Leftists’ ‘Troubled’ SCOTUS History Continues

TAIL WAGGING THE DOG

SEN. SCHUMER (D-NY): ‘It's Hard For Me To Imagine A Nominee… That We Could Support’

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): “It's hard for me to imagine a nominee [for the Supreme Court] that Donald Trump would choose that would get Republican support that we could support. So you're right.” RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC: “So you will do your best to hold the seat open.” SCHUMER: “Absolutely.” (The Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC, 1/3/2017)

• SCHUMER: “…we absolutely would keep the seat open. …we will fight it tooth-and-nail, as long as we have to.” (CNN’s “State Of The Union,” 1/22/17)

THE LEFT ON JUSTICE STEVENS: ‘Extraordinary Lack Of Sensitivity To The Problems Women Face’

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN ON STEVENS: ‘Grave Concern,’ ‘Extraordinary Lack Of Sensitivity To The Problems Women Face’

Margaret Drachsler, NOW: “I am here this afternoon to express my grave concern regarding both the nomination of John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court and the manner in which it was accomplished.” (U.S. Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 12/8/1975)

• “Judge Stevens … revealed an extraordinary lack of sensitivity to the problems women face in the marketplace, as well as an extraordinary lack of sensitivity to the Equal Employment Opportunity Act.” (U.S. Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 12/8/1975)

• “…his propensity to find against a female plaintiff.” (U.S. Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 12/8/1975)

• “His decisions have flown in the face of the applicable law as duly passed by Congress…” (U.S. Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 12/8/1975)

• “…this man is disqualified from being a member of the Supreme Court of the United States is because of his consistent opposition to women's rights…” (U.S. Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 12/8/1975)

THE LEFT ON JUSTICE KENNEDY: A ‘Troubling’ ‘Sexist’ ‘Unqualified To Sit On The High Court’

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN ON KENNEDY: A ‘Sexist’ Who ‘Would Be A Disaster For Women’

“The National Organization for Women yesterday became the first major organization to oppose Supreme Court nominee Anthony M. Kennedy… and branded Kennedy a ‘sexist’ unqualified to sit on the high court. … NOW President Molly Yard told a news conference that Kennedy, a federal appeals court judge in Sacramento, ‘would be a disaster for women’ if confirmed as a justice.” (“NOW Opposes Kennedy For Supreme Court,” The Washington Post, 11/20/1987)

PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY ON KENNEDY: ‘Troubling’

“‘…troubling questions about Kennedy's position on civil rights and sex discrimination,’ said Ricki Seidman, legal director for People for the American Way.” (“A Product Of Two Sides Of Town,” LA Times, 12/14/1987)

NAN ARON ON KENNEDY: ‘I Am Troubled’

“‘I am troubled by some of his opinions in the civil rights area,’ said Nan Aron of the Alliance for Justice.” (“Early Senate Reviews Indicate Confirmation Likely,” The Washington Post, 11/12/1987)

• “After a careful review of Judge Kennedy's appellate opinions as well as speeches he has made over a period of several years, the Alliance is troubled by Judge Kennedy's lack of demonstrated commitment to equal access to the courts and equal justice. … Judge Kennedy's record on civil rights and discrimination issues is not reassuring…” (Alliance For Justice, Statement, Pg.773, 1987)

THE LEFT ON JUSTICE SOUTER: ‘Ample Reason To Fear’ This ‘Disturbing’ Nominee

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN ON SOUTER: ‘Ample Reason To Fear,’ ‘Troubling’

NOW Legal Defense And Education Fund: “…we have ample reason to fear what his appointment would mean to the future of reproductive and other women's rights, civil rights and individual rights.” (U.S. Judiciary Committee, Hearing, Pg.572, 9/1990)

• “Evidence suggests that Souter's [legal] theories are similarly troubling.” (U.S. Judiciary Committee, Hearing, Pg.573, 9/1990)

• “Souter also appears to have an anachronistic and stereotypical view of women.” (U.S. Judiciary Committee, Hearing, Pg.593, 9/1990)

“The National Organization for Women plans to rally outside the Capitol -- just in case senators friendly to its cause might miss the point.” (“...And Strange Notions of Privacy,” The Washington Post, 9/14/1990)

PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY ON SOUTER: ‘Disturbing’

ARTHUR KROPP, President, People For the American Way: “What record Souter has compiled on constitutional questions is both sparse and disturbing. The views he has expressed on civil rights, sex discrimination, church/state separation, and reproductive freedom are reasons for very real concern.” (“Fans, Foes, In Betweens Speak Out On Souter,” USA Today, 9/13/1990)

NAN ARON ON SOUTER: ‘Very Troubling Aspects Of His Legal Record’

“The director of the Washington-based Alliance, Nan Aron, said Souter's statements and opinions ‘threaten to undo the advances made by women, minorities, dissenters and other disadvantaged groups.’” (“The Souter Nomination,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 9/9/1990)

• “‘We have to take each nominee as he comes, and our research points to some very troubling aspects of his legal record,’ Aron said.” (“Potential Souter Foes Haven't Made A Move Yet,” The Boston Globe, 8/22/1990)

