your_unknowns

Did you consider the possibility that mine wasn't either?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 4:42 PM   

The Republicans don't attack Thurgood Marshall, President Obama and MLK because they are racist, they do it because ....

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:31 PM    in reply to traitorjoe

if I was a dog I could hear the whistle

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:35 PM    in reply to traitorjoe

...They are concerned that this country is slipping from their lily-white, plantation owning hands.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 6:41 PM    in reply to traitorjoe

Has anyone seen Marshall's Birth Certificate? I'll bet he was born in Kenya too!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 6:42 PM    in reply to traitorjoe

... when you have a Justice with the stature of Clarence Thomas on your side, well anybody else just seems to fall short.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 4:42 PM   

well, it's a good thing obama didn't nominate thurgood marshall then.

i don't understand this strategy. they're trying to blame kagan for the decisions marshall made, and somehow, make that reflect as if they were her decisions?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 4:55 PM    in reply to freaktown

It's just warmed over Rovianism... take an opponents strength (clerking for one of the best-know and most beloved justices of the modern Supreme Court) and try to turn it into a liability.

See also: boating, swift.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 6:22 PM    in reply to agio

So why the hell don't Dems use this same tactic? People are stupid and if all it takes to win is flipping a strength to a weakness well let the fun begin! Maybe they can dish it out and not take it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 4:46 PM   

Someone should remind the GOP that Marshall passed away in 1993.

Next up, the GOP revisits the John Jay nomination.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 4:52 PM    in reply to TBender

"judicial review", after all, is just another code name for "judicial activism"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 4:48 PM   

Yes, even worse than the blatant misrepresentation of a great SC judge is watching the media let them get away with it.
If it wasn't for bloggers, we wouldn't have no journalism at all.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 4:50 PM    in reply to dustbunny44

Reporting is just so hard! Much easier to be a stenographer for whomever yells loudest.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:03 PM    in reply to traitorjoe

Being stenographers for whoever screeches loudest (or most outrageously) is what sells papers or generates TV ratings. That's all that matters to the corporate-owned, profit-focused media these days. Make money like the other divisions and operating units of the company and please the shareholders. Delivering the news is secondary.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 4:49 PM   

It's their default position disfavoring blacks.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 4:52 PM   

I don't see any downside to the Republicans attacking Marshall. They are just calling him what he was .... an unelected, unaccountable judicial oligarch. There's nothing racist about that.

The same could be said for Justices Earl Warren, Hugo Black, William Brennan, and --- for that matter, John Paul Stevens and David Souter --- all of whom were white, and all but one of whom were appointed by Republican presidents, much to their subsequent regret.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:03 PM    in reply to Joseph Calling

If you're going to say that being appointed and confirmed by the congress is not elected, then you could say that for every supreme court justice ever. Just because you don't like a justice's opinion on a matter doesn't make them an activist. The current court is making the most ludicrous rulings ever yet anyone with half a brain resists calling them activists. What the supreme court decides is de facto what the constitution means, it's a living document in that sense.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

June 28, 2010 5:54 PM    in reply to Insy

Just because you don't like a justice's opinion on a matter doesn't make them an activist.

Except that that seems to be exactly what the right's definition of "activist judge" is: "A judge that makes decisions I don't agree with."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:06 PM    in reply to Joseph Calling

You have no idea what you are talking about. Hugo Black? Did you know that he always carried a copy of the Constitution in his back pocket? Did you know that he is pretty well recognized as a "textualist". In other words, pretty much the opposite of an activist.

Souter and Stevens activists? Gimme a break.

Speaking of activist, did you see that Justice Thomas just attempted to revive the Privileges & Immunities Clause?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 8:39 PM    in reply to Joseph Calling

Where, again, does it say in the constitution that corporations are people and that money is speech? Because those seem to me to be the biggest cases of judicial activism in recent years and they are at the heart of all the GOP's favorite legal positions.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 4:57 PM   

"...well-known activist judges who have used their power to redefine the meaning of our constitution and have the result of advancing that judge's preferred social policies..."

Meaning, I suppose, that we should go back to reserving voting rights for white male landowners and the fun carefree days of slavery.

Asswipe.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:37 PM    in reply to georgecs

Now now, it's so unfair to go back a century and a half to the antebellum era. 1961 will do, when the president's parents would have been unable to marry in 17 states. Declared unconstitutional (9-0) six years later.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 6:28 PM    in reply to emjayay

...the president's parents would have been unable to marry in 17 states...

