TPMDC
GOPers Who Slammed Marshall's Activism Can't Name A Case Typifying It
Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Share
Send to a friend!
Republicans raised eyebrows yesterday when they criticized the first African-American Supreme Court justice, Thurgood Marshall, as a way to attack nominee Elena Kagan, his former clerk. One would think that, to avoid any appearance of racial dog-whistling, the senators attacking Marshall's record would be able to name the decisions or opinions with which they so vociferously disagreed.
After the hearing broke last night, TPMDC asked three of the top Republicans on the Judiciary Committee which of Marshall's opinions best exemplified his activism. And while two of the three were careful to praise Marshall the man, none of them could name a single case.
"You could name them," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). Pressed, though, he could not. "I'm not going to go into that right now, I'd be happy to do that later," Hatch demurred.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) claimed it wasn't about Marshall's jurisprudence at all, but rather about how Kagan, as his clerk, drove his work on the court behind the scenes. "I don't think it's cases, it's that she wasn't looking at a legal outcome, she was looking at a political philosophy: on which cases were accepted, and which weren't and the direction of those cases," Coburn said. "It isn't about Justice Marshall. It's about what she did in prepping him or advising him. It's not about his cases."
Ranking Member Jeff Sessions (R-AL) came closest to citing individual cases, though ultimately fell back on a generalization.
"Perhaps the most activist decision in history, or actually it wasn't a majority decision, was Brennan and Marshall dissenting in every death penalty case because they said the death penalty violated the constitution," Sessions claimed. "The only thing it violated was their idea of what good policy was. And they just dissented on every death penalty case. And said 'based on my view that it's cruel and unusual punishment.'"
By way of comparison, I asked him if yesterday's Supreme Court decision, throwing out a handgun ban in Chicago, amounted to judicial activism.
Sessions insisted it did not. "It violated the Constitution," Sessions said of the Chicago law.
How is that any different than Marshall dissenting in death penalty cases?
"Well, first you look at the Constitution as a whole....The Constitution says you can't inflict cruel and unusual punishment. Well, every state had the death penalty. It wasn't unusual. It has to be both."
Notwithstanding their disagreement with his service on the bench, both Sessions and Hatch prefaced their remarks by lauding Marshall as a civil rights hero,
"Marshall was a fabulous lawyer and a champion of civil rights," Sessions said.
"My feeling about Thurgood Marshall was that he was a great man. He wen through travails and problems that most of us never dream of," Hatch gushed. "He was a gutsy guy that risked his life time after time for his belief in civil rights, and I don't think it's right for anybody to criticize him. Now, was he an activist in his decision making? Yeah."
Comments (130) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
eratosthenes8
June 29, 2010 10:29 AM
Is this a serious comment?
The Republican party has been the greatest champion of blacks...who know their place, sit in the back of the bus and don't act all uppity.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brianm0122
June 29, 2010 11:01 AM in reply to eratosthenes8
And certainly don't get themselves elected President...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
June 29, 2010 11:46 AM in reply to eratosthenes8
"Dogwhistling? This thing marks the moment they traded the dogwhistle for a big, loud, shrill police whistle.
But that's okay. Still just a few fringe voices. McCain and Graham represent the mainstream of the party so it's only good, objective, responsible journalism not to even note things like this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
June 29, 2010 2:29 PM in reply to eratosthenes8
As a proud dark skin, might I add Eratosthenes8 speaks truth...
That is why Obama is such a sore in his side, I mean, yeah he is a mullato, but too dark to be left in the house, and too uppity to know his place.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
plaidsportcoat
June 29, 2010 9:10 PM in reply to eratosthenes8
They're going to confirm her anyway. This is simply their way to get the racists salivating for the coming election.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mJJ
July 8, 2010 4:35 PM in reply to plaidsportcoat
Amazing that folks who bleat about their religious correctness can make these comments about one of God's choice people. If any of these guys in my own party EVER made a well deserved compliment about Thurgood Marshall without a qualifier like Hatch's, I would faint dead away. These are pure racist Republicans and they NEVER represent my Republican thinking whatsoever.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsdc007
June 29, 2010 10:46 AM
The Three Grand Wizards are also the three Grand Morons.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
June 29, 2010 1:33 PM in reply to jsdc007
They're just doing their part to contribute to the daily stream of Hate & Stupid coming from the Party of No.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MikeNJ2010
July 5, 2010 12:56 PM in reply to jsdc007
Goon one!!!!
