Is a simple majority sufficient to chose a Justice for the Supreme Court - Should a minority through a filibuster be able to prevent the nomination acceptable to the majority? The Republicans have stacked the court with their radical wingers, does it come down to whether the Democrats can do the same or is there a better way?
If any of them decided to take on the Federal Reserve, I would agree with you that it makes a damn difference.
He could always do a recess appointment and avoid Senate confirmation for two years! He could light the White House on fire too, for that matter. You have to love Obama's stated criteria, someone who knows the hardships of the common man. If only he could get someone like Che Guevera in there. And here I thought the job of the court was to determine the original intent and application of the constitution to their cases. No, no, we need someone who can feel for the common man, and interpret the law according to his politics. In all fairness, it doesn't concern me a bit. The guy who just retired is unquestionably the most left leaning justice on the court. As Rachel Maddow herself pointed out the other night, finding an equally leftist replacement will be difficult.
Didn't your great leader (Bush) said that Constitution is just a damn piece of paper? It is funny that you are concerned about it now while you had nothing against the Constitution being treated as toilet paper under Republican's presidency.
So your argument is essentially, "Hey, why are you complaining that I do it, they did it!". It is comical as it reflects one of the most commonly used excuses in politics. Rather than argue the very debatable truthiness of it, lets just assume it is true. "Hey, why are you complaining that we sh*t all over the constitution, the Republicans did it" ---- Thanks for the admission that you sh*t all over the constitution. In response to Michael Steele getting caught using RNC funds at bondage and strip clubs, his staff prepared a long list of recent egregious spending by the DNC. Same story. "Hey, why are you complaining we spent your election money on a dominatrix, look at what the Democrats are doing" ---- Like we give a sh*t. Quit misusing the money. The same excuse has been used for the extension of the war in Afghanistan, the extension of the Patriot Act, the continued practice of spending money that does not exist. The answer is the same to all of them. Quit being an F'n hypocrite. You politicized the issue, stand behind what you supposedly claim to believe. And just a quick FYI, since you are Quebecois, the reason Bush's stock was worthless at the end of his term is because most of his base didn't approve of some of his actions towards the end. Out of all that, I still don't recall him using Judicial Activism as a stated criterion for his court appointees.
Justice Stevens is a moderate Republican who's stature made him appear as a liberal - the 4 other Republican chosen, radical justices, make everyone seem to the left. Bush stacked the lower courts to his liking than for the general good of the nation but his choice of Harriet Myers demonstrated a moderation sorely needed, an appropriate selection only to be overridden by political zealots that now are claiming a role in the present selection as a minority desiring nothing more than to block the appropriate counterbalance to their own misdeed.
Your argument is with Maddow. She is the one claiming Stevens is the left most justice. You are welcome to speculate at the reasons, but you should at least coordinate your talking points with your master.