When the San Fran-freakin’-cisco Chronicle is writing stuff like this about the Democrats’ inexplicable opposition to John Roberts, you know the effort is not only doomed, but head-smackingly stupid:
Unable to dent the 50-year-old Roberts on intellectual grounds after three days of questioning, Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats began to ask whether he has the heart and humanity to lead the nation’s third branch of government. …Democrats readily concede that Roberts, an appellate court judge since May 2003 and a former lawyer in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, is a formidable intellect with an impressive command of the law. For his part, Roberts has portrayed himself as a careful, fair lawyer, eschewing any ideology but “modesty and stability.”
But the eight Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee — and other Democratic senators — are being pressured by liberal interest groups unified against Roberts. As the hearings continued today, the committee Democrats seemed to be searching for a way to explain to their constituents a vote against the nominee.
Roberts took pains throughout his testimony to cite famous liberal jurists and court opinions. He announced that he does not believe in reading the Constitution for its original intent, such as conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.
Roberts declared he believes privacy, the foundation of abortion and gay rights rulings, is an enumerated Constitutional right. He adroitly sidestepped every rhetorical trap laid by Republicans and Democrats to get him to state his views on current controversies.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., called Roberts’ performance a “tour de force.” But committee Democrat after Democrat, from Sen. Edward Kennedy D-Mass., to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., raised the issue of Roberts’ “heart.”
The Democrats are going to look ridiculous voting against this guy. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if they had any sense whatsoever, they’d confirm him unanimously and hold their fire for the next nominee. That way, Bush and the Republicans would have a much harder time painting them as “obstructionists” when they gang up against someone who’s actually worth opposing.
The fact is, except for his youth — which is obviously not a valid reason to vote against him — Roberts is just about the best the Democrats could have hoped for. (For heaven’s sake, he distanced himself from Scalia, and he endorsed the right of privacy! What more do they want?) That they are opposing him anyway indicates one of two things: they’re so dumb that they honestly think it’s reasonable to expect Bush to appoint someone who is explicitly pro-Roe and otherwise Ginsburg- or Stevens-sounding, or they’re so beholden to far-left groups like NARAL that they’re unwilling to stick their necks out and do anything that would upset those groups. I’ll let you make your own judgment about whether it’s Column A or Column B.
As I wrote in an e-mail to my dad a few minutes ago: “There are a number of reasons why the Republicans control the government, and a big one has nothing to do with ideology: there’s simply more political talent and political sense on the [GOP’s] side of the aisle right now.” When it comes to political strategy, the Democrats are like a Ty Willingham-led Washington team trying to defeat a Pete Carroll-led USC team. They’re barely even in the same league. (Sorry David. :)
|
Categories: Uncategorized
|
September 15th, 2005 at 6:01:44 pm
Can’t argue with you about the Carroll/Willingham comparison, that’s grounded in fact.
However, do you think we should wait till they vote before we rip them all as partisan hos?
It’s what, day 3 of the hearings, and you’re dropping exclamation points and bolded text like the People’s Army is in Mishawaka.
September 15th, 2005 at 6:04:01 pm
I really don’t think we can say for certain WHAT John Roberts actually believes or how he will vote. At this point he is saying or not saying exactly what is needed to snag this juicy lifetime appointment–perhaps the 2nd most powerful job in govt.
September 15th, 2005 at 6:05:14 pm
I really don’t think we can say for certain WHAT John Roberts actually believes or how he will vote.
I don’t think so either. Did I say that?
Leahy, I don’t know if you’re just engaging in “witty banter” again, but I use boldface and italics. I enjoy using them. I will continue using them. Get over it.
September 15th, 2005 at 6:08:03 pm
P.S. There is one exclamation point in the entire post. There are three instances of boldface text, two of which are in the blockquoted excerpt from the Chronicle article. I use boldface to, among other things, break up long quotes and focus readers’ attention on what I think is most important. It’s a style choice.
September 15th, 2005 at 6:09:27 pm
“Roberts is just about the best the Democrats could have hoped for. (For heaven’s sake, he distanced himself from Scalia, and he endorsed the right of privacy!”
And he could do a 180 quicker than he slaps on that gold striped robe.
September 15th, 2005 at 6:10:04 pm
P.S. Swarthington, I don’t mean to be nasty. I agree with you: Roberts is doing what it takes to get on the Court. But I think my point stands — the Dems could not realistically have hoped for anyone better. That he’s something of a blank slate means that there’s a chance he might turn out different (i.e., more “liberal”) than Bush expects. If Bush picked had someone who wasn’t a blank slate, you can bet the “slate” would be solidly right-wing. As I said, expecting Bush to appoint a Ginsburg or Stevens clone is obviously ridiculous.
September 15th, 2005 at 6:12:29 pm
P.P.S. If Roberts’s statements before the committee are so obviously meaningless, why are we even bothering with the hearings? Just asking…
September 15th, 2005 at 6:14:34 pm
Brendan,
My point is let’s not get into a lather about it yet. The dems haven’t voted yet. And it’s quite an important position, so forgive them if they don’t just rubber stamp it on Day 3.
Plus, there’s Swarthy’s point: who is he and what does he stand for? It’s the big unknown at this point.
September 15th, 2005 at 6:15:52 pm
Tradition. Political theater. Both sides trying to score political points. Dems looking for any possible opening to sink Roberts and give Bush a fat lip.