http://www.locksmithnewjersey.info/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Party
June 29, 2010 10:50 AM
moe, larry and curly of the GOP...three idiot stooges of wisdom and morals!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tinsk
June 29, 2010 11:23 AM in reply to Progressive Party
Sessions, Hatch and Coburn - The GOP Senatorial equivalent of Dewy, Cheatum & Howe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeaton
June 29, 2010 11:30 AM in reply to tinsk
Quite the brain trust, eh wot?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BearCreekMan
June 29, 2010 12:00 PM in reply to tinsk
That's a low-brow slight against the three greatest thinkers of my childhood!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
June 29, 2010 1:26 PM in reply to tinsk
LOVE that avatar...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
June 29, 2010 1:31 PM in reply to JEP07
tinsk...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
erica
June 29, 2010 6:32 PM in reply to Progressive Party
Hmm, I thought I added a comment here that our enemies are not stupid, but I guess it didn't come through.
I find it unsettling when stuff like this gets characterized as dumb or feckless. Sure, it's fun to laugh at the politicians who "can't" name a case that demonstrates their point, but shouldn't this headline really read "refuse to?" Because what happened didn't come from "dumb." Mean, wrong, deliberately incompetent, but not dumb in the usual sense....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
June 29, 2010 10:51 AM
Apparently teabaggerism has infected actual members of Congress - who needs "facts" when your gut tells you Marshall was a no-good liberal activist!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The BBQ Chicken Madness
June 29, 2010 10:53 AM
HOLY S**T.
Sessions' defense of why he thinks the death penalty is Constitutional is so beyond the pale it's flabbergasting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
yellowdogD
June 29, 2010 11:00 AM in reply to The BBQ Chicken Madness
By his reasoning, executing someone by slowly putting him through a meat grinder would be OK. Cruel, maybe, but not unusual as long as most states did it that way.
The man is a joke. Actually, he's right up there with Cantor and Miss McConnell at triggering my gag reflex whenever I hear him speak.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
June 29, 2010 12:43 PM in reply to yellowdogD
I agree. That is the single most outrageous comment in this whole article. THAT's why it is OK to waterboard -- it might be cruel, but we've done it so often by now that it's no longer "unusual."
I think the Good Ole' Boys need to go back to the capital punishment the Founding Fathers used, because the first time they used the electric chair, for example, it WAS unusual. And I don't think anyone can argue it isn't cruel to electrocute someone.
It's cruel to stick needles in someone, too. So the current "humane" way to kill people has to go.
Back to hanging or firing squads it is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
worthy9
June 29, 2010 1:20 PM in reply to Cal Gal
Dude. Seriously. I was shocked to read that part. The amazing thing is that, by arguing that it has to be both cruel and unusual, he's admitting that the punishment is cruel in his own mind. Yet, he's fought for keeping it; he's a proponent for a punishment he himself believes it cruel and isn't ashamed to say it.
I'm gonna take a break from politics today. I feel ill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
June 29, 2010 1:30 PM in reply to worthy9
...leave it to those brainless founders to leave out the "/or" behind the "and", in "cruel and unusual," if they had only been more specific, the likes of Sessions wouldn't be able to pick them apart for his own agenda.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ivo
June 30, 2010 1:56 AM in reply to JEP07
I think the lack of specificity is pervasive and deliberate. This is why we have courts. What Republicans always characterize as "activism" is actually just the courts doing what they're supposed to be doing
The end of this article is most telling.
By way of comparison, I asked him if yesterday's Supreme Court decision, throwing out a handgun ban in Chicago, amounted to judicial activism.
Sessions insisted it did not. "It violated the Constitution," Sessions said of the Chicago law.
