From any purely rational point of view, you wouldn’t expect the Republican Party to invest all that much in a fight with President Obama over his nominee to replace Justice David Souter.
The retiring Justice is, after all, considered part of the current Court’s left wing, and is regarded as the Great Judas by many conservatives; how much worse could Obama do? Republicans are down to 40 seats in the Senate, and even if they had the votes to filibuster a Court nominee, they are estopped from doing so by the vast outpouring of rhetoric they deployed against judicial confirmation filibusters when Democrats threatened them during the Bush administration. And above all, a big nasty confirmation fight that they can’t win would represent a large distraction from the GOP’s other goals, most preeminently an effort to derail implementation of the Obama budget in general, and health care reform in particular.
But we’re not talking about people who are necessarily in a position to be purely rational right now.
As I’ve already argued, Republicans are going to be under intense pressure from the cultural-religious wing of the Right to fight Obama’s nominee, whoever it is, with at least as much fervor as they exhibit in fighting Obama’s economic agenda. It’s a simple matter of equal treatment: the Culture Right needs its own Tea Party Moment–its own expression of rage at having its hopes (in their case, hopes for a fifth vote on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade) dashed by the election of Barack Obama, and its own validation that it remains an indispensible pillar of the post-Bush Republican Party that cannot be trifled with. And frankly, given the donor-dampening economic climate, the Cultural Right, like everyone else in politics or issue-advocacy, needs a fundraising cause, and as CQ’s Jonathan Allen explained last week, nothing loosens the conservative pursestrings quite like a Supreme Court fight.
From the initial noises they are making, however, it doesn’t look like Republicans are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into this fight; they’re eager to be thrown into the briar patch. They are leaping upon the president’s passing remark that he wanted a Court nominee who exhibits “empathy” as a reason to denounce his choice in advance as representing a dangerously radical agenda of “judicial activism.”
On one Sunday show yesterday, Sen. Orrin Hatch, widely considered the Republican leader most likely to play ball with the president on a Court appointment, dutifully intoned:

[I]t’s a matter of great concern. If he’s saying that he wants to pick people who will take sides — he’s also said that a judge has to be a person of empathy. What does that mean? Usually that’s a code word for an activist judge.

Funny that Hatch talked about code words, since “activist judge” is perhaps the ultimate code word for any jurist who doesn’t harbor some sort of originalist fantasy of channelling the Founding Fathers. To big elements of the Cultural Right, “activist judge” has an even more specific meaning: anyone who supports a constitutional right to an abortion, or perhaps thinks that “equal protection” applies to gays and lesbians.
On another show, Mitt Romney, who may well be the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012, was even more emphatic about the likelihood of a Court fight.

“The place where I think we draw the line is: Is this an individual who will follow the Constitution and the law, or is this an individual who believes in making the law,” he said. “If it’s the latter, I think we should stand up and scream long and hard.”

Well, we all know where that line is going to be drawn, regardless of the exact identity of the president’s nominee.
I can’t really recall the last time a credible national political figure promised to “stand up and scream long and hard” about anything. But that’s what passes for a presidential temperament among conservatives these days, and that’s why we’re probably going to see a toxic confirmation fight.