September 15th, 2005 at 6:18:01 pm
I have a feeling Roberts is gonna turn out to be far more conservative than people expect. Bush knows this already. He’s keeping mum. The trojan horse is at the city gates. Will the Dems let it in?
September 15th, 2005 at 6:18:59 pm
Touchdown!
September 15th, 2005 at 6:19:43 pm
The Dems don’t have a choice, Swarthington. He’s going to get in. The right question is, are they going to throw a big hissy-fit or are they going to salvage their credibility and perhaps give themselves a more realistic chance to block the next one.
September 15th, 2005 at 6:21:16 pm
Leahy, you’re right, they haven’t voted yet. But my advice — that they should confirm him unanimously — won’t be very useful once they’ve voted, now will it? Granted, I doubt anyone is going to listen to me, unless perhaps I predict a hurricane landfall on D.C. or something. :) Regardless, I think I can sense which way the political winds are blowing (no pun intended), and commentate on that basis. But I will gladly retract this post if the Dems end up voting differently than I expect.
September 15th, 2005 at 6:21:58 pm
Yeah, but if they let in someone who turns out to be an arch-conservative how will they look?
September 15th, 2005 at 6:23:00 pm
Like the party that lost the election and suffered the consequences.
September 15th, 2005 at 6:23:23 pm
BILLS WIN!
September 15th, 2005 at 6:42:06 pm
Gee. Maybe if the Democrats push Roberts out they can get Patricia Owens instead. This is the Democratic Party at its strategic worst. They should think of Roberts and Rehnquist as a one-for-one and save their powder for the next nominee.
And this is coming from a Democrat.
September 15th, 2005 at 7:17:26 pm
Max, I have never agreed with you more.
Hell, I’m not sure I’ve ever agreed with you, period. But certainly not more. :)
September 15th, 2005 at 7:21:50 pm
They’ll confirm him, mark my words. They just need to make a big enough stink that they aren’t accused of just rolling over for Bush.
September 15th, 2005 at 7:48:56 pm
I’m sorry, but I don’t see how this has anything to do with “advise and consent”. It simply shows a bunch of pompous airbags bloviating for the cameras. I guess we know what’s in their hearts… Partisan doesn’t begin to describe it. And, while I respect the concept of loyal opposition, this kind of politics only serves to polarize. It makes me think that the phrase “moderate Democrat” is an oxymoron.
Craig
September 15th, 2005 at 7:50:05 pm
It makes me think that the phrase “moderate Democrat” is an oxymoron.
No, it’s not. You need only scroll down to the post immediately below this one…
September 15th, 2005 at 8:03:20 pm
P.S. Another reason Dems shouldn’t oppose is Roberts is now replacing Rehnquist and not O’Connor. Had Roberts replaced O’Connor still and Bush nominated a Scalia clone to replace Rehnquist, Dems would be experiencing double-heartburn right now.
clews is right on. This affair will turn out to have been tremendously embarrassing for those bloviating Democrats. How can they with a straight face ask him over and over again to comment on issues that are going to come before the court? Then he’d just have to recuse himself when those cases come up! Idiots.
September 15th, 2005 at 10:22:04 pm
Seems to me the one thing coming out of this is the implosion of Joe Biden’s Presidential campaign. Nobody wants Geraldo Rivera for President - even if he is from Delaware.
September 15th, 2005 at 10:49:45 pm
David Brooks had a funny, bipartisan spoof of the whole process in the NYT today…Best line (paraphrasing from memory) It is not the job of unelected judges to write the laws. We have unelected lobbyists to do that.”
I am struck by how much party discipline the right wing is displaying here. Roberts is not giving them the red-meat denunciation of Roe that they crave–he is sounding, well, judicious, saying that Roe is settled precedent. But I don’t hear anybody in the Christian right complaining about this, even though he seems to be taking a tolerant view of what, in their eyes, is murder.
Maybe they are very disciplined, very loyal to their party, or maybe they still have faith that Bush has picked someone who will turn out to their liking. Or maybe they have a secret memo disclosing Roberts’ real views.
To me, the questions by the Senators and media coverage seem oblivious to the obvious: Judges don’t rule on issues, they rule on cases. A good judge won’t be a liberal or a conservative. He or she will hear the case and apply/interpret the law and the constitution. Some judges lean liberal, some lean conservative, some are straight up the middle, but they can all be good judges if they do what judges do.
September 16th, 2005 at 1:08:50 am
We could be coached by Knute Rockne himself and we would still lose against Pete Caroll and USC.
September 16th, 2005 at 2:43:41 pm
I am struck by how much party discipline the right wing is displaying here.
Everybody is simply nervous and holding their fingers. We’ve had plenty of GOP presidents appointing supposedly conservative candidates to the bench that have turned out to be more liberal than preferred. Obviously it’s a somewhat unpredictable process. In the mean time, we’re willing to sit on our hands nervously and let the Dems make asses out of themselves in their attempt to divine what cannot be known.
September 16th, 2005 at 2:48:19 pm
The only reason for the Dems to fiddle this nomination is if they think they can hold out for a new nominee (through filibuster) long enough to a) get a new Senate or b) get a new President. I suspect 15 months and 29 months respectively are a little too long to hold out. If this were September 2006 or 2008, this might be a worthwhile endeavour. As it is, it is stoopid base-pleasing, moderate alienating noise. Look for the actual end vote (not the committee vote, the Senate vote ) to be something like 80-20. I suspect there will be 2 or so defections on the committee. (Feinstein and Kohl being the most likely)