How is that any different than Marshall dissenting in death penalty cases?
"Well, first you look at the Constitution as a whole....The Constitution says you can't inflict cruel and unusual punishment. Well, every state had the death penalty. It wasn't unusual. It has to be both."
Sessions is engaging in what the Supreme Court engages in, interpretation of the law based on an interpretation of the Constitution. He says it in a very self-assured way, in a way that says "I know I'm right" but that doesn't change the fact that the 2nd amendment is just as unclear as the 8th.
In Sessions' world it's only activism if he disagrees with it. I'm not a big Kagan fan, but the GOP is off the fucking rails.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
An Outhouse
June 29, 2010 11:52 AM in reply to The BBQ Chicken Madness
When an announcer says 'ladies and gentlemen .." he's addressing only the hermaphrodites in the audience.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
caseynm
June 29, 2010 12:33 PM in reply to An Outhouse
Actually, a conjunction ('and') does call for both parts of the conjunct to be true (though not necessarily of the same item).
What's really at issue is Sessions' seemingly willful misuse of 'unusual'. He seems to think 'unusual' in the constitutional context means simply "rarely or not frequently practiced", whereas it actually seems to mean more than that, something like ""rarely or not frequently practiced because it is unacceptable to the average person".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tezcat
June 29, 2010 1:29 PM in reply to An Outhouse
Since it's ladies (plural) and gentlemen (plural) it's only referring to hermaphrodite conjoined twins.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
June 29, 2010 1:55 PM in reply to tezcat
or some chimera character...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
June 29, 2010 5:34 PM in reply to JEP07
Yeah, I saw that CSI episode. Weird....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steaming Pile
June 29, 2010 12:47 PM in reply to The BBQ Chicken Madness
So if the Iranians or the Taliban or the North Koreans do a particular form of torture, it's not "unusual" and therefore constitutional. Glad that was cleared up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ariuszme
June 29, 2010 1:38 PM in reply to The BBQ Chicken Madness
I recently corrected a republican who used the term "flabbergasted" when describing his fumbling around. I explained to him the true definition, and then suggested he meant to use the term "discombobulated". He looked at me with great wonderment and confusion...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
June 29, 2010 10:54 AM
What a joke.
I honestly suspect Hatch might have actually voted to confirm Marshall - but no way in hell Sessions would have, so he can save his spiel.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
vasu
June 29, 2010 10:55 AM
It's amazing to hear these people call anyone an activist judge considering the crap coming out of Supreme Court. Which seems to be turning back the hands of time. Look out 50's here we come!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Avvocato
June 29, 2010 11:10 AM in reply to vasu
1850's
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mom, Esq.
June 29, 2010 11:32 AM in reply to Avvocato
1750s
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
June 29, 2010 1:25 PM in reply to Mom, Esq.
2050? Lets hope not...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
June 29, 2010 1:37 PM in reply to JEP07
Idiocracy isn't 500 years out. We'll have it in 40 years or less.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
June 29, 2010 4:13 PM in reply to jeffgee
We have it now. Bush v Gore was the birth of the Empire of Assholes.
