John Roberts has been confirmed, 78-22, as the new Chief Justice of the United States.
Here’s the roll call. Senator Lieberman, unsurprisingly, voted yes. Senator Dodd, much more surprisingly, also voted yes. Hooray for the reasonableness of Connecticut Democrats!
From Indiana, Senator Bayh voted no. Boooo. (Lugar voted yes, obviously.)
In addition to Bayh, the other 21 Democrats voting “no” were: Akaka (HI), Biden (DE), Boxer (CA), Cantwell (WA), Clinton (NY), Corzine (NJ), Dayton (MN), Durbin (IL), Feinstein (CA), Harkin (IA), Inouye (HI), Kennedy (MA), Kerry (MA), Lautenberg (NJ), Mikulski (MD), Obama (IL), Reed (RI), Reid (NV), Sarbanes (MD), Schumer (NY), Stabenow (MI).
With both of the Democratic senators from New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts voting no, and Rhode Island’s one Democrat also voting no (the Rhode Island Republican voted yes, of course), Connecticut is an island of reasonableness surrounded by knee-jerk opposition!
In other news, Obama’s vote is disappointing.
Senator Schumer said: “While this nomination did not warrant an attempt to block this nominee on the floor of the Senate, the next one might.” Bold words from one who voted “no” on this nominee! Hint: you’d have a thousand times more credibility if you’d voted “yes,” senator. (My thoughts on this point are here.)
Regarding the “next one,” Schumer added: “I hope and pray the president chooses to unite, rather than divide — that he chooses consensus over confrontation.” Hope and pray, eh, Chuck? And here I thought the Dems believed in separation of church and state… heh. :)
|
Categories: Joe Lieberman
|
September 29th, 2005 at 12:13:49 pm
Judging by Bush’s past hirings (Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Brown) I can only imagine what damage Roberts will do to our country in the coming decades.
September 29th, 2005 at 12:18:36 pm
Brendan,
I am guessing one of the major reasons that Bayh voted no is that he is poised for a presidential run in ‘08 and wants to win his party’s support in the primary. As of a month ago he had raised more money than any other democrat…Just food for thought.
September 29th, 2005 at 12:22:53 pm
Yeah, I thought that myself. Same with Hillary, Biden, etc. Still, boooo.
September 29th, 2005 at 12:27:42 pm
I don’t think Dodd was a surprise; wasn’t his support locked up before today?
Not sure that the RI Republican merits an “of course”; probably, but Chafee is a very liberal Republican.
Agreed on Obama. Depending on how he continues to vote, it will take more than a booming voice and sound enunciation to be convincingly statesmanlike such that he’s a moderate presidential choice.
September 29th, 2005 at 12:33:44 pm
A moderate Democrat is a warmed-over Republican. There’s no way to be reasonable with the GOP leadership. I don’t blame any Dem for making a stand.
September 29th, 2005 at 12:34:14 pm
boo why boo? They voted against a person that they felt was inappropriate for the Supreme Court. The Constitution does not say “with advice and rubber stamp of the Senate.”
Could Bush have picked someone more ape shit insane than Roberts? Sure he could of. That does not mean that a Senator must vote for him to be considered reasonable.
More on this later if I have time…
September 29th, 2005 at 12:35:49 pm
A moderate Democrat is a warmed-over Republican.
Congratulations on your enlightened views, A & A, I hope you enjoy your Permanent Minority Status (TM).
There’s no way to be reasonable with the GOP leadership. I don’t blame any Dem for making a stand.
What if they’re “making a stand” for something that’s WRONG? Accepting for the sake of argument that the GOP leadership is generally unreasonable, isn’t it still wrong to oppose them just for the sake of opposing them when they unexpectedly do something reasonable or correct?
Alex, you might be right about Dodd, I haven’t been following it closely. I’m just generally surprised because he’s much more of a liberal and a party-line guy than Lieberman.
September 29th, 2005 at 12:37:34 pm
Dane, I eagerly await your explanation of how someone as apparently qualified and relatively moderate as John Roberts is “inappropriate for the Supreme Court.” Please note that your explanation should take into account the basic fact that elections have consequences. In other words, if your criteria for someone “appropriate for the Supreme Court” would allow Bush no leeway to announce someone more conservative than Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it will not convince me. Also, if your position is that senators should treat Superme Court nominations as a glorified election — voting for people if they agree with them politically, and against them if they disagree — you’ll need to justify why we should make such a bold break with tradition at this late date in the history of the republic. (For more on said tradition, you may want to consult the roll-call vote for the aforementioned Justice Ginsburg.)