Justice Thomas's marriage also would have been illegal.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 4:57 PM   

repugtards uber alles. this makes me sick... where my whites only water fountain at?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 6:55 PM    in reply to andyvillager

Lol... hey boo!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 4:57 PM   

Yes, even worse than the blatant misrepresentation of a great SC judge is watching the media let them get away with it.
If it wasn't for bloggers, we wouldn't have no journalism at all.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 4:58 PM   

Great, okay. Attack Thurgood Marshall. This strategy will play very well with voters...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:02 PM   

After 56 years those mother f**kers are still pissed about Brown v. Board of Education. The court voted 9-0 you dimwits. It's the 21st century now. Try to keep up.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:47 PM    in reply to ADad

+1

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 6:22 PM    in reply to pv2k

Can I get another amen!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 7:54 PM    in reply to ADad

Brown v. Board nothing - most of them are still pissed their side lost the CIVIL WAR.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 9:47 AM    in reply to Matt Jones

Dangit! Do we need to send Sherman down there again?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:04 PM   

The strategy of trashing Thurgood Marshall is very simple: a majority of voters do not know/remember who Thurgood Marshall was, and a large portion of those does not know he was African-American. Since the media is not likely to report on this fact, the regular non-informed voter would be left with the "news" that Kagan clerked for an "activist" judge.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:06 PM   

Ten years from now, no one will remember Orrin Snatch, but Thurgood Marshall's name will be forever known.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:12 PM    in reply to jsdc007

agreed. Thurgood Marshall's place in history has been set in stone. Theses clowns like Kyl and Sessions are nobodies to the American people.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:09 PM   

Let's all be thankful that the Republicans are strong & steady in their constitutional role as the loyal opposition.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:28 PM    in reply to Ahmedsaid

That is snark served up cold and biting, yes?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 8:13 PM    in reply to Lestatdelc

Thats one of the thousand and one faces of sailormarlowe...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 8:43 PM    in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe

I am convinced sailor is some kind of a cynic artist. The more he writes, the more ridiculous it seems, until now we are at the point of comedy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 9:00 PM    in reply to runfastandwin

Until he hits that wall where it seems like he's running downhill, his legs are moving so fast he starts losing coordination and can't help but let the racist and tasteless comments that keep geting him bounced repeatedly roll of his tongue. Give this name a week or two...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 9:34 PM    in reply to Ahmedsaid

AKA, useless dickheads. Sound familiar?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Jes

Facebook

June 28, 2010 5:11 PM   

So the GOP thinks that the struggle for justice has nothing to do with being a judge?

OK. Let them run with that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

SBG

user-pic

June 28, 2010 5:14 PM   

One of my dearest wishes is that Obama gets to replace Scalia on the bench. Based on what we are seeing with the first two nominations, we might actually see heads explode on that glorious day.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:23 PM    in reply to SBG

Surely Ginsburg will be the next to retire. :(

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:29 PM    in reply to SBG

It's not nice, but I would so welcome a fatal heart attack happening to the most likely candidate, Thomas. Getting on in years, black, overweight. Hope he's not watching his cholesterol or taking statins. Sorry, I warned you.
By the way, I knew just from a couple of things Alito said in his hearings that he was a mean spirited narrow minded fuck. Obama voted against both Alito and Roberts. Good for him.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:33 PM    in reply to emjayay

FYI, Scalia is 12 years older than Thomas.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:30 PM    in reply to SBG

No kidding. Because if Scalia gets replaced, that's a twofer since Thomas won't know how to vote or write up his opinion. It then effectively becomes an 8 person court. (wry grin)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

June 28, 2010 5:59 PM    in reply to Lestatdelc

Actually, I have read analyses that said that it's Scalia that follows Thomas, and not so much the other way around. Certainly Thomas doesn't seem to need any help in writing scathing dissents.

They both strike me as mean-spirited SOBs.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 6:45 PM    in reply to slb

Out of curiosity, where have you read that Scalia takes his cues from Thomas? I would find that to be quite shocking given what I know of both those fellows, particularly Scalia who is undeniably brilliant, albeit in an evil genius kind of way.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:41 PM    in reply to SBG

Short of a heart attack or someone offing his sorry ass, it's never going to happen, but one can hope......I hope, I hope, I hope.

