About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Conservative opposition to Kagan is motivated by politics, not substance

May 09, 2010 11:04 pm ET — 17 Comments

From the beginning, conservative media figures made it clear they would aggressively fight whoever President Obama nominated in order to excite their base and weaken the White House. By indiscriminately attacking potential nominees regardless of their opinions or qualifications, conservatives have made it clear that their opposition to Elena Kagan will be motivated by politics, not substance.

Conservatives promised to attack whoever Obama nominated

Bill Kristol says he "endorsed Elena Kagan," but Republicans "should oppose her" anyway. On the April 11 edition of Fox News Sunday, when host Chris Wallace asked if Republicans' "decision as to how much of fight they want to make" over the nomination would depend in part on who Obama nominated, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol responded, "Not that much." Kristol added that while he "endorsed Elena Kagan" as a nominee, he believed that "most Republicans would oppose her and, honestly, should oppose her, with respect and with deference to her, you know, impressive academic credentials, because she will be a reliable liberal vote." 

Conservative activist Viguerie signals that conservatives will paint any nominee as "radical." The New York Times reported in an April 16 article:

Richard Viguerie, a conservative fund-raiser who is developing direct-mail and Internet campaigns about the coming nominee, said conservatives relished the prospect of a fight with Democrats over the Supreme Court before the November election.

"The more material he gives us to work with, the easier the battle will be," Mr. Viguerie said. "The more quickly we can identify that person as an ideological liberal, the easier it is for us to communicate to the American people how radical the president is and the nominee is."

Coulter urges "huge court battle" to benefit GOP election hopes. On April 12, conservative commentator Ann Coulter said: "A huge court battle is fantastic for Republicans. The reason the Democrats need the courts to legislate for them is their ideas are heinous to the American people. They can't win in democracy so they do it through the courts. This is always good to have a fight over the courts."

Hannity agreed that it was a good idea to have a court battle "whether you win or lose." In response to Coulter's statement that "it's always good to have a fight over the courts," Fox News host Sean Hannity said: "I agree with you, whether you win or lose."

Torture memo author John Yoo urges Republicans to filibuster whoever Obama nominates. University of California law professor John Yoo -- who is most famous for drafting the so-called "torture memos" -- used his May 2 Philadelphia Inquirer column to urge a filibuster of Elena Kagan, Merrick Garland, or Diane Wood should President Obama nominate one of them to be a Supreme Court justice. Yoo wrote that a filibuster "would have little to do with these three distinguished lawyers, and everything to do with President Obama and his Senate allies."

National Review Online: "The question for conservatives will be not whether but how to oppose Obama's nominee." An April 9 National Review Online editorial stated: "We know that President Obama will nominate a replacement who is also committed to imposing liberal policy outcomes over the objections of legislatures and without constitutional warrant. We know because Obama told us so, pledging during the campaign to nominate only justices who would support constitutionalized abortion." It later added: "Unless Obama provides evidence of having dropped his litmus tests, the question for conservatives will be not whether but how to oppose Obama's nominee."

Kathleen Parker: In public, GOP will "be open-minded"; privately, "they'll try to figure out how to derail the nominee." During an April 15 online discussion, Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker said about Republican strategy regarding the Supreme Court: "In public, they'll be open-minded; behind closed doors, they'll try to figure out how to derail the nominee. I hope the president will go moderate on this one. I think the nation is suffering battle fatigue and could use a respite. If he does, Republicans will have no basis for opposition."

Gloria Borger: Some conservatives "looking for a fight" over Supreme Court nomination to "unite the base." During the April 9 edition of CNN Newsroom, senior political analyst Gloria Borger stated that "there are conservatives ... outside the Senate who are looking for a fight, because they believe that this would unite the base."

Beck: Obama will find a "gay, handicapped, black woman, who's an immigrant" who's a "radical" justice like Sotomayor. On the April 9 edition of his radio show, Glenn Beck said of the then-upcoming Supreme Court nomination, "Mark my words. A radical is coming." He later said: "He's going to pick another radical." Beck added that if Obama's "smart," he'll nominate a "handicapped black woman who's an immigrant."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by juliajayne1 (May 09, 2010 11:45 pm ET)
      5 1
      The above eejits on stilts will rally against anyone Obama nominates. Who cares about them. Let them screech all they want, because they will regardless.

      However, we should care about this very important appointment. And the jury still seems to be out according to Glenn Greenwald, a guy I do trust.

