Ken Starr: Obama's Supreme Court picks will face trouble - Politics 101 - Washington Times

Ken Starr: Obama's Supreme Court picks will face trouble

By CARRIE SHEFFIELD on Feb. 14, 2009 into Politics 101

Subscribe

Kenneth W. Starr has a warning for the Obama administration: What goes around comes around.

During a speech yesterday in Boston, Starr told a group of attorneys that President Obama could face an uphill battle over his Supreme Court nominees because as a senator he opposed two of President George W. Bush's Supreme Court picks, Samuel Alito and John Roberts.

Starr's message: Elephants don't forget.

The former independent counsel during President Clinton's Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky scandals, Starr said an aging Supreme Court means that Obama could be able to name perhaps two or more nominees to the high court. And that could lead to a showdown with Senate Republicans, who were livid with Democrats such as Obama, who filibustered and voted against the Bush picks.

RELATED:

• Ginsburg's cancer has not spread

Starr pointed out that Obama enters office with healthy Democratic majorities in the House and Senate; however, he said "the salience of this very enviable position, politically, for our president is brought home by the president's own approach to the high court during his years of service as a United States senator."

He continued: "There is one historical factoid of note: He is the first president of the United States ever in our history to have participated in a Senate filibuster of a judicial nominee. Never before has that happened."

Photo by Matthew Imbler

Starr quoted from a November article in The Washington Times by my colleague S.A. Miller about the problems Obama faces.

"'Senate Republicans say the president-elect's voting record and long simmering resentments over Democrats' treatment of President Bush's nominees will leave Mr. Obama hard-pressed to call for bipartisan help confirming judges or even an up-or-down vote,'" he quoted.

For more on Starr's speech, check out my full write-up here.

Comment

There are 59 Comments

nealjking

Evidence of small-mindedness on the part of GOP leaders: "Forget about the merits of the case, just oppose, oppose, oppose!" The GOP seems bound and determined to define themselves into irrelevancy.

Mark as offensive

time_master

petty and vindictive - vengeful - single-minded - content, even triumphant in outlining their plan for 'getting even' Well as long as none of them hide behind the canard of 'doing what's best for the citizens of the United States' Hah!

Mark as offensive

jlamarksnetnet

the republicans should be small-minded,petty,fillabuster & use everything&anything available to them,under the law.they must prevent this administration from appointing anyone to the supreme court.liberals have done enough damage to this great country of ours.

Mark as offensive

Painfultruth

"Forget about the merits of the case, just oppose, oppose, oppose!" Good Lord! What did you Donks do the past eight years except oppose anything and everything Bush said or did out of childish pique over having lost the last two elections? And do you not remember the fiercely partisan opposition to the Clarence Thomas nomination, to say nothing about the earlier Robert Bork nomination? Please, don't try to talk about opposing anything until you learn a little cooperation yourselves. You lefties are incredible with your myopia.

Mark as offensive

UrukHai

Evidence of a at least one Republicans finally growing a pair and behaving like Democrats do, in an noxious political atmosphere created by the left. Bush's "New Tone" is over. "Forget about the merits of the case, just oppose, oppose, oppose!" - The motto of the Democrat party for the last 8 years.

Mark as offensive

Sakti

Are these comments describing Pelosi, Reid and Obama or what the Republicans might do?

Mark as offensive

Anrico

The hypocracy contained in the last two comments are sadly commonplace. The Democrats, including Obama, lowered the bar and set a new standared for refusing to allow votes on judicial nominees so they could keep the seats open for a Democrat to fill. The Republicans approved a greater percentage of Clinton's nominees than the Dems did in the last 8 years. Situational ethics. Selective outrage. Sadly nothing new here.

Mark as offensive

No_new_deal

Obama was a typical backbench hack when he was in the Senate. Nothing 'transformational' about this phony. His nominees will suffer for it.

Mark as offensive

common_sense4all

Ken Starr may act like an elephant, but he certainly does not have the memory of an elephant. As I'm sure you all know, former President Bush's primary supreme court nominations were all confirmed with the exception of Harriet Miers. Not even the Republicans could justify the senseless Miers nomination. While Starr's assertion that Bush's nominations were filibustered is true, Starr neglects to mention that the reason they were ultimately confirmed, is due to the Republican threat of the "Nuclear Option". While the Senate rules require 67 votes to change the rules, the "Nuclear Option" is a set of procedural moves that would not only bypass the filibuster, but would completely eliminate the filibuster by declaring it unconstitutional. This effectively changes the Senate rules without the two-thirds majority, based on a 1957 parliamentary opinion. So when Ken Starr warns "what goes around comes around", he should be reminded that the threat of the "Nuclear Option" will come around as well.

Mark as offensive

arlen_spector

His nominees will sail through the Senate if I have any say about it. let's hope there aren't any openings until 2010.

Mark as offensive

Spanky1

ObaMarx will reap what he has sown.

Mark as offensive

Lazybumranch

2010 will set the pace. If the GOP sticks together and does not step on thier own peckers for two years the socialist cause will suffer a much deserved set back.

Mark as offensive

bill_sherman

War is the remedy our enemies have chosen, and I say give them all they want.

Mark as offensive

bill_sherman

common_sense at 956 am needs reminding that having conceded Justice Roberts' superlative qualifications, the Obamateur himself voted against Justice Roberts only for purely partisan reasons. (Obama was concerned that Roberts'would dispense justice too fairly, that is, Roberts would not sufficiently put his thumb on the scales of justice to achieve the outcomes demanded by Democratic party grievance groups ... er... constituencies.) As for the threat of the "nuclear option", the backlash that would evoke is what kept the Republicans from going nuclear. Just as it will keep the Democrats from going nuclear. The concept of mutual assured destruction (M.A.D.) also applies to the judicial "nuclear option".

Mark as offensive

TeamElephant

You gotta love all the hand wringing by the Donkeys on the comment board, calling the Reps "petty", "small-minded", blah blah blah. It's a friggin minstrel show. The One tried to hold up Alito, Roberts, but hey, nothing to see here, move along. Look, I'm man enough to admit my team got its tail kicked last Novemeber. But because I'm a man, I don't go down like a nancy. Like the good man Deadwood Al said "Stand it like a man and give some back". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2Q7YRDL90E

Mark as offensive

‹‹ previous12 3 4 next ››

Please login or register to post a comment