“The alliance is convinced that Judge Souter will not protect the rights of those suffering discrimination on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or literacy.” (“Souter Nomination Opposed By Liberal Legal Affairs Group,” AP, 9/22/1990)

THE LEFT ON PRESIDENT TRUMP’S UNANNOUNCED NOMINEE: ‘Frightening,’ ‘Disastrous’ And A ‘Nightmare Scenario’

“Democrats Launch Scorched-Earth Strategy Against Trump: What began as a high-minded discussion about how to position the Democratic Party against President Donald Trump appears to be nearing its conclusion. The bulk of the party has settled on a scorched-earth, not-now-not-ever model of opposition. In legislative proposals, campaign promises, donor pitches and even in some Senate hearings, Democrats have opted for a hard-line, give-no-quarter posture, a reflection of a seething party base that will have it no other way. …teeth-baring, no-holds-barred opposition.”  (“Democrats Launch Scorched-Earth Strategy Against Trump,” Politico, 1/26/2017)

“The mobilization against Mr. Trump began even before his victory was official. At just after midnight on Election Day, panicked immigration rights activists gathered for a conference call to strategize. A few days later, more than 80 representatives of 57 progressive groups convened in the offices of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights in Washington. The mood was intense, angry and unforgiving, according to people who attended the confidential organizing session, which included representatives from labor, environmental groups, immigration activists, gay rights and civil rights organizations.” (“Obama May Jump Into Fray As Democrats Counter Trump,” The New York Times, 11/19/16)

• “Those groups, led by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, People for the American Way and the Alliance for Justice, have worked together on Supreme Court nominations since they helped to block conservative nominee Robert Bork in 1987.” (“Nomination Politics Begin For Sotomayor,” USA Today, 5/28/09)

• “Liberal groups are preparing for war under Donald Trump. Top Democratic operatives are huddling this week in a series of meetings to strategize…” (“Liberal Groups Steel Themselves To Battle Trump,” Politico, 11/15/16)

“…the bitter 2016 battle for the White House is turning into a forever war with Hillary Clinton’s tormented team vowing a four-year insurgency against Donald Trump. … grief of Clinton’s loss has transmogrified into anger…” (“Clinton Allies Plot Anti-Trump Movement,” Politico, 12/3/16)

• “…people in her orbit … are plotting an anti-Trump resistance and venting with a fury… Clinton’s vast network of supporters, staffers and operatives is now looking for a way to fight back…” (“Clinton Allies Plot Anti-Trump Movement,” Politico, 12/3/16)

“Obama loyalists plot Trump resistance. Alumni of the Obama White House spent days mourning Trump's win. Now they're ready to fight. … In the past week, Obama alumni have planned gatherings at Glascott’s Saloon in Chicago (an old campaign haunt) and The Winslow in New York. In Washington, they’re meeting in hotel lobbies, 14th Street bars, nonprofits’ conference rooms and living rooms, plotting the resistance over beer and hummus.” (“Obama Loyalists Plot Trump Resistance,” Politico, 11/19/16)

LEFTIST GROUP PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY: “…a Supreme Court to which a President Trump is able to nominate even one or two new justices. …the consequences to all Americans would be disastrous. …all Americans must keep this nightmare scenario in mind as they head to the polls in November.” (“The Disastrous Consequences Of A Trump Supreme Court,” People For The American Way, 9/9/16)

• MARGE BAKER, PFAW: “Donald Trump has also been clear about the kind of justice he’d appoint to our nation’s highest court… he’s already published a list of twenty potential Supreme Court nominees whose views range from extremely conservative to downright frightening.” (Op-Ed, “A Critical Topic At Wednesday’s Debate: The Supreme Court,” Huffington Post, 10/18/16)

• ELLIOT MINCBERG, PFAW: “…the prospect of Trump nominees to the Supreme Court is truly frightening.” (“New Trump Supreme Court List Makes Even Clearer The Dangers Of A Trump Court,” The Huffington Post, 9/26/16)

• “Marge Baker, executive vice president of the liberal group People for the American Way, said none of the 21 names Trump promised to select from during the campaign were acceptable. ‘They’re all going to be a fight,’ Baker said.” (“Trump's Team Gets Ready For Supreme Court Fight,” Politico, 1/30/17)

RADICAL NAN ARON: “‘We are prepared to oppose every name on Trump’s list,’ Nan Aron, the president of the Alliance for Justice, one of the Democratic-leaning groups that has been planning for the court battle since Mr. Trump’s election. ‘The progressive, civil rights community will be united in opposition to either of those prospects or anyone else on the list.’” (“A Supreme Court Pick Is Promised. A Political Brawl Is Certain,” The New York Times, 1/25/17)

• “Nan Aron, the president of the Alliance for Justice, started calling law firms in Washington the day after the election, beginning the process of opposition research on Mr. Trump’s likely Supreme Court nominees. Dozens of lawyers eagerly signed up for what is sure to be a heated battle over the direction of the court for a generation.” (“Obama May Jump Into Fray As Democrats Counter Trump,” The New York Times, 11/19/16)