I note the passing of Republican Jack Kemp with some ambivalence about his legacy. On the one hand the Kemp-Roth tax cut arguably did more damage to America than any other piece of post-war legislation this side of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. On the other hand, Jack Kemp was a sincere advocate of interracial justice and goodwill, the last of the big tent Republicans in that regard.
Coming so soon after Senator Specter’s defection, Kemp’s passing brings yet another reminder of GOP shrinkage. There are no living Republicans I could name who are anywhere near as passionate as was Kemp about bringing people of color into their party. As Kemp is quoted after the drubbing of the GOP in 2008, in Adam Clymer’s New York Times report on his death ,”The party of Lincoln needs to rethink and revisit its historic roots as a party of emancipation, liberation, civil rights and equality of opportunity for all.”
Kemp, a former GOP VP nominee, HUD Secretary and congressman from Buffalo, earned his creds in race relations early on, as an all-pro quarterback who supported Black players’ boycott of New Orleans in 1965 because of segregated cabs and nightclubs in that city. He was a vocal supporter of civil rights, affirmative action and rights for illegal immigrants and called himself a “bleeding-heart conservative.” What has not been reported in the obits in the major rags is that Kemp also provided pivotal, perhaps decisive support for the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday legislation, twisting the arms of GOP moderates and even some conservatives to support the bill. He remained a friend of Black leaders, including Coretta Scott King, even while she lobbied against the Kemp-Roth legislation.
Kemp was a wonkish conservative ideologue on economic issues. He differed from many Republicans in that he actually believed that massive tax cuts were good for the poor and working people, as welll as the rich. Although he supported many programs that benefited the disadvantaged, Kemp-Roth has lead to billions of dollars in funding cuts for a host of needed social programs. Kemp is also credited with influencing Reagan to push for even deeper cuts in social spending. As American Enterprise Institute scholar Norman J. Ornstein, said, “I think there is no doubt that he had a greater impact on conservative and Republican economic philosophy than anybody else. More than Laffer, more than Reagan.”
Kemp was also the leading political advocate for “enterprise zones,” tax carrots for businesses to invest in decaying neighborhoods, an idea first proposed by Senator Robert Kennedy shortly before he was assassinated. I’ve always thought the basic idea has merit for job-creation, but so far urban enterprise zones have produced mixed results at best in delivering stable jobs that pay a living wage.
As Democrats, we tend to celebrate the weakening of the Republican Party because it usually adds to our numbers. But having a weakened adversary is not such a great thing in terms of keeping us honest, sharp and focused on creative policy solutions. Better in this sense to be challenged by a strong opponent.
With Kemp’s passing and Specter’s departure, however, the GOP looks even less like a Party that offers strong opposition based on reasoned alternatives — and more like a demolition derby.

After its stunning discovery that half of Texas Republicans look favorably on the idea of leaving the United States, the DKos/Research 2000 polling team has apparently decided to ask the same question in other states. The latest poll, from my home state of Georgia, shows 32% of Peach State Republicans look favorably on the idea of secession. Since only 14% of independents and 5% of Democrats agree, the secessionist GOPers are a bit isolated in pulling for a return to 1861. (Or maybe earlier: The DKos article on the poll also has a useful link to a Jay Bookman column for the Atlanta papers about a resolution recently passed by the Georgia Senate that calls for bringing back the concept of state nullification of federal laws).
The same poll also shows three potential Democratic gubernatorial candidates looking pretty competitive against the two established GOP frontrunners, with Roy Barnes (who hasn’t decided if he’s running), Thurbert Baker and David Poythress all holding Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine to a single-digit lead, and all three leading Secretary of State Karen Handel. The race was further complicated today when Republican congressman Nathan Deal (a former Democrat) announced for Governor; it’s looking increasingly likely that both parties will have intense multi-candidate primaries followed by runoffs. Georgia Republicans are notably divided over the records of term-limited incumbent GOP governor Sonny Perdue and a fractious Republican-controlled legislature.
The more surprising thing in the new poll is that it shows both Roy Barnes and congressman Jim Marshall holding incumbent Republican U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson to a single-digit lead, and under 50%. Though the president is thought to be relatively unpopular in Georgia, his favorable/unfavorable ratings there (49/46) are quite similar to those of the generally well-regarded Isakson (47-41).
Even in the Deep South, the GOP is in less than healthy shape, and if they can’t make it there, they can’t make it anywhere.

