Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

John Yoo will be the next GOP Supreme Court Nominee


Fergasun

Recommended Posts

With what looks like the fait accompil nomination of Elena Kagan, it appears that we have tread new ground with Supreme Court nominees. One can now become a nominee having spent a majority of time in government working as a political adviser. Elena Kagan's record from the White House deeply troubled me. However, her record wasn't much of a factor or concern for either party. In fact, I think the GOP did an exceptionally weak job at opposing her or bringing out my concerns.

So now I make a prediction for the next GOP Supreme Court nominee. They will nominate John Yoo, as the first Asian Supreme Court Justice. Yoo has excellent legal credentials, like Kagan; has written 3 books, and is a law professor. He clerked for Justice Thomas, and was general counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He has eminent credentials as a law professor at UCB.

There is now no reason for Democrats to raise any complaint, should Yoo be nominated to the Supreme Court in the future (he'll be 50 in 2017).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yoo will never ever become a Supreme Court justice. Never, Ever... EVER.

Why? Because the man is without morals or principle and has been exposed as someone who also lacks respect for the law. Yoo, like Bork; was a credentialed man, who got good grades in school. Problem is without the respect of your peers, that's not enough to sell yourself as someone who has an opinion that matters. Yoo, as Bork before him used their understanding of the law to twist it against any reasonable interpretations that the writers of the laws would recognize. This in an effort to curt favor with misguided Presidents.

Bork did so with Nixon.... Nixon told his attorney general (Elliot L. Richardson ) to fire the special prosecutor (Archibald Cox) investigating Watergate. When he refused Nixon fired him, and hired a second man (Deputy Attorney General William D. Ruckelshaus) who also refused and was fired. then Nixon hired Bork, who fired Archibald Cox as his first official act in office. Disgraceful... an act of corruption so blatant that nobody on the right or left could stomach them..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/102173-2.htm

Yoo's offenses were equally disgraceful. Writing a legal opinion to change the popular interpretation of the word torture to circumvent the Law. Then crafting out how illegal his first opinion was, and how the administration could defend themselves against future imminent legal challenges once out of office and out of power by claiming ignorance.... Then the idiot put the entire thing in a memo so crass that it was leaked to the press and blew up in his face along with his attorney generals.

Nobody needs a Supreme Court justice intent on pandering to the powers that be. Nobody. Not the right or the left. That's why Yoo will never reach the court and is lucky he had Tenure at Berkley before he went into politics or he wouldn't even have that job. It's also why Bork lost his shot at the court which once seemed like such a sure thing.

Kagan's record as associate white house council wasn't brought up all that much because she didn't write all that many controversial opionions. She certainly didn't give a legal opinion that she could ignore the United States Laws she didn't like, or overturn 100 years of precedent.

Fact is Kagan as Dean of Harvard was a Republican conservative darling. As a moderate she recognized there were too many liberals at Harvard, and led a charge to recruit conservatives to balance the scales... well more balance the scales anyway. Republicans loved her for that.

It's hard to light fire to folks who you think would do a decent job on the bench just because it's politically expedient.... Bush did that kind of stuff, and the country took note and punished the GOP for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The GOP didnt fight it because their FU is weak.

She is qualified and she will answer the question correctly. Even if they released some of the documents?

Elections have consequences and President Obama has the right to appoint the supreme court justice.

IF this was a squishy replacing a neocon then there would be chaos!!! Chaos!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a big difference between being a behind-the-scenes adviser in the Clinton White House and writing the most infamous government legal memo in recent history. Republicans would have to be idiots to try to nominate John Yoo.

...Bush did try to nominate someone from the exact same position as Kagan though - Harriet Miers was the White House Counsel when Bush nominated her for the Supreme Court. Rehnquist was probably the most political of recent Justices, having worked in the Goldwater campaign and coming to Washington to join Nixon's Justice Department before being nominated to the Supreme Court.

Politicians have always been eligible to be nominated to the Supreme Court, but you can't have a scandal like a torture memo hanging over your head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With what looks like the fait accompil nomination of Elena Kagan, it appears that we have tread new ground with Supreme Court nominees. One can now become a nominee having spent a majority of time in government working as a political adviser. Elena Kagan's record from the White House deeply troubled me. However, her record wasn't much of a factor or concern for either party. In fact, I think the GOP did an exceptionally weak job at opposing her or bringing out my concerns.

So now I make a prediction for the next GOP Supreme Court nominee. They will nominate John Yoo, as the first Asian Supreme Court Justice. Yoo has excellent legal credentials, like Kagan; has written 3 books, and is a law professor. He clerked for Justice Thomas, and was general counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He has eminent credentials as a law professor at UCB.

