<p>There is absolutely 0% chance of the Republicans filibustering Kagan. Are you serious? Republicans having been filibustering only the most radical reforms Obama has been pushing, and for good reason. Our debt ratio is skyrocketing, and Obama continues to try to increase public spending to obscenely high levels.</p>
<p>Kagan is a moderate liberal, and her nomination will in no way risk jeopardizing the future of the United States, so therefore, the Republicans will have no need to filibuster her nomination.</p>
<p>This isn’t really true. Mostly they’re just obstructing common things. There’s a massive backlog of Presidential nominees that Senators have anonymously blocked, they essentially killed the DC Voting Rights Bill (which Orrin Hatch actually sponsored) to give DC and Utah each a House member, and actually, they didn’t block healthcare reform. Any stoppage when the Dems had 60 was stopped by the Moderate Dems, not the Republicans.</p>
<p>I’m not a real partisan guy, but they’re definitely just obstructing things in general. Its actually a fantastic strategy for them, because the Democratic Leadership has been pretty toothless in stopping filibusters. Obstructing is very popular and makes the Democrats look terrible, which makes it great for the Republicans.</p>
<p>If the roles were reversed, the Dems would be politically savvy to act in the exact same way. I’m just trying to be clear here–they have been pretty obstructive on all fronts. But it makes sense for them to do so.</p>
<p>billkamix – Ruth Bader Ginsburg spent two years at Harvard Law School and was on the Harvard Law Review. She transferred to Columbia for her third year because her husband (who had been a year ahead of her both at Cornell and at Harvard) had accepted a job in New York City. No one (including her) thinks of her as a Columbia alumna.</p>