Corporations are people? Do they have bellybuttons?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
vasu
June 29, 2010 11:34 AM in reply to Avvocato
Watch out women.. Your right to vote may be next!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
davewtf
June 29, 2010 12:29 PM in reply to vasu
Which I'm sure would make the likes of Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin VERY happy!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SilvestriWoman
June 29, 2010 1:16 PM in reply to vasu
Damn skippy!!! It's past time that we understand that my gender's place is in the home, following the directives of her husband. While we're at it, let's not forget that disobedient children should be stoned to death. Back to the Bible, folks!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jonez
June 29, 2010 11:58 AM in reply to vasu
and civil rights won't apply in private businesses.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ugot2bkidnme
June 29, 2010 10:56 AM
Man!!! I can't believe what I just read. I know politicians try to have it both ways, but these guys are amazing. Sessions cites a unique interpretation of cruel and unusual punishment, Coburn maintains that law clerks drive SCOTUS case selection and manipulate court decisions and Hatch makes an acrobat look uncoordinated. Whew, I must be getting old. Maybe one of the wingnuts can help me understand. Are these guys serious or are they trying to be comedians??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Decider
June 29, 2010 11:22 AM in reply to Ugot2bkidnme
We is always serious. But don't call me Shirley.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ugot2bkidnme
June 29, 2010 11:27 AM in reply to The Decider
I wouldn't think of calling you Shirley. Unless you wearing a pant suit!! (:>)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benintn
June 29, 2010 12:02 PM in reply to Ugot2bkidnme
So much for being "pro-life". Sessions thinks state killing is ok ... that's not consistent with an ethic of pro-life.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TeddyKGB
June 29, 2010 10:59 AM
"I can't give you individual cases until the think tanks and Fox News come up with the talking points."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ariuszme
June 29, 2010 1:44 PM in reply to TeddyKGB
^^^^ ding ding ding ding
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
June 29, 2010 1:58 PM in reply to ariuszme
lets watch the news and see what they come up with... sure is disgusting how they use the ambiguity of language itself to promote and defend their prejudices.
No wonder they were so upset with Bill Clinton's "is" polka in the Monica debacle, he was playing their favorite tune.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Backcountry
June 29, 2010 11:03 AM
So the Keebler elf, whose own nomination for a federal judgeship was derailed when he was shown to be a bona fide racist, thinks a common but cruel punishment is legally OK.
That would seem to clear the way for certain defendants to be dragged along behind a car until they were dead (insert your own torture method here) -- as long as most or all other states had the same punishment. And the elf is the best the Rethugs have on the Judiciary Committee?
Well, it doesn't surprise me that none of them can cite a case they disagree with. The Rethugs will say anything at any time. It doesn't need to be based in fact or backed up with reasonable logic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
vasu
June 29, 2010 11:30 AM in reply to Backcountry
Keebler Elf!! I thought that last night too when watching him talk. I was wondering who was tending the cookies!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
June 29, 2010 1:35 PM in reply to vasu
Please!
...elves are GOOD little people, lets not trash them now, OK?
Sessions is more of a troll than an elf.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
vasu
June 29, 2010 1:52 PM in reply to JEP07
Not all Elf's are good. Some are evil mischievous turds. I think sessions fits into that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
June 29, 2010 1:59 PM in reply to vasu
Evil Elves?
I thought those were Orks?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
worthy9
June 29, 2010 2:22 PM in reply to JEP07
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svart%C3%A1lfar
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brianm0122
June 29, 2010 11:06 AM
Ummm, does "Brown vs. Board of Education" mean anything? Didn't he work that case?
It doesn't have anything to do with "Judicial Activism" or the death penalty, it is about re-writing history and thrashing Marshall.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
June 29, 2010 12:06 PM in reply to brianm0122
Yes, he did. But even this trifecta of racist douchebags realizes that openly pulling a George Wallace and cheering for segregation isn't acceptable nowadays, thus they just throw around "activist judge" and leave it to the base to figure out what they mean. See also "Obama isn't a *real* 'Merican" and deriviatives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hipployta
June 29, 2010 1:30 PM in reply to brianm0122
Brown v Board doesn't count since he was lawyer arguing it and not a Justice...at least not for examples of judicial activism by whatever weird metric they're using today
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
June 29, 2010 4:49 PM in reply to brianm0122
Lawyers argue on behalf of their client. It's the law and a pillar our judicial system.
