Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
From Sen. Jeff Sessions, promising to filibuster Obama's judicial nominees after screaming bloody murder at the horrible injustice of filibuster nominations by Democrats:
I cannot and will not allow the easy confirmation of an individual who seeks a lifetime appointment to use that power of office to advance their own social or political agenda.
Right. Because other people have a "political agenda" but we have only a brave and virtuous fight for truth and justice. As if conservative judges don't have an agenda. As if the virulently racist Jeff Sessions doesn't have an agenda.
Politics
Comments
It's not only that it is utterly hypocritical, in both process (filibuster) and concept (agenda vs truth and justice™) it's also the blatantly political grandstanding. Sotomayor was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a liberal appointment yet the Rethuglicans acted as if she were Che' himself. They ignored the reality of her rulings, ignored the fact that she ruled in favor of the state/establishment by huge margins in most cases relating to race and rights for the accused, they ignored the fact that she was nominated by a conservative president and promoted to her existing position by a moderate president, and openly pretended that she was some sort of radical who had just come down from their secret jungle lair.
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 20, 2009 9:23 AM
Sessions represents the impotent right in opposition to anything Obama proposes. He adds a virulent form of racism to the mix but others on his side of the
aisleprecipice hardly need the added weight of that racism. They hate their impotence and this is how they fight back.Posted by: MikeMa | November 20, 2009 9:53 AM
That's in part because the idea that the current resident of the White House is any kind of "moderate" simply doesn't register with them.
I recently asked someone ranting about the "Socialist in Chief" what, specifically, he objected to that distinguished the current Administration from the previous one. Blank stare.
Repeating the question, all I could get was a bunch of stuff about deficits, gun confiscation, and socialism. Nothing specific.
I fear that the lack of specificity was not surprising, since I doubt that you could find twenty people out of a hundred who could name anything specific, and fifteen of them would be citing pure fantasy from the Rush Limbaugh dimension.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | November 20, 2009 10:39 AM
And this is David frickin' Hamilton we're talking about. A lot like Sotomayor -- not actually a very liberal judge.
The better way for Obama to go about doing judicial nominations would be to nominate some actual judicial liberals, people who could plausibly be accused of harboring some sort of agenda -- and then later, if he wants throw in some guys like David Hamilton, for whom Republicans should be grateful.
Posted by: Tom | November 20, 2009 11:43 AM
Another phrase that wingnuts like to direct towards liberals is that they are "out of touch." A politician supports gay marriage? Well, then he must be out of touch with the mainstream.
Posted by: Tommykey | November 20, 2009 12:54 PM
There's a very simple explanation for that: do YOU want anyone who is gay-friendly touching anything of yours? :)
Posted by: dean | November 20, 2009 2:15 PM
yes
Posted by: BAllanJ | November 20, 2009 2:19 PM
Sessions makes me even sadder than I already am for being an Alabamian.
Posted by: Jeremy | November 20, 2009 4:50 PM
Jeff Sessions = Dope.
That is all...
Posted by: CHV | November 20, 2009 5:22 PM
Tom "The better way for Obama to go about doing judicial nominations would be to nominate some actual judicial liberals, people who could plausibly be accused of harboring some sort of agenda -- and then later, if he wants throw in some guys like David Hamilton, for whom Republicans should be grateful."
I doubt that very much. They aren't the opposition party ("No, and here's why..."). They're the obstruction party ("No!"). Nothing Obama can do is right, even if he does the opposite or nothing at all (when GM got a gov't reprieve, he "nationalised the auto industry!", but if he'd done nothing he'd have "abandoned the American worker!"). I've probably said it before, but Obama could've nominated Bork and the Right would've still gone apeshit.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 20, 2009 7:03 PM
Ed, this is a bit off topic, but may I suggest a candidate for a future Bad Ass Quote of the Day? Brian Leiter linked to a blogger review of Palin's stupid book. This guy just nailed it:
Pretty much sums it up right there.
Posted by: Wes | November 20, 2009 8:01 PM
Wes @ 11 - you can validate that observation by reading the reviews and comments at Amazon for her book. Most of the 5-star reveiws are either parody or her supporters voting up her rating. Few have actually read the book. Unfortunately many people are writing 1 star "reviews" where its obvious they too have not read the book, which does not help counter the cause against Ms. Palin.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 20, 2009 10:23 PM