There is now no reason for Democrats to raise any complaint, should Yoo be nominated to the Supreme Court in the future (he'll be 50 in 2017).

First of all, Ginsburg will retire before Obama is out so that another "liberal" is placed on the SC. Second of all, after that happens, I think it could very well be another 20 years until someone is replaced on the bench.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With what looks like the fait accompil nomination of Elena Kagan, it appears that we have tread new ground with Supreme Court nominees. One can now become a nominee having spent a majority of time in government working as a political adviser. Elena Kagan's record from the White House deeply troubled me. However, her record wasn't much of a factor or concern for either party. In fact, I think the GOP did an exceptionally weak job at opposing her or bringing out my concerns.

So now I make a prediction for the next GOP Supreme Court nominee. They will nominate John Yoo, as the first Asian Supreme Court Justice. Yoo has excellent legal credentials, like Kagan; has written 3 books, and is a law professor. He clerked for Justice Thomas, and was general counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He has eminent credentials as a law professor at UCB.

There is now no reason for Democrats to raise any complaint, should Yoo be nominated to the Supreme Court in the future (he'll be 50 in 2017).

This was not a very well-thought out post.

The only thing that Dems theoretically wouldn't be able to complain about would be the fact that he wasn't a judge. Everything else is fair game. I won't pile on, but like other said: torture memo, Harriet Myers, etc. Everyone has their own threshold to exceed.

"No reason to raise any complaint"? You couldn't be more wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's a nice fantasy, but this nomination doesn't give republicans any more future carte blanche than they would have assumed anyway.

historically, 41 of the 109 supreme court justices have had no prior experience as a judge. panic over that issue falls into two camps: GOP politicians cynically pandering to their base, and people who simply don't know better.

in addition, most supreme court judges DID hold political positions prior to their nomination, and the ones that were in private practice prior to their nomination were usually only there because their party was not in power.

elena kagan is in no way an unusual or risky nominee, or any kind of outlier. just look at how half-hearted the GOP opposition is. at the moment, the GOP is feeling much more emboldened than it has in several years, and yet they can't really muster any serious bluster here. if there was any raw meat, they'd be all over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

elena kagan is in no way an unusual or risky nominee, or any kind of outlier. just look at how half-hearted the GOP opposition is. at the moment, the GOP is feeling much more emboldened than it has in several years, and yet they can't really muster any serious bluster here. if there was any raw meat, they'd be all over it.

This is the answer. The more histrionic parts of the GOP base have tried to make her nomination the crisis of the day, but it hasn't worked, because at the bottom line, she really isn't controversial at all.

The GOP understands this, and they know that her confirmation is a done deal. They are making the "constitutionalist" speeches and asking the questions that the Tea Partiers want to hear, but not actually trying to defeat the nomination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of you in an uproar over Yoo didn't look at Kagan's past. I don't object to what she did as White House Counsel; I object to the fact that she was a policy adviser. Of course, the fact that we just finished her hearings and no one made a peep about her job at the Clinton White House, which was the most interesting part of her record leaves me skeptical about the brainpower of Republicans. There were thousands upon thousands of documents to go through.

There were a number of issues to ask her about:

- Federalism, such as did she think that it would be okay to create a national nanny registry

- Her view that the Executive Branch could pre-empt states via Executive Order (later this was overturned in a 2006 Supreme Court case)

- Her role in the tobacco settlement and why she advised people in the White House to avoid calling "penalties" "look backs".

Finally, when discussing look-backs, Elena again stressed the need to call the look-back payments “surcharges” and not penalties. All members are urged to avoid the expression “penalties” in an attempt to preserve their long-term success in expected litigation.

My point in bringing up Yoo, is that if not Yoo than we'll get some other obscure Republican lawyer (how about the guy who authored the Patriot Act, Viet Dinh, he's qualified). And the left will have little right to complain about his background and his involvement in shadiness

I'd have been all for Obama nominating a judge, even the most "radical liberal activist" judge but to nominate a political insider, someone who is more of a political insider than anyone ever nominated to the Supreme Court... well, it's galling and deserves at least one person screaming about it like me. I even wouldn't have minded it if Kagan went on a lower circuit court... but to put her straight on the Supreme Court, and nary a complaint from anyone about her lack of experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have been all for Obama nominating a judge, even the most "radical liberal activist" judge but to nominate a political insider, someone who is more of a political insider than anyone ever nominated to the Supreme Court...

I'm not tring to be hostile, but you keep beating this drum and you really don't seem know what you are talking about. Go look up the background of Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist. He was the ultimate insider in the Nixon Administration. Or for that matter, look up former Chief Justice Earl Warren. He was the Governor of California.