And to the purists of heart and high road takers out there - please don't lecture me for saying out loud what a lot of you are thinking.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

June 28, 2010 6:01 PM    in reply to chameleon

Sorry; whoever the target (with the possible exception of Adolph Hitler), I think it shows a really ugly nature to openly wish for someone's demise.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 6:31 PM    in reply to slb

Amen.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 6:51 PM    in reply to slb

Agreed--some of the comments over at Politico about Senator Byrd's death were just disgusting, and while I did not look I think there was a similar phenomenon in a thread over there on Cheney's hospitalization. That shit ain't right.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 9:09 PM    in reply to Geoff Johnson

It may not be - but you know what - I don't care!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 11:05 PM    in reply to chameleon

Then perhaps you and all the right wingers who were dancing on Byrd's grave can start up a web site called deathtopeoplewehate.com and spend hours a day yelling at each other there. It would be nice for the rest of us to not have to deal with you anymore.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 11:14 PM    in reply to Geoff Johnson

Get over it!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 10:15 PM    in reply to slb

Yep, but it's uglier from the left, somehow. Sadly, it's become a recurring blight with the right. You wonder why folks never think through the consequences of those wishes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 9:14 PM    in reply to chameleon

Nice post. Hoping for someone to die and then running your "purists of heart... don't lecture me.." bullshit. And if someone criticizes the President's tie selection you're screanming "asshole"! What a phony.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 1:53 PM    in reply to Clarance Vine

Guess what? I don't care what you or Bwkfat think of my statement. I don't have to defend myself to you. I said it - I meant it!! And don't pretend to be so high and mighty with me = especially you, Clarence - with your previous racist avatar. You are the phony. At least I am consistent

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:24 PM   

Yawn. We knew this would happen. The GOP's tactic has long been to yammer incessantly about how radical and extremist and leftist the other side is, all while slowly moving further and further to the right itself. The trick they're trying to pull is making everyone think the widening ideological gap is the other side's fault. The true-believing GOP-baser Limbots out there eat it up like it's ambrosia falling from God's bum. A good number of poorly educated, disgruntled and resentful independents buy into and, of course, the dems lie back and lift their hips to take it without really fighting back.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:39 PM    in reply to Sniffit

+1!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:28 PM   

Democrats will run for the hill again instead of seizing the opportunity to attack. Republicans want to bring back slavery? Let them say it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:34 PM   

The Senator from Alabama doesn't like Thurgood Marshall. Wonder what that's all about?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:35 PM   

I wonder what fraction of American voters actually know who Thurgood Marshall was. This sort of tactic works for the republicans because they can assert whatever they like, it will be reported by the media, and many people will accept it as truth because of their own egregious ignorance.

You know, we blame a lot of things on politicians and the media, but really, most of the blame lies in the willful ignorance, venality and narcissism of the American electorate.

Of course, it would help if a few Democrats stood up and countered these attacks.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 6:39 PM    in reply to voreason

It's just dog-whistle politics, only meant for the ears of the mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:37 PM   

The Dems need to do what the GOP would do: claim the GOP is in favor of segregating schools.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:38 PM   

I wish President Obama would nominate another William O. Douglas.

Instead, as the moderate he is, Obama nominated another moderate. Naturally, the Right's head exploded anyway.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:40 PM   

Good God. They really aren't even trying to be discrete about it any more. The racial politics of Jesse Helms were subtle compared to the every day pronouncements of what passes for the GOP "mainstream" today.

I totally blew this call. I really didn't think the unrestrained racism would come spewing out if Obama was elected the way it has. I expected it to become more repressed and more subtle instead of them just getting right up into people's faces with it.

I still don't think they would would have been able to get away with being so overt if the economy hadn't tanked.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

June 28, 2010 6:05 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

The unrestrained racism has suprised me as well.

You might be right that the economy is part of it. It might be the last desperate gasp of a dying hegemony, too.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 6:36 PM    in reply to slb

Absolutely right.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:45 PM   

The GOP at least claims to want to broaden its base and not be seen as insensitive to minorities. Trashing an African American legal icon? Yeah, give that a try.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 7:32 PM    in reply to navamske

"Supreme court should Interpreted the constitution:
well, duuuuh!
Yes, we know that anything short of supreme court judges openly advocating that corporations run our lives with no accountability is commie activism, but maybe you should learn how to make your case before spouting off. Like so many right wingers, you seem to be about ten years old.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:50 PM   

Thurgood jr. should have gotten teary and fled the hearing...

