Misplaced Anger (Graham Votes to Confirm Kagan)

[Fergasun]

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to send Elena Kagan to the Senate for consideration of her Supreme Court nomination. Although there has been much bluster about a filibuster from folks such as Jeff Sessions, I don't think there was much chance of it happening. However, what has gotten a rise out of the conservative news cycle is that Lindsey Graham voted for Kagan and *shock* is going to vote for her nomination. To me this is an example of misplaced anger and ridiculousness.

Up front, I am going to say that I oppose Kagan for the Supreme Court. I'm not going to exhaust the discussion here, but I think she has ethical problems (not simply related to that abortion memo, documents released by the Clinton Library also showed she knowingly advised against calling "penalties" a "penalty"), lacks experience, and played too political of a role in the Clinton White House. If I was Obama I would've nominated a liberal judge and back-filled her spot with Kagan.

But just because I oppose Kagan doesn't mean I can wholly understand reasons for voting for Kagan. One has to believe that filibustering Kagan would be a useful political stance. I think that there is little to gain from a filibuster. First, the result will simply be a nomination of someone just as liberal. I think there are judges out there who are qualified, but they've actively shown the track record of being judicial liberals, whereas Kagan is somewhat of a blank slate (I don't expect her to behave differently, but she has no track record, which means there's more of a chance she goes rogue). Second, the GOP put up a whimper of a fight against her. I think she did pretty good at her nominatino hearing, but the questions always seemed to be telegraphed softballs. I'd like to know who decided Democrats were going to attack Citizens United, and Republicans were going to attack her Harvard military recruiter policy, as well as attacaking her as a socialized and pressing her on health care. The Republican attacks were pretty lame because they had an insider in the Clinton White House, who was potentially involved in the Lewinsky scandal... and they failed to make the connection or ask any substantive questions on that issue. They also glossed over her records which would've yielded tons of interesting legal questions. However the GOP wasn't interested in any of this. Third, the American people seem to always like it when the political parties are "working together". While this makes the politically active blow their tops, I'm inclined to believe this is true. While watching a town-hall meeting on C-SPAN last month I was struck by how many people said "you need to work for the good of the country, we want the parties to work together." Unfortunately our party system isn't conducive to this, especially in 2010 since we gave one party a strong majority in Congress and the Presidency. Fourth, If the Republicans were to filibuster, the only option would be to continue filibusternig all their nominees until after November. While this would make the 20-30% of America who is their base pretty happy... I think this would be electoral suicide. When is the last time the Supreme Court sat a term with only 8 justices? Does the GOP want to be responsible for this?

Certinaly I think Graham's reasons for voting for Kagan are not the real reasons he's voting for her, rather all of the reasons I set forth above. But don't tell the conservative base, they can't accept it. And it's not like Graham is going to be the only one who votes for her too. Scott Brown (Harvard is in his jurisdiction), Collins, and Snowe are pretty much guaranteed to vote for her. In fact, I think the Republicans should vote to confirm her on something like a 90-10/80-20 clip. Given that they put up a very limp attack on her, there's no reason they shouldn't overwhelmingly approve her. Practically speaking making it a tight vote does nothing.

Looking at the bigger picture, While I understand what happened to Estrada in 2003 changed judicial nominees up until now (see Alito, Roberts, and Sotomayor votes), I think there's no reason to continue those same politics on either side. The judicial nominee fight is a base-energizing tactic that does very little for anyone but folks who get excited about silly things politicians say. If I were running the GOP I would've gone with some of the more nuanced and particular attacks on Kagan (and Sotomayor), or simply knock it off with the political attacks. Looking back remember how the Democrats said that Alito was going to strip search every man women and child based on his one ruling on allowing a search of a teenager? I'm sure you don't... and articles about Alito don't say "Justice Alito, the one who is going to strip-search your teenage daughter".

[aREDSKIN]

IMO the voters of South Carolina will expire one Lindsay Graham given his recent performances. It'll be a few years but his time will come.