A few years of legal service in a political role is not "shadiness," and has never been seen as a disqualification for anyone to a judicial position. That is why the GOP has not harped on it. Not because they wouldn't jump on any opportunity to oppose the nomination if they could.

And no matter how you cut it, the former Dean of Harvard Law School and current Solicitor General of the United States is not some "obscure" lawyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of you in an uproar over Yoo didn't look at Kagan's past. I don't object to what she did as White House Counsel; I object to the fact that she was a policy adviser. .

I don't think this is true. I only watched a few hours of the day one, but on that day she was asked directly about when she would recuse herself and the question had a follow-up about which both indirectly and directly addressed her past affiliations working for administrations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of you in an uproar over Yoo didn't look at Kagan's past. I don't object to what she did as White House Counsel; I object to the fact that she was a policy adviser. Of course, the fact that we just finished her hearings and no one made a peep about her job at the Clinton White House, which was the most interesting part of her record leaves me skeptical about the brainpower of Republicans. There were thousands upon thousands of documents to go through.
I can guarantee you that they went through those documents. Maybe they just didn't think they were a big deal?
My point in bringing up Yoo, is that if not Yoo than we'll get some other obscure Republican lawyer (how about the guy who authored the Patriot Act, Viet Dinh, he's qualified). And the left will have little right to complain about his background and his involvement in shadiness.
That's where you'd be completely wrong because, as you point out, it's not like Kagan is going to be confirmed over Republican objections about shadiness. Republicans haven't said anything about shadiness (because it's not a big deal).

On the other hand, liberals have been consistently criticizing John Yoo (and to a lesser extent, Viet Dinh). If he were nominated, it would be a ****storm like you wouldn't believe. Kagan was a political insider, sure, but Yoo was a political insider who is seen as the enabler of some of the most reprehensible acts in recent history. There is nothing that was done during the Clinton Administration that isas polarizing as torture.

I'd have been all for Obama nominating a judge, even the most "radical liberal activist" judge but to nominate a political insider, someone who is more of a political insider than anyone ever nominated to the Supreme Court... well, it's galling and deserves at least one person screaming about it like me.
I don't think you understand what Rehnquist did in the years leading up to his nomination.

Heck, the most famous Supreme Court Justice of them all, John Marshall, was a Congressman and Secretary of State, and he was a member of the envoy to France involved in the XYZ Affair.

http://www.lva.virginia.gov/exhibits/marshall/

Sandra Day O'Connor was the majority leader of the Arizona Senate before becoming an (elected) judge in Arizona.

I even wouldn't have minded it if Kagan went on a lower circuit court... but to put her straight on the Supreme Court, and nary a complaint from anyone about her lack of experience.
Your outrage really doesn't make any sense.

We have had many other Justices that were much more outspokenly political than Kagan ever was. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the chief litigator of the ACLU's women's rights project before joining the federal bench. Thurgood Marshall was Chief Counsel for the NAACP.

Supreme Court Justices are nominated by politicians and confirmed by politicians. And you think we should disqualify politicians? :whoknows:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe those examples apply anymore. The political climate has changed for the worse in the past 30 or so years. Think of today's politicians. Name one who would be a viable Supreme Court nominee. Some of the names I heard thrown out were ridiculous... Napolitano? Hillary Clinton?

You use Ruth Bader Ginsburg as an example, she was on an appeals court for 13 years. If Kagan had that I would not object.

You use Sandra Day O'Connor as an example. She was a judge for 6 years. If Kagan had that I would not object.

Having a job as a "judge" is good experience as a pre-requisite to going on the Supreme Court.

If someone has not held a judgeship, I would want someone who has practiced law extensively and worked for both sides of the political spectrum. This would be the best evidence of fairness. I think that may disqualify a number of people... I don't understand why people take exclusive political sides. If I were to be an active political activist, I wouldn't work exclusively for this or that party... I think they both have positive and negative qualities (even though I do lean "conservative", I think I have a "libertarian streak"). Of course this also intrigues me about Kagan, as even before she worked for Clinton she was described as fair and level-headed.

Going back to the question of someone in Federal office who I respect as a Supreme Court nominee? State office?

If Obama wanted a dynamic nominee, I would suggest someone *like* Lawrence Lessig.

To be honest, giving it more thought I'm not even sure I can think of one person who I would think as qualified to my high standard of impartiality and fairness. This is why I think having a judicial record to look at is important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree 100% with your thoughts on Yoo and Viet Dinh. Democrats would have no reason to oppose qualified individuals like them. That was the point of this post. If there were a large outcry over them it would clearly look bad for Democrats.