Worked for Alito.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 6:05 PM    in reply to zonk

Or got teary jumped to his feet and beat Sessions with in a inch of his stinking racist life!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 5:59 PM   

If they consider the Marshall court an "Activist Judge", then the Roberts Court is nothing more than Lobbyist ThinkTank Advocacy Group court because of all the conservative activism. It is just shameful and SCOTUS has lost all it's credibility and objectivity...it is now the judicial arm of the GOP.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 6:03 PM   

If it's not a white male Republican, then the GOPers just can't feel comfortable. This is blatant racist ideology...

http://www.facebook.com/campaigncorner

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 6:07 PM   

An uppity WHAT? According to the GOP...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 6:15 PM   

Geez Dems, just called these people out for what they are: a bunch of corporate, racist, stooges. No need for fancy language just say it when there is a camera in your face and being asked why our country isn't moving forward. Call them out on how they are threatening a filibuster on someone that they have confirmed before. Call them out on the audacity of their dumb talking point about activist judges when the Supreme Court evidently has already has been bought by corporations. Grow a backbone Democrats.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 6:15 PM   

Wow.

Do they honestly believe that they can elected solely via white voters?

I'm just a little stunned by this - wow.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 8:19 PM    in reply to HusseinTenaX

In a word, yes.

This is the great quandary of the Republicans at this moment: Their short-term interest in firing up their base -- which trills to appeals to racial/ethnic resentment and fear -- cuts against their long-term interest in drawing in the nonwhite voters whose votes will increasingly become decisive. Sucks to be them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 11:40 AM    in reply to HusseinTenaX

Like I said. They're not even trying to be subtle anymore. They've ditched the dog whistle for a big, loud, shrill police whistle.

And still, the MSM refuses to acknowledge the GOP's mainstreaming of radicalism and avoids the issue by clinging to the pretense that McCain and Graham are not merely still highly relevant, but are relevant because they represent the living heart and soul of the Republican Party. They cling to the pretense with increasing desperation, because otherwise, they have to admit that the world they knew and loved no longer exists.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 6:22 PM   

The repugs are merely playing to their base in attacking Marshall.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 6:24 PM   

For some fun check up what came up about Jeff Sessions when his nomination as a Federal District judge was voted down a number of years ago. He's actually mellowed with age or hasn't given any recent interviews to Rolling Stone.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 6:32 PM   

Heh. These hearings are nothing more than an opportunity for republicans to display to the country who they really are. And 1/2 of Americans love them for it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 6:42 PM   

"do what you think is right and let the law catch up."

The Republicans were fine with that when Bush was in office.

I would like to hear from TPM's own Decider on this issue, he made decisions of war and peace, OK mostly war, from the 'gut'.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 9:42 PM    in reply to NobleCommentDecider

Any Republican who complains about "activist judges" but was okay with Bush v. Gore should be legally required to shut the hell up.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 7:21 PM   

Aw darn, no one told me that Marchall was all Kagans fault. Sessions palinesque moments keep coming

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 7:52 PM   

Greenwald said she was the next Bork? Where on earth do you get that from? Greenwald just said she would likely move the court to the right and that Diane Wood was a better pick. And, yes, many progressives said she should not be nominated because she was not the best choice--that's not remotely the flip side of the right calling her a "radical activist" which was my whole point.

Feel free to disagree with the argument against Kagan from the left, but you could (actually maybe you can't) show a modicum of respect for the views of others, or at the least not mischaracterize them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 7:54 PM    in reply to Geoff Johnson

Apologies, this was supposed to be in response to a comment above.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 8:07 PM   

The Republicans are right....no more activist judges...like those that overturned campaign finance reform and gun control laws and corporate governance laws...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 8:15 PM   

Jeff Sessions is the aborted fetus of Ignatz and Krazy Kat that was reanimated when dumped into radioactive hospital waste, raised by Alabama inbreeders and elected to the senate by the same. All thats missing is a band playing Dixie whenever he enters the chambers.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 8:22 PM   

What irony -- on the very day the activist SCOTUS expanded an individual right to firearms that exists nowhere in stare decisis until Heller in 2008.

