Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
AP is reporting that Sen. Jon Kyl, the #2 Republican in the Senate and a member of the Judiciary Committee, is refusing to rule out a possible filibuster if Obama nominates someone for the Supreme Court that he doesn't like:
The Senate's No. 2 Republican on Sunday refused to rule out an effort to block confirmation if President Barack Obama seeks a Supreme Court justice who decides cases based on "emotions or feelings or preconceived ideas."Sen. Jon Kyl made clear he would use a filibuster, a procedural move to delay a final vote on a bill or nominee, if Obama follows through on his pledge to nominate someone who takes into account human suffering and employs empathy from the bench.
Let me remind you of what Kyl said on May 19, 2005, when he spoke in support of banning filibusters for judicial candidates on the floor of the Senate and boldly declared that he and his colleagues would never, ever change their minds if a Democrat was in the White House and they were in the minority and wanted to stop one of that president's judicial nominees:
"Republicans seek to right a wrong that has undermined 214 years of tradition - wise, carefully thought-out tradition. The fact that the Senate rules theoretically allowed the filibuster of judicial nominations but were never used to that end is an important indicator of what is right, and why the precedent of allowing up-or-down votes is so well established. It is that precedent that has been attacked and which we seek to restore....My friends argue that Republicans may want to filibuster a future Democratic President's nominees. To that I say, I don't think so, and even if true, I'm willing to give up that tool. It was never a power we thought we had in the past, and it is not one likely to be used in the future. I know some insist that we will someday want to block Democrat judges by filibuster. But I know my colleagues. I have heard them speak passionately, publicly and privately, about the injustice done to filibustered nominees. I think it highly unlikely that they will shift their views simply because the political worm has turned."
I find it highly likely. And that Jon Kyl will be leading the hypocritical charge to do so despite his adamant denials a mere 4 years ago that he and other Republicans were just too gosh darn passionate to right the "injustice" of filibustering judicial nominees. And it took Kyl exactly two days after Obama's election as the next president to reverse his bold position on the matter.
Politics
Comments
Furthermore, the good senator from Arizona added: "We don't want none o' them thinkin' people what thinks about the issues before partisan hacks tells 'em what to think."
Posted by: Schmeer | May 26, 2009 9:35 AM
Since the pick is apparently Judge Sotomayer, I wonder if Kyl has the balls to filibuster a latina appointment and further alienate the latin population in the US?
Posted by: SLC | May 26, 2009 9:58 AM
Yet another reason why the "compromise" was such a terrible, terrible idea. Did anyone really believe the Republicans wouldn't do this - at least a good chunk of them? I mean, I realise the Dems are chumps at the best of times, but still. How many times do you have to have the ball plucked away from you until decide to stop trying to kick it?
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | May 26, 2009 10:00 AM
And no sooner do I post this that it turns out to be completely wrong and Sotomayor, who was originally my favorite for the nomination, is apparently the pick. I figured that her nomination might require too much political capital to get through. She'll be more controversial than Wood or Kagan would have, I think. But she'll still be confirmed, of course.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 26, 2009 10:04 AM
The battles over nominees have nothing to do with judicial activism or emotions, etc. They have to do with the political compass of the nominees.
George Bush just got done loading up the court with extreme right-wing ideologues. Obama and the Democrats should simply point out that the court needs left-wing ideologues appointed now for balance. After all, don't we want an unbiased court?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 26, 2009 11:39 AM
FucKylwad.
Posted by: democommie | May 26, 2009 11:59 AM
And what if they call the Republicans' bluff and make the jackasses stand there and talk for a week or so? After all, the correct response to a three-year-old who threatens to hold his breath is to say "Cool, lets see how long you can last this time."
Posted by: BaldApe | May 26, 2009 12:28 PM
Apparently, the correct response if you are a Democratic legislator is to say how sorry you are for making them angry, plead for forgiveness, and then kick your electoral base right in the fucking gonads, hard.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | May 26, 2009 12:41 PM
Just cool it, IOKIYAR, if you didn't realize it already.
Posted by: natural cynic | May 26, 2009 1:43 PM
That's not even the worst thing Kyl has said recently.
Check this out.
Because when you imprison or torture people, justly or unjustly, that will never be used against you as propaganda.Posted by: FishyFred | May 26, 2009 3:01 PM
Since the pick is apparently Judge Sotomayer, I wonder if Kyl has the balls to filibuster a latina appointment and further alienate the latin population in the US?
Or more specifically, his home state, which has a large and rapidly growing number of Latino voters.
Posted by: FBI Regional Bureau Chief GORDON COLE!!! | May 26, 2009 3:05 PM
@Comrade Physioprof
Sadly, kicking the Democrats in the 'nads wouldn't do much, since they've completely lost theirs, as you imply.
Posted by: BaldApe | May 26, 2009 5:11 PM
Do you really think that he got more than five votes from Hispanics?
Remember, one of his key platform planks was closing the border and cracking down on "illegal immigrants." (Read: people with brown skin, including Apaches and Navajos.) This is a Senator who thinks that Joe Arpaio is soft on "illegal immigrants."
I'm still wishing that a bunch of Hispanic Federal Judges (maybe a Supreme Court Justice?) would put on their gardening clothes and take a drive up I-10 from Casa Grande to Phoenix together in a van -- just to see what happens, you know. It wouldn't hurt, of course, to make sure that the US Ambassador to Mexico is prepared to send them back to us, though.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | May 26, 2009 5:47 PM
THAT was funny.
(And I do get paid to make people laugh....)....
Posted by: gwangung | May 26, 2009 6:23 PM
Not that PZ needs any defending - but I find no inconsistency with someone speaking their mind and not agreeing 100% over things, while still being fully supportive of the overall mission and for the great Eugenie Scott and all who promote science and scientific thinking.
Posted by: sevişme videoları | May 26, 2009 6:42 PM