His role in BvBOE does not constitute judicial activism since he wasn't a judge.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
June 29, 2010 5:37 PM in reply to brianm0122
And yes, it's all about the Brown decision. These clowns cannot even come out and say they are racist,segregationist crackers. But they sure as Hell are!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
June 29, 2010 5:45 PM in reply to brianm0122
Jeff Sessions thinks that the "Brown" in Brown v Board of Education actually referred to Thurgood Marshall. It's kind of like how he thinks that the UPS "What Can Brown Do For You" ads were actually campaign ads for President Obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SeaRod
June 29, 2010 11:08 AM
The phrase "Any of 'em... All of em..." springs to mind.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
June 29, 2010 12:49 PM in reply to SeaRod
Good analogy. The brain-deadness of the wacko right is a serious threat to our nation's governance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skalite
June 29, 2010 11:09 AM
I don't know, I tend to discount this type of thing. I couldn't, off the top of my head, come up with any quotes from Bill O'Reilly that I disagree with. That's not to say there aren't tons, but I don't really concern myself with them that I keep them in my head, even if I were to criticize O'Reilly. 5 min. with Google would provide me with a plethora, and I'd give them the benefit of the doubt that the same holds true for these guys and Marshall's decisions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
HusseinTenaX
June 29, 2010 11:19 AM in reply to Skalite
Well, if you were going to use O'Reilly as an example in a Congressional hearing, it would behoove you to have something concrete to use - instead of just a general "he lies." He does, but you'd need real examples to make your point.
Get it?
If Congressmen and women are going to use a Supreme Court Justice and his decisions as examples of something they disapprove of, don't they need to know what the hell they are talking about?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tinsk
June 29, 2010 11:31 AM in reply to HusseinTenaX
You would think, wouldn't you!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
June 29, 2010 12:51 PM in reply to tinsk
But you would be wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eric the red
June 29, 2010 11:22 AM in reply to Skalite
These guys are lawyers and they sit on the Judiciary committee of the US Senate. They should be able to name some cases.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RDT
June 29, 2010 11:33 AM in reply to Skalite
Yes, but if you were going to spend the afternoon attacking Bill O'Reilly in a Senate hearing, you would probably anticipate, and prepare for, a reporter to ask you about specifics.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thezeldavross
June 29, 2010 1:19 PM in reply to Skalite
Billo is NOT a paid government employee, these men are! It is their job to be prepared to answer questions about their statements. I for one would like to see them earn their huge paychecks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hank
June 29, 2010 2:26 PM in reply to Skalite
Yeah but you are not a Senator in a hearing for a Supreme Court lifetime appointment. They have 2 or 3 million dollars worth of staff to prep them, not to mention, it's their job.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SavannahGA
June 29, 2010 11:10 AM
I'm off this week & watching the Kagan hearings- do any of the Repubs (including Sessions, Hatch, & Coburn) have a clue as to how they're coming off on the tv?
Even my Repub relatives looked at a highlight replay after their anniversary bbq dinner last night & wondered whatthehell Sessions et al. think they are accomplishing with the Marshall tack.
The rest of us chorused in, "Sound bites."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
biff diggerence
June 29, 2010 11:16 AM
See Photos above (from left):
1. Senator from a Theocratic State
2. Clueless F**king Okie
3. Slaveholder
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
enzo1990
June 29, 2010 11:20 AM
So cruel is ok if "everybody does it"? Amazing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aq
June 29, 2010 11:30 AM in reply to enzo1990
it has to fit BOTH definitions, because, as you know, the constitution is gospel... the thought of which blows my mind on how the fundamental concept that 'word is law', 'word is absolute', 'word is immutable' just wrenches everything.
newsflash. this game of telephone sucks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
billpaustin
June 29, 2010 11:32 AM
It's really just a simple binary decision tree.
If (President Obama nominated) == true
then resistance := on;
end.
