The Senate Judiciary Committee just voted 13-6 to approve Elena Kagan for a floor vote. This was no surprise, as Democrats have a 12-7 majority of the Committee.

The only Republican to vote for Kagan was Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. His explanation? "I think there's a good reason for a conservative to vote yes," Graham told his colleagues. He added that she was "smart . . . and she's funny, that goes a long way in my book."

Standards have really dropped since Al Franken joined the Judiciary Committee. Apparently being a good comedian is enough to make it onto our nation's highest court. Graham has been busy posturing as a moderate on a variety of issues, now including judicial appointments. It is doubtful whether his views follow those of his constituents from South Carolina, but a small state has to stick with its Senators to take advantage of the seniority rules in Congress.

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

Jimmy Carter
Joined
Jul '10
Jimmy Carter

How about Gallagher? He can issue a ruling, then pull out a very oversized mallet and smash a watermelon on the desk.


Joined
May '10
David Jones

Graham's yes vote is a tremendous disappointment and, boy, does that seem to be a ridiculously low bar for lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. As to his idea that there is a conservative reason to vote yes, I'm still waiting to hear his reasoning.

So tremendously disappointing.

Matthew Gilley
Joined
May '10
Matthew Gilley
John Yoo: It is doubtful whether his views follow those of his constituents from South Carolina, but a small state has to stick with its Senators to take advantage of the seniority rules in Congress. ·

I'm one of those constituents. They don't.

Rob Long

John, I accept your nomination. Who do I see about getting the robe? Black, as you know, is very slimming and it hides the dirt.

Other than that, I can't really say much, of course, about any issue that might come before the court. I'd just like to assure Ricochet Members that I have no intention of "growing" while on the bench. I'll remain the staunch monarchist that I am. And if possible, I'll always favor any side that brings us closer to a military government.

Oh, and how much does it pay? That's pretty important.

John Yoo

I believe that the pay of Supreme Court Justice is about $210,000, but I think you get the robe for free. And if you allow cameras into the courtroom, there may be syndication rights.

theotherbriansmith
Joined
May '10
Brian Smith

I think cameras in the courtroom would enable Justice Long to have sponsor logos on his robe ala NASCAR and that would in turn open the door to his decisions starting with, “Before we get to the dissent, let me remind everyone to watch Southern Discomfort on Thursday, 8/9C” and end with “Sent from Justice Long’s iPad." With all due respect to Senator Graham, I am much more comfortable with Rob’s humor on the Court than Ms. Kagans’.

John Yoo
Brian Smith: I think cameras in the courtroom would enable Justice Long to have sponsor logos on his robe ala NASCAR and that would in turn open the door to his decisions starting with, “Before we get to the dissent, let me remind everyone to watch Southern Discomfort on Thursday, 8/9C” and end with “Sent from Justice Long’s iPad." With all due respect to Senator Graham, I am much more comfortable with Rob’s humor on the Court than Ms. Kagans’. · Jul 20 at 12:32pm

Brings to mind Buckley's famous quip -- he would rather be governed by the first 200 names in the Boston phone book than the Harvard faculty. You are definitely right that you would not apply that principle to comedy shows and have the top 9 writers be Supreme Court Justices -- how many jokes can one make about "legal briefs," after all. But the reverse might be interesting -- would the top 9 comedians (including Williams and Long) do any worse on the Supreme Court than the current 9?

theotherbriansmith
Joined
May '10
Brian Smith

John, I am not sure I would want the top 9 comedians to make a decision on what I have for lunch, much less DC v. Heller. Therein lies the problem; I think that we do need qualified, brilliant justices on the court to untangle the codification that has developed over time, but I (without trying to sound like too much of a fan boy) feel like I know more about the ideas, character and (gulp) Solomon-like wisdom of Rob (or Peter or Mark or the other contributors, include yourself here) from listening to six months of weekly podcasts than from anything that the Ms. Kagan has uttered or written. I suppose this is what modern politics and government has come to; nominees and candidates spending more time trying to avoid a controversy than trying to convince me that they have the best ideas. If you would make a genius Supreme Court justice or you have the best ideas to lead my state or my country, then throw it out there; let’s see what you got!

FeliciaB
Joined
May '10
FeliciaB

I'm an unabashed fangirl! Rob Long for Supreme Court Justice! Actually, can I have John Yoo and Richard Epstein, too?

Rob Long

I accept the nomination of the Ricochet Nation. I'm concerned, John, about the pay, but I think I can get a better deal. I have a pretty rapacious agent. I'll bet he can get me the Chief Justice title.

Other than that, I have to say I like the hours. And I like the vast network of serfs -- I believe they're called "clerks" -- who do all the real work.

My first reform will be to order the immediate institutionalization of any attorney -- plaintiff or defendant -- who detects anything in the penumbra. Seeing things that aren't there is a sign of mental illness, whether it's the ghostly figure of my great-grandfather next to the garage, or rights to actions that the Founders didn't even know were humanly possible.

Court is in session! All rise!

Samwise Gamgee
Joined
Jun '10
Samwise Gamgee

Remember Rob, since you were nominated by the 'center-right' you'll have to begin your slow slide to the far left....

For my part, I'm relieved to have just one wise Ricochetino on the court.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In