[greenspandan]

i wish moments of such realistic pragmatism weren't so rare and so heavily derided amongst conservatives. seems they realized that taking a stand on kagan would have just looked like a pointless tantrum. in this case it does them more good to save the energy and political capital for a fight that might have more than one possible outcome.

[The Evil Genius]

i wish moments of such realistic pragmatism weren't so rare and so heavily derided amongst conservatives. seems they realized that taking a stand on kagan would have just looked like a pointless tantrum. in this case it does them more good to save the energy and political capital for a fight that might have more than one possible outcome.

That's really unpossible for this era of conservatives.

The party of no's only power these days is to delay.

[Fergasun]

The party of "no" today is not the party of "no" tommorrow.

From a political strategy standpoint, Kagan's nomination hearings were the time to lay out the case against Kagan. The GOP focussed on her Harvard military recruitment scandal, the abortion memo (which was too nuanced for the public), and other attacks of her being a "liberal". Once they failed at winning the political battle (Kagan is polling very low, but a 20% are undecided) they should realize the battle is over.

I can do my analysis and say "I wouldn't want to vote for Kagan" but I don't have to back it up with a vote. I might be the type of person who would vote for Kagan simply because of the same reason's Graham is. I think there is far better gain in having the political capital of saying "we didn't block the nominees like that Democrats have". I expect her to get some type of 63-37 vote. I think voting to confirm her and admitting that you hold the nose is better. "I don't agree with Kagan, but the people didn't give the GOP power to block this left-wing-socialistic-Obama rubber stamp" (not my thoughts just what you'd have to say).

[Duckus]

It tells you about the political climate when Lindsay Graham is seen as a moderate and one of the only ones open to compromise.

[The Evil Genius]

The party of "no" today is not the party of "no" tommorrow.

While true, this era of the GOP hasn't shown the capability of understanding that simple premise.

[Fergasun]

Evil Genius,

For the record. I want to say your comment really pisses me off. In a two-party system like this the party not in power is always going to be the "party of no", in fact we need an opposition party. I would hope the Democrats act as a party of 'no" when the Republicans work to push their policies to the extreme. You would admit that they will do the same as well.

I'm of the conclusion as a voter the best strategy is this: when one party has power vote for the other party to balance things out. Hope you don't give them too much power. The parties are simply paying "catch" with the public resources. Once we figure this out and figure out a way to stop this we can figure out how to better run the country. Right now this country is being run into the ground by both parties, because they are benefitting from it.

For the record I want to say that I think Kagan is qualified to sit on a lower appeals court, and I wouldn't have much opposition to vote for someone like Diane Wood or Merrick Garland (sp?)... simply because Graham has a lower bar than me doesn't mean I fault his decision... even if his public statements don't line up with what he really thinks.

I would allow Sessions, Coburn and some other GOP to tokenly vote against Kagan, and they can all go on the record talking about how much they think she is a liberal, but still believe she is "qualified". Of course this would make their 20% base say "wimps, they need to grow a pair, filubuster!"

[aREDSKIN]

It tells you about the political climate when Lindsay Graham is seen as a moderate and one of the only ones open to compromise.

Well that assessment may be true but it does not reflect well for the electorate of South Carolina.

[Teller]

That's really unpossible for this era of conservatives.

The party of no's only power these days is to delay.

I think it's really funny when the same people who cry about Beck- or Hannity-issued labels and talking points have no problem regurgitating Pelosi's.

[The Evil Genius]

I think it's really funny when the same people who cry about Beck- or Hannity-issued labels and talking points have no problem regurgitating Pelosi's.

Sorry, I didn't know Pelosi invented (or trademarked) the term "party of no". I guess I owe her 5 cents now.

[aREDSKIN]

Sorry, I didn't know Pelosi invented (or trademarked) the term "party of no". I guess I owe her 5 cents now.

\

To be fair to Pelosi sometimes she says yes..