Elections have consequences. Including for judicial appointments.
So, what’s a poor Federalist Society member to do under a democratic administration after years and years of stuffing the verdict box?
Demand appointments anyway, it seems.
Via overruled, it began with some water testing by a Sen. Burr surrogate:
So I’m a little skeptical of Richmond Law Professor Carl Tobias’ Broderesque proposal for how the President should choose judges:…
Fortunately, President Obama has vowed to practice bipartisanship. He can honor this pledge by swiftly adopting efficacious practices and, in the near future, by choosing an excellent replacement for Judge Phillips — a person whose selection both parties can support.
To the extent Republicans are willing to negotiate in good faith, there’s no reason to exclude them from discussions out of sheer pique. But they lost the election. Badly. If people like Senator Burr lose sight of this fact, President Obama needs to appoint judges who’ll remind Burr that we live in a democracy.
One is clearly a test. But two? Two is strategery:
…the L.A. Times advises President Obama to show his “bipartisanship” by following the same failed judicial policies of George W. Bush:…
…Keisler is one of the founding members of the Federalist Society, who even once sat on the FedSoc’s board of directors. After helping found the nation’s leading organization of ultra-conservative lawyers, Keisler went on to a prestigious clerkship with then-Judge Robert Bork.
Yup, that Robert Bork.
Perhaps most damning, however, are the very serious abuse of power allegations which were raised against Peter Keisler while he worked in the Bush Justice Department: According to the Washington Post, Keisler was one of a trio of Bush political appointees who ordered career attorneys to intentially weaken their $130 billion racketeering case against the tobacco industry….
This had better be some sort of wishful thinking kerfuffle. Because if this is an Obama administration "testing the waters" for this sort of bipartisan idiocy, I’d like to mark myself down for a firm "no fricking way, we can sure as hell do better than that" for rule of law considerations, thank you very much.
That has to be too cuckoo for coco puffs for even the Federalist Society to think it has a shot in hell.
Except they have Stuart Taylor pimping out the "liberals shouldn’t appoint liberals" line in Newsweek this morning. Funny, I don’t remember him bitching about ultra-conservative Bush appointees. Why is that, do ya think?
You can bet I’ll be making some calls today to test some waters myself. Or perhaps boil some.
UPDATE: Digby hit the Taylor piece as well. Good right hook…