Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
CQ Politics has an article on how Souter's retirement is firing up the conservative fundraising machine:
Few political battles energize movement conservatives quite like a Supreme Court nomination fight. And word that Justice David H. Souter plans to retire at the end of this session sent a jolt through the right-wing fundraising circuit late Thursday night."This is a nuclear weapon for the conservatives out there," said Dan Morgan, a veteran conservative fundraiser who founded Morgan, Meredith and Associates. "When you do fundraising, there's an emotional component in this and boy the emotion is there magnified times 100."
That's because Supreme Court nominations bring all the hot button issues to the fore - gay rights, church and state questions, abortion, gun rights. And while the liberal interest groups probably do very well on fundraising when Republicans are in the White House, this probably won't do nearly as much to open up the checkbooks on the other side:
The roles have reversed since Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito were confirmed in 2005 -- with Democrats now called on to support a Supreme Court nominee and Republicans in opposition -- but the dynamics of money are the same."During the 2006 [election] cycle, the appointments of Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts were strong and key references in Republican fundraising," Catignani said.
That's not to say that Democrats and interest groups that share their philosophy won't be able to use the moment to revitalize a fundraising base that is depleted after the 2008 election and the economic downturn.
"There was still, I think, a sense of exhaustion, a need to recharge batteries, and the impending resignation of Souter and a choice by the president of a replacement is going to give a number of those organizations and institutions a specific cause, a specific vehicle by which to galvanize their fundraising base," said former Democratic National Committee Chairman Steve Grossman. "This can be a catalyst properly handled that can get people back into a sense of stakeholdership."
But Grossman and other veteran Democratic fundraisers say Republican-minded donors are more likely to give to stop a nominee than Democrats are to support one.
"I think it's going to be a more intense rallying call for the Republicans than for the Democrats," said Jeremy Tunis, a former Democratic fundraiser.
I suspect that any vacancy on the court pushes the fundraising numbers up for right wing groups, regardless of whether it's for their own nominee or against a Democratic nominee, while the left wing groups only thrive in fundraising when there's a conservative nominee.
Politics
Comments
What exactly does this fundraising do? Court picks strike me as more difficult to influence this way than, for instance, elections or even legislation.
Posted by: Ace of Sevens | May 8, 2009 9:40 AM
I was going to ask the same thing. I suspect it's mostly, "I'm a conservative politician. I can has money?"
Posted by: Brandon | May 8, 2009 10:27 AM
I understand how significant advocacy spending could effect the minority party's willingness to filibuster. However, the current paucity of Republicans in the Senate coupled to the fact there are still a few moderate Republicans left - this effort seems largely wasted on a lost cause.
Add to the mix only the nuttiest still make up the grassroots and media-accessible right, we should be in for some very entertaining times. I can't wait to watch conservatives burn their cash to have their leaders heads explode on TV talking about Obama's 'activist' pick. I'll also enjoy the fact that there is no practical risk Obama's nomination will fail, coupled to mainstream Americans continuing to be exposed to their sheer nuttiness a la' the Teabaggers. The Republicans have become the defendants in the Dover Trial, where they crave the fix of self-mutilation in the public square.
Posted by: Michael Heath | May 8, 2009 11:13 AM
The money can purchase lots of rakes. For the muck.
Posted by: rpsms | May 8, 2009 12:14 PM
There is plenty of downside for the Republicans. If Obama's pick sails through the confirmation process, the Religious Right will be deeply demoralized, but if the Republicans are seen to be unreasonably blocking a good candidate, then the "Party of No" and "Boss Limbaugh" memes will become further ingrained in the public consciousness.
So, assuming that Obama makes a good pick, the Republicans could be on a hiding to nothing.
Posted by: tacitus | May 8, 2009 1:02 PM
Most of this week I was on vacation with no internet access and little exposure to the news. On my drive from Alamogordo, NM, to the airport in El Paso for the flight home Thursday, I picked up a radio station with a rightwing talk show host named Jody Heiss (sp?). He and a guest were getting all hot and bothered about Obama's opportunity to fill a supreme court opening.
They quoted Obama to "prove" that he was certainly going to pick a far left liberal. Obama said he was looking for someone with "empathy," which, they pointed out, is a code word for "liberal agenda." (Who knew?) The guest noted that Obama is determined to "expand the power of the judiciary." They also stated that 70% of Americans don't want a liberal justice appointed.
I don't think it matters who Obama picks. The far right is going to scream. Oh, and on another subject -- the naming of an ambassador to the Vatican. Obama should name Sarah Palin. Wouldn't that be a hoot?
Posted by: Gerry L | May 9, 2009 2:17 AM
I have no greater frustration with Democrats and liberals than their impotent responses to conservatives regarding jurisprudence. They have powerful talking points at their disposal they seem totally ignorant are available to them.
While Obama gains some political leverage with the general public when it comes to promoting empathy as an attribute he's looking for in a appellate judge, an attribute I agree with him on; liberals with access to the media should preempt conservatives when arguing in an arena where the discussion raises one or more notches above the general public's understanding by noting that empathy can arguably be equated to the idea of individual liberty in a free society, i.e., government power needs to skeptically scrutinized by the courts in order to insure unconstitutional encroachment of power is not depriving individuals of their rights.
Posted by: Michael Heath | May 9, 2009 9:58 AM