September 29th, 2005 at 12:38:39 pm
Brendan,
Engaging A&A on politics is like playing chess with Deniro’s character from Awakenings.
Pounding your head against a wall feels so much better when you stop.
September 29th, 2005 at 1:55:14 pm
Brendan, I think you are wrong here. Just because YOU think he is reasonable, or even most people think he is reasonable, doesn’t mean that a person can’t have reasonable objections.
Why is it knee-jerk opposition? Have you read every single senators reasons for voting no?
I understand that you believe Roberts is probably one of the best choices that Democrats could hope for from this administration, but why does that mean they should be ok with it? If you strongly feel more to the left on issues, and strongly feel that however moderate Roberts might be and better than other choices, he still doesn’t live up to what your view of a Supreme Court Justice (let alone Chief) should be, then you should vote no, its the honest thing to do.
Certainly there are some people who are objecting so they look good to their constituency, but why is it knee-jerk when you really honestly don’t think he is the best choice.
It may be that every single person is only opposing him because he is being nominated by Bush, and that it is knee-jerk opposition without any legitimate concerns of him as a judge. And maybe you think that even if they have a few minor reservations they should swallow their pride and for the sake of “political capital” they should put up a good show of solidarity so they can more easily criticize a later nominee. Thats a strategic decision that may or may not be valid. As Bea would say, thats how the system works.
Fine, but maybe the system is broken and by standing up and, i dunno, voting their conscience, they are doing what is right, even if you think their opinion is wrong.
September 29th, 2005 at 1:57:46 pm
apparently qualified and relatively moderate as John Roberts is “inappropriate for the Supreme Court.”
In YOUR opinion. What if they feel that this person is honestly not qualified. Not saying I or you would agree with that person, but still, shouldn’t they go with what they believe is right, and not merely toe the party line?
September 29th, 2005 at 2:05:12 pm
Democrats attacked from the left and Bush attacked from the right. What is this world coming to???
September 29th, 2005 at 2:11:59 pm
Brendan,
Comparing the tradition that existed at the time of Ginsberg’s nomination with that which exists now is like comparing Kirstie Alley circa Star Trek with present day Kirstie (Jenny Craig can only do so much). That tuchus just isn’t coming back.
There’s been a sea change in civility at the Congressional level. Bitter, spiteful partisanship rules the day, and it started after the midterm elections in ‘94 - you can thank Andrew’s Master for much of it. One particularly dashing cooze hound from Little Rock and his mouthy wife really twisted a lot of panties, and we’re still dealing with the fallout today.
The whole thing is toxic, and I don’t think it will change any time soon. The country has become a sort of pathetic Gollum figure. We really don’t like ourselves.
September 29th, 2005 at 2:19:03 pm
As Bea would say, thats how the system works
Hey, Bea did not make up the rules of political plays and political shenanigans, I only comment on my observations. I think not voting for Roberts is kinda dum, even political capital-wise, but then again, I am not a a politician, and I do not want to politicize any more than we have to offices that ought not to be political.
But, polticians will make politics outof anything they can if they think they have something to gain. Here in California, the latest nominee for the Department of Motor Vehicles, an office that should be fairly UN-political and concerned with being more efficient than it currently is–the DMV, as anyone who ever lived in California can tell you, is the standard by which every resident measures and refers to government bureaucracy and inefficiency at its best, rightly or wrongly–and less concerned with any political crap that might be swung its way. So, the fairly reasonable pick for DMV head gets denied by the Senate Dems. Why? Uhm, well, despite being qualified for the task at hand, President Pro-Tem Don Perata clearly stated that we need a more political figure for that office, because of the challenges coming its way. Huh? What? Oh yeah, because the California legislature keeps trying to pass a bill to allow illegal immigrants to get driver’s licenses–ina different color for the world to know they are illegal, no less, a stupid idea if I ever heard one–then we need someone who can deal with these issues. Yes, this is really the argument that Dems gace for not going forward with Joan Berucki. Not political enough for their sensibilities, and more improtantly, not political enough int he RIGHT ways for ther sensibilities. Yet one more reason the liberal Dems in the state legislature are ruining California…
Ok that was mt California poltiics suck ranting of the day :)
September 29th, 2005 at 2:27:55 pm
Okay, I’ll try and explain briefly my thinking.