Initial reaction in Washington to reports that Justice David Souter will retire next month has been interesting: what a pain in the butt for an overstressed Obama administration! Indeed, says the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza, the court opening “could well sidetrack other legislative priorities of the administration.”
Well, sure, choosing a Supreme Court nominee and managing her or his confirmation campaign is, to use George W. Bush’s favorite phrase, “hard work.” Just like any president, Obama will have to deal with expectations of a female, or a Latino, or a “progressive” or “centrist” Justice, and with the peculiar personal investment some of his own friends may develop over the prospect of a lifetime appointment to every lawyer’s dream job.
But I strongly suspect that the Souter retirement will create far fewer problems for Obama than for his opponents, and particularly for the increasingly marginalized Cultural Right, which will likely make any confirmation fight its own Tea Party Moment.
From a rational point of view, of course, the Souter retirement probably won’t change the shape of the Court in any major way: a veteran “liberal” will be replaced by a younger “liberal,” and conservatives don’t have the votes in the Senate to do anything about it.
The Supreme Court, however, is not a rational subject for the Cultural Right, where it assumes vast, mythic proportions as the top tier of a federal judiciary blamed for all sorts of destructive havoc, most notably the legalization of abortion.
To understand how your average right-to-life activist looks at this, remember that this was supposed to be the moment, had the right candidate won the 2008 elections, when the long-awaited fifth vote on the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, and end the “holocaust” of legalized abortion, finally became an imminent prospect.
And to understand how the very mention of David Souter inflames right-wing culture warriors, remember that the reversal of Roe was supposed to happen in 1992, when the Court instead, by a 5-4 margin, reaffirmed the constitutional right to a abortion in the Casey decision, with Bush 41 appointee Souter, the famous “stealth liberal,” shocking many by siding with the pro-choice plurality. The Souter experience has weighed on conservative legal activists ever since, and was a key factor in the successful right-wing revolt against Bush 43’s effort to appoint Harriet Miers–not a known quality on the abortion issue–to the Court in 2005.
In the days just ahead, memorials to Souter’s service on the Court will be an embittering factor for those who view him as an especially insidious enabler of mass baby-killing: a Republican who disguised views that would have denied him confirmation.
And to the many organizations of the Cultural Right–in the midst of a long losing streak, treated with contempt by many Republicans, and recently taking a back seat even among “movement conservatives” to crypto-libertarian outrage about federal spending and taxes–the prospects of a Supreme Court confirmation fight over the successor to the hated Souter will be absolute catnip, and an unequalled opportunity to raise money and boost membership and morale.
Their immediate objective will be to force Senate Republicans to commit to a filibuster of any objectionable nominee. The Senate GOP has already threatened to filibuster lower-level Obama judicial appointees if he doesn’t respect their traditional veto powers over judges in their own states, making a mockery of Bush-era conservative arguments that such filibusters are unconstitutional. It’s a relatively small step to organize a filibuster against a “divisive” Obama Supreme Court nominee. And such a campaign would nicely serve as a litmus test to separate the sheep from the goats in the GOP, and to demonstrate the continuing power of the Cultural Right.
The opening skirmish, of course, will come in the form of demands from all sorts of directions that Obama appoint a “noncontroversial” Justice, which from the point of view of the Right would mean someone who disagrees with the president’s own well-honed constitutional views.
Once Obama announces a choice, however, the gloves will come off, and years of cultural conservative frustration over the Court will come flowing out, with no cohesive Republican Party or conservative movement to channel and control it. It could get very, very noisy, and very, very ugly, very very fast, particularly if Obama appoints, as he undoubtedly could, an “out” lesbian to the Court.
Maybe this is a premature prediction, but I’d bet the Cultural Right is about to undertake its version of the Tea Parties this summer and fall. And given the configuration of forces in the Senate and the country, the likely victim will not be Barack Obama or his Court nominee, but a Republican Party whose coalition is becoming unglued in every sense of the word.