Don't try to clutter it all up with questions about facts and whatnot, those don't come into play.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aq
June 29, 2010 11:45 AM in reply to billpaustin
If (Democrats are In Charge == true ){
resistance = on;}
else {
alert("Cry for Partisanship, Bitch when you don't get it");}
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aq
June 29, 2010 11:46 AM in reply to aq
*Bipartisanship.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sheerahkahn
June 29, 2010 11:40 AM
I think that we can finally put to rest the question of whether or not the Republican party is a collection of rich, racist, and fascist asshats...give them a microphone, and they remove all doubt.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
realist
June 29, 2010 11:42 AM
"I'll try to find ya some and I'll bring 'em to ya!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ytbP7YMYZM
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LeaningLeft
June 29, 2010 11:43 AM
Looking at the picture above, I think Orrin Hatch just might be Jeff Sessions from 15 years in the future.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
realist
June 29, 2010 11:46 AM
"I'll try to find ya some and I'll bring 'em to ya!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ytbP7YMYZM
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
booch221
June 29, 2010 11:47 AM
What about Roe v Wade? How did Marshall vote?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eric the red
June 29, 2010 12:01 PM in reply to booch221
Roe v. Wade was 7-2. Marshall voted the right way, with the majority. Rehnquist and White dissented.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
toomuchpr
June 29, 2010 11:53 AM
The Senate needs a delay of game penalty and these three should have to sit in the penalty box for the next four votes so we can get some legislation passed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
benintn
June 29, 2010 12:00 PM
So wait... the Death Penalty isn't cruel and unusual punishment? If killing someone isn't cruel, then what is?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShawnATL
June 29, 2010 12:49 PM in reply to benintn
Says Braniac #3 - Sen. Sessions: "The Constitution says you can't inflict cruel and unusual punishment. Well, every state had the death penalty. It wasn't unusual. It has to be both."
The logic literally hurts my head. This is why I can't get my head around databases. All those and's and or's...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tony C
June 29, 2010 12:09 PM
Roe v. Wade
Majority: Blackmun, Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell
Dissent: White, Rehnquist
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
June 29, 2010 12:11 PM
The amount of things conservatives have to make up in their heads to maintain their rage is amazing. Always generalization, never actual examples. That's why I always say you can't debate people who refuse to acknowledge empirical fact or make common cause. The future holds nothing but confrontation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
biff diggerence
June 29, 2010 12:18 PM
Rehnquist
(speaking of slaveholders)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Doc Magnus
June 29, 2010 12:28 PM
I think the vast majority of Americans would support the Freakostates Secessionistas if the movement came along with shutting off federal tax dollars to those who want to go their own way. Here's how it starts:
Dear Texas,
Thank you for being part of our Union. Now that you have made other plans, we'd like you to return the Houston Space Center, all your interstate highways, Fort Bliss, Fort Hood, the Kingsville Naval Air Station ...
You get the idea.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Doc Magnus
June 29, 2010 12:30 PM in reply to Doc Magnus
Apology -- clicked the wrong story.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
June 29, 2010 12:46 PM
Reasoning like Sessions' shows just how right the Democrats were to refuse him a lifetime appointment as a federal judge. It's a travesty that this idiot is their top gun on the judiciary committee.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
June 29, 2010 12:50 PM
Well, he was 'actively' black.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tctundra
June 29, 2010 12:50 PM
A Justice dissenting because in their opinion a ruling is unconstitutional is not "activism." It's EXACTLY the reason the Supreme Court exists.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
June 29, 2010 12:54 PM in reply to tctundra
I don't think "activism" (to the Republicans) means what you think it means.
To the GOOPs, "activism" means coming up with a decision they don't like. See Citizens United as an example.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tamiasmin
June 29, 2010 1:34 PM in reply to tctundra
The obvious solution to activist dissent is a one-justice Supreme Court, although I suppose activist self-dissent would still be possible: "On the one hand ... but on the other hand."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jberry
June 29, 2010 1:02 PM
The Democrats need to jump on this. With their typical cynicism, the GOP is trying to draw some connection between Kagan and Thurgood Marshall - it is, as many have pointed out, a bizarre strategy. With this connection having been made, the Democrats now need to make it clear than any GOP Senator who votes against Kagan would also have voted against Marshall. It is interesting to note that, when asked if he would have voted to confirm Marshall, Orrin Hatch said: "Well, its hard to say." Hatch should be pressed on this - with access to an enormous amount of information about Marshall's judicial philosophy, it shouldn't be hard to say whether or not someone would vote to confirm him, knowing what we know. The only reason he equivocated is, obviously, he recognizes the political downside to admitting that he wouldn't vote to confirm. But that is the problem with GOP hostility to everything Obama, and it needs to be exposed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
June 29, 2010 1:18 PM in reply to Jberry
Good point. We only have the mans actual judicial record on the Supreme Court, ruling on landmark cases for a quarter of a century. How much more explicit a thing than the actual record of his work on the SCOTUS to know whether or not you would have confirmed someone if you had had the vote?
