Rove Hypocritically Argues Right Should Oppose Potential Obama Court Pick Just Because She’s Liberal

[jefferson_dem]

Rove Hypocritically Argues Right Should Oppose Potential Obama Court Pick Just Because She’s Liberal

This morning on Fox News, former Bush political adviser Karl Rove criticized Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a potential nominee for the upcoming Supreme Court vacancy. “She could be even more liberal than Souter was,” Rove said. “She has a reputation on the Court of Appeals that she’s on for being very liberal.” He then argued that Sotomayor’s views would be cause for conservatives to oppose her, despite her qualifications for the position:

On the other hand, she’s also likely to draw opposition from conservatives because her opinions on the Circuit Court of Appeals have been very liberal and very expansive. In fact, this is going to be one the big dividing lines. President Obama…said he wanted a judge who would uphold the Constitution, but also a judge would be empathetic. These two things are in conflict.

Needless to say, Rove is being hypocritical. When he was shepherding Bush’s Supreme Court nominees through the process, he explicitly made the argument the President was owed deference to choose a qualified nominee and opposition party had a “responsibility to back” that pick. Here’s what Rove told the Washington Post in July 2005:

Karl Rove, President Bush’s chief political architect, said precedents from the most recent Supreme Court vacancies suggest that opposition-party senators have a responsibility to back a president’s choice if they believe a nominee is qualified, even if they disagree with the person’s views. He also maintained that a strongly held ideological stance would not amount to “extraordinary circumstances” justifying a Democratic filibuster under a recent bipartisan Senate deal. <...>

Rove made clear that Bush will consult with senators in both parties, but that he has no interest in any kind of grand bargain between the White House and Congress in which legislators would give support in exchange for advance input on the president’s choice. Some Democratic groups have suggested that Bush seek an early consensus. Rove, however, cited his own weekend reading of the Federalist Papers to argue that the framers of the Constitution envisioned no such role for Congress, leaving the president alone to make nominations.

In the interview with Fox News this morning, Rove lauded the Bush White House’s preparedness for filling the Supreme Court vacancies when they arose and suggested the Obama White House is unprepared for making a nomination. It seems Rove has quickly forgotten his “active role” in the disastrous nomination of Harriet Miers, who came under relentless assault from Bush’s conservative base.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/02/rove-sotomayor/

[Enrique]

1. he pronounces it "Sotomaier"

it's Sotomayor. She's Puerto Rican, not German.

It's not too hard, the Fox anchor got it right.

[saltpoint]

2. It would be handy to blame Rove alone for his provocative and subversive

comments and actions, but the mainstream media generally put him in front of the mikes and cameras and let him spew his vile propaganda.

Rove is quite fortunate that he is not in jail.

[Abq_Sarah]

3. So?

We oppose nominees for being conservative. That's the way the game has been played for the last 15+ years.

[Peacetrain]

4. We could have the Risen Christ and the republicans would oppose him.

Lets just get ready for an all out tug of war..

[Arkana]

5. Yeah, they've tipped their hand a bit early on this.

Already declaring you're going to oppose a Supreme Court nominee when he/she does not yet exist is really thick of the GOP.

[Kali]

6. "Rove Hypocritically..."

redundant

[Optical.Catalyst]

7. Republicans a synonymous with obstruction. They will oppose any person President Obama nominates