Sam Roberts has a New York Times report on a new Pew Research Center analysis of November election voting data. The Pew Research Center analysis adds some interesting detail to what was known about the historic election. First, the African American vote and turnout:

The longstanding gap between blacks and whites in voter participation evaporated in the presidential election last year…Black, Hispanic and Asian voters made up nearly a quarter of the electorate, setting a record….for the first time, black women turned out at a higher rate than any other racial, ethnic and gender group.
Despite widespread predictions of record voter turnout last November, the overall rate was virtually the same as in 2004. But the composition of the electorate changed. The turnout among eligible whites declined slightly, by 1.1 percent, but rose by 4.9 percent among blacks…In 2004, the gap between white and black turnout rates was nearly seven percentage points. It was less than one percentage point four years later.

But it isn’t just the Black vote that turned the election;

…The number of eligible Hispanic voters has soared by more than 21 percent since 2004, a reflection of population gains and growing numbers of Hispanics who are citizens. Their share of eligible voters increased to 9.5 percent, from 8.2 percent four years earlier. In 2008, for the first time, the share of white non-Hispanic eligible voters fell below 75 percent.

And the current electorate looks like this:

The Pew analysis found that whites constituted 76.3 percent of the record 131 million Americans who voted last November. Blacks accounted for 12.1 percent, Hispanic voters for 7.4 percent and Asians for 2.5 percent. Together, black, Hispanic and Asian voters made up 22 percent of the voters, compared with about 12 percent in 1988.

All of which is close in keeping with the arguments advanced by TDS co-editor Ruy Teixeira and John Judis in their book, “The Emerging Democratic Majority,” and in a more recent book edited by Teixeira, “Red, Blue, and Purple America: The Future of Election Demographics“. Some may argue that the ’08 election was an exception because of the uniqueness of the Obama phenomenon, leading to a sort of ‘chicken and egg’ argument. But even after conceding his effect on increasing turnout among people of color, Obama didn’t create the demographic trends that made his election possible.
In a recent interview with Teixeira posted at the Center for American Progress web pages, he had more to say about demographic change that benefits Democrats:

There are a variety of ways in which America has changed demographically and geographically in the last 20 years that have sent things in a more progressive direction. One of the biggest changes is the decline of the white working class, which is the most conservative element of the population, really. According to exit poll data, the percent of white working class voters is down 15 points in the last 20 years, whereas minority voters who lean pretty heavily progressive are up 11 points, and white collar graduates who have been shifting progressive rapidly in the last couple of decades, they’re up four points. So that’s a big change. Other changes that are important are the professionals, which is a growing occupational group, have shifted pretty heavily toward progressives. Single women, another growing group that has shifted toward progressives, and of course there’s this burgeoning millennial generation, which is adding about 4 million people to the eligible voter pool every year. These are people born after 1978. They’re very heavily progressive, as we saw in the last election. They voted 66 to 32 for Barack Obama. So those are just some of the changes that, in a demographic sense, are making the country much more progressive.

Teixeira explains that it’s not all about demographics, because much of the electorate is to a great extent tiring of the GOP’s insistence that the ‘free market’ is the panacea for all America’s problems. Teixeira cites a growing belief among the electorate that government can help address some social and economic problems. But he holds that demographic trends will continue to favor Democrats:

if we look at these demographic trends and how they’re unfolding, you don’t see very much that actually strengthens the conservatives’ case or the conservatives’ prospects. Pretty much all the demographic trends are going to continue moving in progressive directions for the next 20 years. Just as one obvious example, we’re going to become an increasingly diverse society over time. By the year 2023, the majority of children will be minorities, people under eighteen. By the year 2042, we’ll be a majority minority nation… We’re going to see continuing increases in the proportion of single women; we’re going to see even the millennial generation, as I mentioned earlier, adding about 4 million eligible voters to the voter pool every year until the year 2018. So I think if you put these things together…the potential is there for a durable and pretty strong progressive majority looking pretty far out into the future.

If President Obama and the Democratic majority of congress can secure needed reforms that produce significant progress for Americans of all races — admittedly a big “if” — the demographic trends that are in motion should insure growing majorities of American voters supporting Democratic candidates in the years ahead.