I honestly think the Republicans should give Kagan a 90-10 approval. Besides ,their questioning of Kagan was pretty lame. There were so many things to ask her about her time working for Clinton, it was embarrassing. All they wanted to do was trash Justice Marshall? Even the line of questioning about the Declaration of Independence. Given that the Declaration of Independence has been used by numerous Justices in their opinions, it is pretty substantial (although not truly organic law).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree 100% with your thoughts on Yoo and Viet Dinh. Democrats would have no reason to oppose qualified individuals like them. That was the point of this post. If there were a large outcry over them it would clearly look bad for Democrats.
I think your sense of the judicial confirmation process is far out of touch with reality. Do you remember the "Gang of 14?" The Democrats were filibustering ten nominees at the time, and none of them had done anything as controversial as what Yoo did. The public really didn't know any of the names of the filibustered judges until that time. A Yoo nomination would go down in flames, and if you don't understand that, then you must not have been paying attention to the politics of judicial nominations for very long.
I honestly think the Republicans should give Kagan a 90-10 approval.
And maybe that just shows your naivete, because Kagan is only going to get a few Republicans to vote for her. That is the politics of the process right now.
If someone has not held a judgeship, I would want someone who has practiced law extensively and worked for both sides of the political spectrum. This would be the best evidence of fairness. I think that may disqualify a number of people... I don't understand why people take exclusive political sides. If I were to be an active political activist, I wouldn't work exclusively for this or that party... I think they both have positive and negative qualities (even though I do lean "conservative", I think I have a "libertarian streak"). Of course this also intrigues me about Kagan, as even before she worked for Clinton she was described as fair and level-headed.
This paragraph shows that you really don't know anything about the political process.

If you were a very good programmer, would you say, "I want to work for Microsoft for a while and then go to Apple ... and then maybe Google." Would that be the best path for your career? (Would those companies even hire you after making those switches? Would you have to start from the bottom each time?) Or would it be best to go to one place, learn one platform, get very good at it, and move to the top of that company? That's what politicians are doing. They are professionals just like you and me, and they get better at something by focusing on it, practicing it and perfecting it. The quickest way to the top is to pick a side and stay committed.

Going back to the question of someone in Federal office who I respect as a Supreme Court nominee? State office?

If Obama wanted a dynamic nominee, I would suggest someone *like* Lawrence Lessig.

Larry Lessig would be *much* more controversial than Kagan. Being in favor of weakening copyrights won't get you a lot of friends in the Hollywood community or the in the corporate community, and there would be a well-funded opposition against him. I think he could probably still get confirmed to an Appeals Court, but I doubt he's even interested in that.
To be honest, giving it more thought I'm not even sure I can think of one person who I would think as qualified to my high standard of impartiality and fairness. This is why I think having a judicial record to look at is important.
And maybe that's why your standard is completely unrealistic and out of touch with reality. The modern confirmation process has become much more stringent, but it's still not that stringent. The vagaries of democratic politics still play a big role, and since Kagan doesn't have any big red flags touching hot-button issues, she is going to sail right through to the bench.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I understand the political process, I'm just ****ing about it. I personally felt there was more to object about Kagan, but the GOP didn't make the case. Being that they didn't make the case, they don't have any reason to put up a strong number of votes against her.

In my world people care a little less about political parties, and the goal isn't for this or that party to win, but for there to be a split between Congress and the Senate, and a split between the Senate and the House. I'm not sure what that would do to government, but I think most Americans want government more moderate, and the parties to work together. Even though we want this, we don't have the power to put it in place.

The fact that Democrats have 59 votes in the Senate pretty much sealed Kagan's fate. I doubt Scott Brown would vote against her, and I doubt Snow/Collins will vote against her. I think Graham will vote for her.

I completely understand the "base" wants her to get confirmed by a narrow margin, but it makes no sense. 60 votes is enough; once she gets 60 I think political capital says the Republicans put up someone Viet Dinh. They can point out how the PATRIOT Act has been approved by 2 administrations now by a wide margin. How Viet Dinh is certainly qualified, etc. (I'm assuming there will be some opening at some point within 10 years). And there will be little political ground the Democrats can hold...of course I admit this assume people care and pay attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the answer. The more histrionic parts of the GOP base have tried to make her nomination the crisis of the day, but it hasn't worked, because at the bottom line, she really isn't controversial at all.

The GOP understands this, and they know that her confirmation is a done deal. They are making the "constitutionalist" speeches and asking the questions that the Tea Partiers want to hear, but not actually trying to defeat the nomination.

I find it a bit strange this isn't considered controversial

Capt. Pete Hegseth Testifies about Kagan's Treatment of Military at Harvard

interesting point he makes that there will be no more veterans on the court, perhaps we need a token one;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...