Good grief.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tamiasmin
June 29, 2010 1:51 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
Post-mortem confirmation. Great idea! And best of all, you don't need Congressional hearings.
What is the point of holding hearings if a chap like Hatch finds it "hard to say" how he would vote even when he has a person's entire public record from cradle to grave?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
June 29, 2010 1:38 PM in reply to Jberry
"trying to draw some connection between Kagan and Thurgood Marshall"
good example of the divide we all suffer... As a progressive, I think the is a super-plus for Kagan.
Yet someone from south of the Mason Dixon line who supports the likes of Sessions would consider it a "black mark" on her record.
All symbolism intended...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
counter coulter
June 29, 2010 4:59 PM in reply to JEP07
South of the Mason-Dixon line? You mean like someone from Washington D.C.? ;)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BrightLightsBigCity
June 29, 2010 1:07 PM
The GOP is still upset over Haynesworth, Carswell, andBork, not to mention the womens' right to vote, Brown, one man one vote, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thezeldavross
June 29, 2010 1:14 PM
Once a racist sore loser, always a racist sore loser!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
neesy08
June 29, 2010 1:20 PM
here is why;
1. he's black
2. he's a democrat
3. he's a blackman that was articulate
4. he's a black man that stood up to their racism
5. he supported poor people
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
HusseinTenaX
June 29, 2010 1:27 PM in reply to neesy08
Yes yes yes yes yes, and yes that's why they don't like him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
HusseinTenaX
June 29, 2010 1:29 PM
Can anyone at all explain to me how the hell these know-nothing, do-nothing fools are polling ahead of Congressional Democrats?
Anyone? Buehler?
It frakking defies the imagination!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hank
June 29, 2010 2:36 PM in reply to HusseinTenaX
Sure, a lot of voters don't know who they are voting for, or why they are voting. As to why that is, I believe it's the human condition. Most people are not very smart.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
counter coulter
June 29, 2010 5:20 PM in reply to HusseinTenaX
It's the same reason that my state's 6th district keeps electing Michelle Bachmann -- the district is so gerrymandered that they would vote for a ham sandwich as long as it has an R after it's name. Regardless of how bat-shit crazy the R is, they're obviously better then some damn, dirty liberal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ariuszme
June 29, 2010 1:30 PM
They did that and couldn't name any because they are all scumbags. Republicans plain and simple, are scumbags.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jberry
June 29, 2010 1:47 PM
The Democrats need to jump on this. With their typical cynicism, the GOP is trying to draw some connection between Kagan and Thurgood Marshall - it is, as many have pointed out, a bizarre strategy. With this connection having been made, the Democrats now need to make it clear than any GOP Senator who votes against Kagan would also have voted against Marshall. It is interesting to note that, when asked if he would have voted to confirm Marshall, Orrin Hatch said: "Well, its hard to say." Hatch should be pressed on this - with access to an enormous amount of information about Marshall's judicial philosophy, it shouldn't be hard to say whether or not someone would vote to confirm him, knowing what we know. The only reason he equivocated is, obviously, he recognizes the political downside to admitting that he wouldn't vote to confirm. But that is the problem with GOP hostility to everything Obama, and it needs to be exposed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jberry
June 29, 2010 1:48 PM
The Democrats need to jump on this. With their typical cynicism, the GOP is trying to draw some connection between Kagan and Thurgood Marshall - it is, as many have pointed out, a bizarre strategy. With this connection having been made, the Democrats now need to make it clear than any GOP Senator who votes against Kagan would also have voted against Marshall. It is interesting to note that, when asked if he would have voted to confirm Marshall, Orrin Hatch said: "Well, its hard to say." Hatch should be pressed on this - with access to an enormous amount of information about Marshall's judicial philosophy, it shouldn't be hard to say whether or not someone would vote to confirm him, knowing what we know. The only reason he equivocated is, obviously, he recognizes the political downside to admitting that he wouldn't vote to confirm. But that is the problem with GOP hostility to everything Obama, and it needs to be exposed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
decisivemoment
June 29, 2010 2:04 PM
Now that they're so obviously a bunch of third-rate automatons that take their marching orders from Rush Limbaugh and the ghost of Richard Nixon, surely the Democrats can brush them aside with one lash of their tongue. Surely?