There is nothing that requires a Senator even to give deference to what the President wants in regards to Supreme Court nominations. Deference in the case of cabinet appointments I can understand, but when we are talking about a third co-equal branch, my thinking is that the President and the Senate are more or less equal in their weight deciding the matter — and there is nothing in the language of the constitution to suggest that they are not, or shouldn’t be. That’s not to say that the Senate should be draconian about things, but this idea that the President, ipso facto, gets whomever they want is just stupid on its face.
What I mean is, a Senator has just as much latitude voting for or against a nominee as the president has for picking the person in the first place. So it is disrespectful to not give the Senate the materials it requests. It also makes it difficult to arrive at a clear decision on the subject without the relevant facts. If a Senator feels that the nominee was insufficiently forthcoming about things in committee, they have the right to vote nay. If they think they are not competent to be a judge, clearly they must vote nay. And it is perfectly acceptable to vote nay based on whatever political expediencies you might see in doing so — the same way the President is free to exercise whatever political expediencies s/he might see in selecting the person in the first place — this is not to say that this is some kind of glorified election, but Brendan, you must face facts, both the President and Congress are political bodies, and they will make decisions based on political expediencies. They always have and they always will. Thinking this is not the case is naive.
And, lest we forget, some of the original conceptualization of the Constitution saw the Congress NOT the President as the first branch amongst equals — there is a reason Article I establishes Congress so saying that the President is some how above Congress and that they should give him whatever he wants because he was elected is silly. The Senators were also elected and must do what they think is best for the people that elected them. Asking them not to do so would be asking them not to do their job.
And, while we are on the subject of history. You are aware that up until fairly recently any Senator could place a hold on a nomination to the court for any reason and that was it. Game Over. Not that this assured 100% yes votes but you certainly had to pick someone reasonably moderate.
While were on the subject of what makes a good judge, which is more or less a tangent in this case. Moderate makes a good judge in my opinion. You mention some one no more conservative than Ginsburg or Kennedy but really, you should not pick someone more liberal than the two of them either. There is a reason that judges appointed and confirmed by opposing parties tend to be better judges than those appointed and confirmed by the same party.
All of this is not to say that I would have voted against Roberts. But it does not mean I would vote for him either. I’m not sure that he really answered questions openly enough. And it would have been good if the Bush administration would stop it with the “every document the government has ever produced is classified” policy.
Be all that is it may, it seems odd to me that you are attacking people because they voted against someone because they felt there was insufficient information to confirm him. My point is, I don’t see why you are saying fie upon you for trying to do your job, represent your constituents.
I think this is probably terribly unclear. So let me know what I did not enunciate clearly enough and I’ll see what I can do.
September 29th, 2005 at 2:29:08 pm
Bea,
I could write you a novel about why the California DMV nominee is the absolutely WRONG person for the job. But instead I’ll just say that I’m glad to see you posting today.
September 29th, 2005 at 2:29:50 pm
For a more objective view of the issues involved in the California DMV story….see here.
September 29th, 2005 at 2:30:41 pm
david.. is kennedy really qualified to determine anyone’s qualifications for anything???
September 29th, 2005 at 2:36:35 pm
Let me clarify, I was not posting about my overwheling support for Joan Borucki, but about how I disliked this idea that the DMV has to be political.
September 29th, 2005 at 2:41:24 pm
Ken, what are you trying to say? Please make your argument because merely linking to an article I have read already and saying it offers a more objective view than mine is not really telling me anything. Like I said, I am objecting to making an agency that shuffles papers and gives you licenses, some political bastion for the fight agaisnt the injustices perpetrated on illegal immigrants. I am objecting to unnecessarily making the DMV head a political leader to satisfy the Democratic agenda. I would say the same if it was the Reps politicizing something that has no business being politcized, to further their agenda. Please explain.
September 29th, 2005 at 2:47:06 pm
Yet one more reason the liberal Dems in the state legislature are ruining California…
I don’t see how anyone could accuse that statement of not being objective.
September 29th, 2005 at 2:51:38 pm
Well, me saying politicizing stuff that shouldnt be is ruining California is not objective, yes. But, I am not clear on how the article Ken linked to is an objective argument for anything. It is a link to a story about an event I just described and find objkectinable. I am just asking that he explain what he means, I am not sure what his argument is. That it is ok to politicize DMV? That the Dems are not really politicizing? That I have my facts wrong? I just wanna know what he is saying, I cannot read minds.