I guess running the country into the ground isn't enough for these creeps.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FRS

user-pic

June 28, 2010 8:26 PM   

Here is Kagan's opening statement from the hearings today.....

http://www.newslook.com/videos/225275-elena-kagan-opening-statement?autoplay=true

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 8:28 PM   

GOPBers are racist fucks. Who knew?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 8:30 PM   

If it weren't for lawyers, judges, civil rights activists, MLK, LBJ, and Justice Marshall, some Democratic and Republicans senators, the South including Sessions' Alabama would still be underachieving, economically deprived, and culturally isolated as it was before the Civil Rights movement.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 8:41 PM   

I was looking on wikipedia for the years that Marshall served on the court and I read this factoid that I did not know:


His original name was Thoroughgood, but he shortened it to Thurgood in second grade because he disliked spelling it.

I'd like to wager 10 bucks that some right wing commentator (Rush Limbaugh, most likely) will use this as evidence that Marshall was an activist judge.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 9:25 PM    in reply to boo_lala

Mark my words, they'll have their talking points tomorrow before the coffee is finished brewing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 8:41 PM   

Because the Republicans know that mentioning any black person will fire up their white supremacists base. The blacks and the Jews are taking over, you know. Also, how is it Marshall is considered an activist judge by thinking and promoting progress, and they're not considered activists for denying progress? They are also attempting to rewrite the bible in the south to a more conservative slant, as well as, rewriting the history books to resurrect and repackage conservative figures and ideologies that were clearly on the wrong side of history and the law. They're sooo creepy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 8:47 PM   

Here's the other issue, the Republicans know that Obama will get to replace both Kennedy and Scalia and maybe Thomas too in the next 6 years, so they are absolutely freaking out. They have to pander to the innate racism of their base, they got nothing else.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 9:20 PM    in reply to runfastandwin

You're right but not sure if the President is going to be around more than two more years if unemployment is still at 10%.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 7:04 PM    in reply to Clarance Vine

So who are they going to vote for the Republicans. If you think 10% unemployment is bad, just elect a republican. Obama will serve through 2016.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 9:08 PM   

So, the Republicans spent the day caterwauling about the nation-rending "judicial activism" when the current court has, this month, handed down decisions stating: if you have any association, whatsoever (gave a donation, names next to one another in the phone book, sat in concurrent rows on a plane, etc.) with anyone declared a "terrorist" for whatever vague, undisclosed reason, you are in violation of a federal law with "death penalty" in the title; hey, know how it's the midterm campaign cycle and politicians (looking at you, Jan Brewer) have forgone unlimited private funding in lieu of matching campaing funds? Well, TS, cause we just decided you can't do that; Jeff Skilling is INNOCENT! Ahem, that's really up to the lower courts; Fuck you Chicago, guns for everybody! (Now you won't have to worry about weekends like this last one-at least 29 shootings-'cause more guns=more safe)

I'd point out the hypocrisy, but I need to go staunch the blood pouring out of my ears.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 12:18 AM    in reply to pikaomega

You're foaming at the mouth take a xanax and call your shrink.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 10:55 AM    in reply to Steve

And the inaccurate point is where, exactly?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 9:54 PM   

Will the GOP's "Southern strategy" collide with BP? Or, is the South still so racist that BP doesn't matter? Dumb fucks!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 1:29 AM    in reply to hychka

This is beyond the GOP Southern Strategy.

What they basically did, without actually using that phrase, was accuse Kagan of being a N lover.

It's reaching a point where my hatred for the John Bircher GOP makes me sick to my stomach and my hands clench into fists. You know that expression that if you're a Republican, only a dead girl or a live boy will end you? I'll take it one step further.

If you're a Republican nothing will end you. A dead girl will only mean she was asking for it. Especially if she's the wrong color.

I think I will soon have to take a break from politics as I'm losing my perspective. I know by wanting horrible things to happen to these GOPers and Rush and Glenn and whoever is unfortunate to be their family, I'm no better than those Obama haters that want to kill him. I live outside DC so local news can often be national news so escaping it is hard. But if I don't, I'm going to have bloody knuckles from punching the walls.