Oh well, it is the Democrats we're talking about. But really, if ever there was an opportunity to expose the Republicans for the obstructionist, nihilist, reactionary racists that they are, this is it. It would be good for the Democrats in the short run to enable them to get on with the business of governing and solving problems -- and good for this country in the long run for this rancid baggage to be cast off from the right and sensible conservatism to take hold.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tommyo
June 29, 2010 2:04 PM
"And while two of the three were careful to praise Marshall the man, none of them could name a single case."
They don't have to and they, as opposed to the clueless Democrats, KNOW IT. Just watch the Democrats tremble and appease these thugs.
As usual the GOP is playing hardball while the Democrats aren't even playing softball, it's more like wiffle ball.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
June 29, 2010 3:06 PM in reply to tommyo
In other words, you wish Democrats were republicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lucieann
June 29, 2010 2:16 PM
SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagan proves over and over how much smarter she is than these guys!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sean
June 29, 2010 2:24 PM
That these craven men dare approach the judicial hem of Marshall's robes with their tiddilies and their winks...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
booch221
June 29, 2010 3:27 PM
It's like Sarah Palin not remembering the SC Exxon Valdez opinion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Donald from Hawaii
June 29, 2010 3:56 PM
The gentleman cracker from Alabama is in dire need of a civics lesson.
Last I heard, there are 15 states that have outlawed capital punishment: Alaska, Hawaii, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, West Virginia, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, Massachusetts and Maine. That's 30% of the total.
Hawaii has been a state since 1959, and hasn't had the death penalty in its statutes since way back when the islands were a U.S. territory. The last inmate executed by hanging was in 1946. Incidentally, all inmates executed by the white-dominated Territory of Hawaii between the years of 1900 (when U.S. annexation took effect) and 1959 (when Hawaii became a state), with one exception, were non-white.
The territorial legislature formally outlawed the barbaric practice in 1957, first by passing the measure and then by returning in special session to override the veto of then-Gov. Samuel W. King, who was a Republican presidential appointee (territories back then were not allowed to elect their own governors).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Yash
June 29, 2010 4:15 PM
Clearly they were referring to Brown v. Board of Education, but it isn't socially acceptable anymore to be an openly racist fuck, so now they have to closet themselves.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sherifffruitfly
June 29, 2010 4:46 PM
I know why. But we're not allowed to call white folks racist, so I can't say why.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
June 29, 2010 9:21 PM
"The Constitution says you can't inflict cruel and unusual punishment. Well, every state had the death penalty. It wasn't unusual. It has to be both."
So, according to Sessions, the Constitution allows cruel punishment, as long as everybody does it? At what point does that kick in?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
June 29, 2010 11:53 PM
These hearings clearly demonstrate the biggest threat to American democracy is old white confederates.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trkingmomoe
June 30, 2010 3:49 AM
I hope they have their tinfoil hats on. There is going to be more blow back from their racial nonsense then they could imagine. These guys really look nutty and not too bright. They are so sure the majority of this country agrees with them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
reetwow
June 30, 2010 8:45 AM
LOL, of course they cant, they never can!
Lou
www.anon-surfing.at.tc
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rain39
July 2, 2010 10:49 AM
The Republicans need to read this discussion if only to learn how to have an intelligent discussion based in facts, not primarily flame throwing spiced with a minimum of snark.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnPhoenix2010
July 3, 2010 8:51 PM
We all "Understand" the GOP resistance for the new Judge, but slamming her nomination, on a false ground, is a bit to much !!
http://www.bestlocksmithphoenix.com/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?