September 29th, 2005 at 2:56:06 pm
Do you honestly believe that your accusation is objective? Bea, you are a diehard Republican who just claimed that Democrats in the legislature are ruining the state of California (in the sentence I quoted. Read it again.)
What am I missing?
September 29th, 2005 at 2:59:42 pm
“What if they’re “making a stand” for something that’s WRONG?”
Brendan-How do you define wrong? Roberts may be for repealing Roe v. Wade, but the WH has not released his papers as assistant solicitor general so that Senators can come to a more informed opinion. Democrats should not vote against the interests or wishes of their supporters (neither should Republicans). Since they don’t know where Roberts stands on many issues important to Democrats, Democratic Senators should not be expected to vote for the guy.
September 29th, 2005 at 3:02:19 pm
So Angrier,
I guess you are from the ‘litmus-test’ school of judicial appointments. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
September 29th, 2005 at 3:05:20 pm
Don’t confuse him with the changeup, Swarthy. He can’t even handle a grooved fastball yet.
September 29th, 2005 at 3:08:19 pm
I would like to know where Roberts stands on a lot of things. For instance, Rehnquist, who Roberts was close to, believed in States Rights taking precedent over Federal and individual rights. Rehnquist even wrote up arguments against Brown vs.the Board of Education, saying that Plessy vs. Ferguson was correct. Does Roberts believe that? Does Roberts believe Privacy is guaranteed by the Constitution. If not, does that mean the Federalist Society has a right to keep its membership roster private? I would like to know.
September 29th, 2005 at 3:09:44 pm
How could he be worse than Rehnquist? Is that even possible?
September 29th, 2005 at 3:09:52 pm
Hey, Coach Swarthington-hy…
You really need to work on the timing of your postings. The odds of two different people repeatedly posting within minutes of each other on pretty much a constant basis once again re-affirms my contention that you are one person.
September 29th, 2005 at 3:10:24 pm
How could he be worse than Rehnquist? Is that even possible?
- Scalia
September 29th, 2005 at 3:11:17 pm
Angrier,
And George Bush and John Roberts would like you not to know. You will have answers to all your questions about Roberts soon enough. Muhahaahahahahahaha.
September 29th, 2005 at 3:11:23 pm
I think the point A&A was trying to make is, “It is rather stupid to vote to confirm someone that you don’t actually want to see on the court.”
September 29th, 2005 at 3:12:53 pm
Angrier,
If Leahy and I are the same person then we have an ability to bilocate that would put Padre Pio to shame.
September 29th, 2005 at 3:17:08 pm
The comments by both Angrier, David and Dane suggest that they subscribe to the belief that senators should vote for or against a judicial candidate based on his/her ideology and position on issues, rather than simply on whether the person is objectively “qualified” for the position (and not SO extreme that the ideology itself is a disqualification for the job, a la Bork). I suppose that is one possible view of the matter, but to my knowledge it is entirely different from the view that has been taken throughout history (again, please see Ginsburg’s 96-3 confirmation; according to you guys, the anti-Roe, strict-constructionist, anti-judicial-activist Republicans should have voted against her, I guess, because she was a known “liberal” judge, right?), and I haven’t yet seen a compelling argument why that particular piece of history and tradition should be discarded. Dane writes, “it is perfectly acceptable to vote nay based on whatever political expediencies you might see in doing so — the same way the President is free to exercise whatever political expediencies s/he might see in selecting the person in the first place.” All I’m saying is, that isn’t the way it’s been done in the past, and I want to know why our system will be better if we start doing it that way from now on. Because I am not convinced that it’s obvious that more partisan rancor is better. The question here isn’t “rubber stamp” vs. “advice and consent” — that’s a straw man — the question is exactly what are the criteria for determining whether “consent” should be given. You guys basically want it to be, “Do we agree with this candidate about stuff?” But that’s not how the decision has historically been made, and again, I haven’t heard an argument for why we should suddenly change course now. It seems to me, the president should get discretion in this area. Not unlimited discretion, but discretion. To me, “advice and consent” does not mean “you are a co-equal partner in picking the person,” so therefore the idea that senators have the same leeway as the president seems absurd. But if that’s the way we’d been doing it for 200 years, I’d probably be fine with it. I’m just not sure why we should change it now. We may rue this day, when there’s a Democratic president and a Republican Senate (or a Dem Senate with a sizable GOP minority) somewhere down the road…
As for the argument about the documents that haven’t been released… without knowing all the details, I am inclined to agree that they probably should have been; this administration is definitely too enamored of secrecy. But c’mon, we all know that’s a shell game. The reason I haven’t paid too much attention to the document war is because, like with Bolton, the lack of documents is just an excuse to vote against Roberts. These Dems oppose him because he’s not pro-Roe and not in favor of various other pet causes that are popular with the Dem base. That’s obvious; it’s as plain as the nose on my face. To claim otherwise — to credit their stated motivations as being their real motivations — is as absurd and naive as ascribing to Karl Rove & co. some high-brow motive for one of their base political maneuvers.