      He's written some good articles about Kagan and lays out his opposition to her here, if you're interested:

      http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan

      And here:

      http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/08/kagan/index.html?source=newsletter

      Report Abuse
      • Author by congero6189599 (May 10, 2010 11:45 am ET)
        1  
        For those that are interested I found this today @ DemocracyNow. A debate about Ms.Kagan between Glenn Greenwald and law prof. Jamin Raskin:

        http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/10/progressives_divided_over_obamas_nomination_of
        Report Abuse
        • Author by juliajayne1 (May 10, 2010 1:51 pm ET)
          1  
          Hey you. Long time ;-). I'm going to miss BM Journal. And now "Now" has been cancelled. Sad, I say.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by jbraskin4786 (May 10, 2010 12:27 am ET)
      2 1
      Did they say the same thing when the President was a Republican? What a naive question.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Refresh (May 10, 2010 5:22 am ET)
      3 1
      Coulter: The reason the Democrats need the courts to legislate for them is their ideas are heinous to the American people. They can't win in democracy so they do it through the courts.

      I guess she means like how the American people find it a heinous idea to allow Corporations to participate in the campaigning/election process as individual citizens without limits on spending money on ads or other supporting of candidates. Conservatives couldn't legislate that idea so they had to do it through the courts.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Bulletproof Air (May 11, 2010 11:00 am ET)
           
        I was thinking the exact same thing.

        It's called Projection, and "conservatives" are engaged in it 24/7.


        It's like the things they are most guilty of, they assign as a common fear for Republicans to have.

        I'm starting to realize why they feared the Democrats and a non-existent "fascist" agenda......
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Ninure (May 10, 2010 8:29 am ET)
         
      Shouldn't they also play the "jewish" card?

      Or how about the "non_Christian card"?


      Either one should work well in the Southern Red States.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by gg (May 10, 2010 9:56 am ET)
      2 1
      Coulter urges "huge court battle" to benefit GOP election hopes. The reason the Democrats need the courts. They can't win in democracy so they do it through the courts.

      The last time I looked the Democrats won in this democracy, that is what is killing the right wing.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by poproxx77 (May 10, 2010 11:07 am ET)
        3 1
        Democrats winning is not what is 'killing' the right wing. Lack of leadership and definition is killing the right more than a loss to the democrats last election. The conservative party needs a serious makeover, they need to hit the reset button, they need to take a timeout and regroup. There is no direction, no goals, no leadership. That is what is killing the right.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by indigo1968 (May 10, 2010 11:16 am ET)
          3 1
          Exactly.

          The GOP is making all the wrong decisions by turning over its core messaging to the likes of Beck and Limbaugh, and purging anyone from the party who even remotely smells of bi-partisanship (e.g. Robert Bennett). As a result, as the GOP tracks further hard-right by getting into bed with the kneejerk Tea Party, it will keep alienating independents they need to win national elections.

          As a result, while flailing around while trying to save themselves, the Republicans are just heading closer and closer to a cliff's edge.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by Bulletproof Air (May 11, 2010 11:10 am ET)
           
        From what I recall, G.W. Bush was only put in office due to a Supreme Court decision....

        This "conservative logic" (I know, oxymoron) just fails in so many respects...


        Anybody else get the feeling that this battle of politics between Democrats and Republicans is demolishing our Country even faster than terrorists could?

        I just don't see how our economy could even stay stable with two battling parties who only get their ideas based upon what their opponents like or dislike... not to mention the election campaigning that starts from the moment of the first won election.

        It's like our Country is dumped on it's head every time a Dem or Repub is replaced with the other after elections...if only our economy had laws set up to be run by a independent agency, taking the politics out of our financial well-being....

        Not only are candidates up for election, but our economy is too.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by tman418 (May 11, 2010 5:08 pm ET)
             
          From what I recall, G.W. Bush was only put in office due to a Supreme Court decision....


          Zing. Boom. Couldn't have said it better myself.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by whozat (May 10, 2010 10:46 am ET)
         
      Hooo, boy...Let the smears begin.

      I bet good money that the best most opponents to Kagan's nomination will come up with will be her alleged sexuality. So what if she IS a lesbian?? Who cares..and WHY? The woman's qualified for the job and that's all that matters. As a straight man, I don't see where the heterosexuality requirement in Washington has served us particularly well of late and, based on several events in the last few years, even that requirement has been (shall we say) fluid at best.

      The US Supreme Court needs to find a balance. It's been biased towards the Right for far too long, in my humble opinion, and its decisions of late seem to disregard the fact that America is by and large a Centerist nation, whether you like hearing that or not.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by seahawks123 (May 10, 2010 12:15 pm ET)
      1 5
      Man she's just a wealth of experience. Just look at all the case law she's written... Oh wait, there isn't any.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by DellDolly (May 10, 2010 5:47 pm ET)
      1 1
      Coulter - The reason the Democrats need the courts to legislate for them is their ideas are heinous to the American people.

      Nope, not true. Democratic ideas are treasured by the American people. That's what scares the rightwingers!
      Report Abuse