FYI, when I say Anti Obama people want to kill Obama, I do not mean the Obama haters here, so Lalo, Rutabega, Sailormarlowe and others. I'd like to think your hatred wouldn't lead you to murder and that you're sane.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 10:47 PM   

High-tech lynching for Marshall from the (Not-So-) Kloset Klansmen.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 11:07 PM   

I'm confused, do they like mainstream or not like mainstream?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 28, 2010 11:09 PM   

"Ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) criticized Kagan for having "associated herself with well-known activist judges who have used their power to redefine the meaning of our constitution and have the result of advancing that judge's preferred social policies.""

This is the first time I've heard that Kagan is associated with Scalia.

Scalia, of course, is the best-known activist judge, who has used his power to enforce strict literalism to advance his preferred social policies, even though the Founders enshrined a repudiation of literalism in the Ninth Amendment.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 12:10 AM   

I'm not sure why any but racism deniers are surprised by this.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

July 4, 2010 10:30 PM    in reply to sherifffruitfly

I agree with you 100% !!
http://www.bestlocksmithphoenix.com/

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 12:13 AM   

Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, who himself was rejected from a judgeship on the grounds of rascist remarks. His name says it all, an unreconstructed old line southern cracker.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 10:04 AM   

In GOP Bizzaro world, Ronald Reagan is a great statesman and Lincoln, as a Republican, freed the slaves. Seriously, don't you all who are old enough remember all the completely non-sensical and downright wrong things Reagan said every day?
Trashing Marshall (Thurgood not Josh) is more of the same re-writing of history.

I'm waiting for the first glimmer of their re-write of the GWB presidency, where they transform an ignorant C- alcoholic AWOL cowboy doofus national embarrassment crime-syndicate president into a perfect right-wing genius.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 10:06 AM   

Unfortunately, Kagan will do nothing to shift the ideology of what has become a corporate court. Only proven progressives can begin rolling back some of the misguided decisions from the court, such as Citizens United and the gun ruling.

http://www.facebook.com/campaigncorner

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 10:17 AM   

Sounds to me like the Repubs would like someone willing to repudiate Justice Marshall and overturn Brown v. Board of Education...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 11:19 AM   

The son of Justice Marshall said it best:

"If a senator wants to stand up and say they want to oppose desegregating the schools, they have that right"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 11:44 AM   

Hey, he's dead, so why not entirely misrepresent and rewrite the history surrounding his life? Uppity black folk holding positions of power in this country is proof that activists like Marshall are the worst thing to ever happen to us. Everyone knows we should have kept them minority bastards unedumacated and ignant so that even when they became the majority they'd be easily manipulated.

/end sarcasm
/begin vomit

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 12:11 PM   


Is anyone surprised? The drop outs of talk radio put out the talking points and the trick dogs in the Senate repeat them when they perform. If the Republicans didn’t use their talk radio issued dog whistles to use race as a way to advance their agenda they would be called to the steps of the talk radio temple where they would beg before millions on live AM radio not to be crucified. It’s pathetic, down on the plantation conservative political correctness.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 4:33 PM   

I have no idea what he'd say, but someone needs to get Michael Steele's take on the Republican versus Thurgood Marshall debate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 29, 2010 11:40 PM   

It seems to me Orrin Hatch, Jeff Sessions and other Republicans are using this hearing to score points with the Tea Party to circumvent being kicked out of office.
Also, Justice Stevens who just retired was appointed by Nixon who saw Stevens as being right-wing. Now, the Republicans say that Stevens is left-wing but what has happened is the the Supreme Court under Justice Black and Marshall was left of Justice Stevens making him, Stevens, seem "Right-wing" on issues. Since then the court has moved around to the extreme Right of Justice Stevens, making him seem "left-wing". But a review of his decisions show that Justice Stevens has been consistantly in the middle.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 30, 2010 10:31 AM   

Is There Judicial Activism?

If The US Constitution is not a living document and is properly read merely in "original intent", then I ask why those who believe that refuse to give the document the soul and spirit it deserves. The law is explicitly doctrinal that its letter is coupled with its spirit, the spirit of the law. Some will incorrectly read that as a deistic replacement. I condemn those believers and a plea for a full reading of The Preamble to The Constitution. The document's soul can be acknowledged without running afoul of the First Amendment.

Republicans' Kagan SCOTUS Hearing attacks on Thurgood Marshall as improperly activist fail to understand that Scalia is hyperactive in shutting down the spirit of the law, which I posit he does as if the spirit of the law is an attempt at some deistic replacement. Love the law, live the law, change the law when it is wrong, but please don't be so small minded as to believe The Constitution is a stagnant dead document.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on