September 29th, 2005 at 3:17:19 pm
Bea….my statement probably should have read for a more “complete” view of the DMV story rather than a more “objective” view. When I read your statement I went looking to see what the story was all about and found the referenced article.
Essentially your statement quoted the Schwartzenegger view of what the Democrats had done. The story I linked to explained the Democrats view of what they had done. Certainly one can argue whether it was the correct decision or not…but I think it is fair to say that the Democrats don’t agree that they rejected the nominee (who is a Democrat incidentally) for the reasons you stated.
You simply presented one view of what was done. You also quote Perata as saying there was a need for a more “political figure”….when the actual quote was for a “political leader…someone who knows how to marshal forces of political clout to make sure we are safe.”
I really don’t know what is right…and frankly now that I am 3000+ miles away from California I don’t really care….but after reading the referenced article felt that there was a lot you had left out that was explained in the article and that would let people better evaluate what was going on that just your mere re-statement of the Republican partly line on what had happened.
September 29th, 2005 at 3:21:47 pm
P.S. All that said, my #1 reason for scorning the Dems who voted against Roberts is because it’s a politically block-headed move, not because I think it’s wrong to vote against someone based on ideology. My point is, don’t go down in flames on a losing battle that isn’t even really worth fighting in the first place. Save your fire for someone more thoroughly worth opposing.
September 29th, 2005 at 3:23:55 pm
Loy,
You’re still clinging to a pre-1994 version of civility. Perhaps that’s the way it *should* be, but it doesn’t reflect current realities. If Clinton were to nominate Ginsberg in 2005, you’d see a similar result as that of the Robert’s nomination.
It’s an ugly world down there in DC. I suggest you stay away. Unless you’re going to lead a fellowship of civility into town to shake things up, Frodo.
September 29th, 2005 at 3:26:44 pm
Loy,
I think they did save their bullets. He was confirmed by a nearly 80% vote. The party moderates voted to confirm.
I would agree with you if it was a closer vote, but I don’t think there’s going to be much of a backlash for today’s symbolic gesture.
September 29th, 2005 at 3:36:58 pm
Brendan-
The people who are voting against Roberts are not going down in flames. They are playing to their base. It would be more damaging for someone like Shumer to vote FOR Roberts.
September 29th, 2005 at 3:39:12 pm
Umm, Leahy, “80%” is a highly deceptive number, considering you’re including the Republicans in there! Every single Democrat could have voted against him, and he still would have been confirmed by a 55% vote. The truth is, half of the Dems saved their bullets, half didn’t. 50%, not 80%. Obviously I am not criticizing the ones who saved their bullets. It’s the half who voted against Roberts that I’m criticizing. I think I am on solid ground criticizing them for their actions, notwithstanding that some others wisely chose to act differently.
I didn’t want a mere non-backlash. I wanted the credibility boost that would have come with a unanimous vote to confirm, which I think would have been altogether appropriate. Suppose the next nomination is more controversial and breaks the tenuous compromise over the filibuster, and the GOP invokes the “nuclear option” and then goes to the polls in 2006 after doing so. Would the public buy the “obstructionist Democrats” argument if the Dems had just confirmed a Bush appointee unanimously a few months earlier? It would certainly be a harder argument to make, don’t you think? And a solid Dem rebuttal to the charges, eh? That’s what I wanted to see.
Finally, yes, I am arguing for how things should be, not merely reciting how they are. That’s the nature of advocacy.
September 29th, 2005 at 3:41:10 pm
I week for poor Chucky’s dilemma, Angrier, I really do. Do the right thing, both for the country and the national party, or tow the NARAL line and win cheap support for the next election cycle? Oh, poor Chuck.
September 29th, 2005 at 3:41:50 pm
There’s been a sea change in civility at the Congressional level. Bitter, spiteful partisanship rules the day, and it started after the midterm elections in ‘94 - you can thank Andrew’s Master for much of it.
That’s a rather ignorant statement to make, considering the invective that was being thrown around by Democrats back when Reagan was president. What do they say about being doomed to repeat history?
September 29th, 2005 at 3:43:26 pm
P.S. to Leahy: you say the Republicans would have given Ginsburg hell if she had been nominated after 1994. Well, that’s an interesting hypothesis, but of course it’s unprovable one way or the other, as it hasn’t happened yet. But guess what precedent those 22 Dems have now set? The precedent is, you can/should vote against even an objectively reasonable, decent and qualified candidate, if you disagree (or suspect you might disagree) with that person on various ideological issues that are important to your political base. That’s not a legal precedent, but it’s a powerful political one. Your statement about how a post-1994 Ginsburg will be treated is thus a self-fulfilling prophecy. It will be very easy now for the GOP to justify voting against a liberal nominee; they need only point to the Roberts vote and say, “Hey, those Dems did it.”
September 29th, 2005 at 3:50:17 pm
P.P.S. Some background info:
After Justice Byron White announced his retirement on March 19, 1993, President Bill Clinton decided to nominate Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second woman justice of the Supreme Court. When her nomination went to the Senate for confirmation Sen. William Cohen (R-Maine) stated bluntly that the nominee’s ideology was rightly a matter of concern. But Cohen suggested during the hearings that judicial ideology should be used only to determine if the nominee’s philosophy is “so extreme that it might call into question the usual confirmation prerequisites of competency and judicial temperament.” Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) was not pleased with the advance praise of Ginsburg by many senators and argued that “a coronation in advance is not in the best interest of the system.”
Although Ginsburg’s confirmation seemed almost assured the Senate did consider her positions on liberal issues. When asked about her position on abortion Ginsburg was forthright, becoming the first nominee to expressly confirm that she believed in a woman’s right to abortion. Despite her frank admission, few Republicans took the position that her embrace of abortion rulings disqualified her from a seat on the Court. But Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and others became exasperated when she declined to answer Senator Specter’s question about her position on the death penalty. They also expressed frustration when she declined to answer questions about gay rights. When Sen. Cohen pressed her for an answer, she responded, “Senator, you know that that is a burning question that at this very moment is going to be before the Court, based on an action that has been taken. I cannot say one word on that subject that would not violate what I said had to be my rule about no hints, no forecasts, no previews.”
(I assume that those who believe Roberts was wrong to refuse to answer questions also feel the same way about Ginsberg?)
Republicans did not find Ginsburg to be a controversial nominee and on Thursday, July 29, 1993, the Judiciary Committee voted unanimously in favor of her confirmation, a mere six days after the hearings concluded. The Senate then approved Ginsburg’s nomination by a vote of 96 to 3. The three dissenters were Conservative Republicans Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina), Don Nichols (R- Oklahoma), and Robert C. Smith (R-New Hampshire). Sen. Helms said he voted against her because of her position on abortion and the “homosexual agenda.”
So basically, the 22 Democrats who voted against Roberts today are following in the glorious footsteps of the esteemed Jesse Helms. And you wonder why I say “boooo.”
September 29th, 2005 at 3:50:32 pm
As for the Bush administration withholding documents, the vast majority of what the Senators wanted to see that was denied was due to attorney-client privilege. Is partisan opposition research really more important than maintaining the sanctity of attorney-client privileges?
September 29th, 2005 at 3:54:12 pm
If what Andrew says is correct, then certainly withholding the documents was right. As I said, I didn’t follow that issue closely because it doesn’t matter — the whole thing was a shell game and I wasn’t going to waste my time with it. Those 22 Dems opposed Roberts because NARAL, People for the American Way, Daily Kos & MoveOn.org wouldn’t have it any other way, not because of a refusal to release documents or anything else.
September 29th, 2005 at 4:01:14 pm
Brendan, stop being naive please. Politics have been a driving force in and about the judicial branch since before Marbury v. Madison. Hell, political expediency and the Judicial branch was what that case was about. The only thing that is different in this case is the political posturing and maneuvering is usually carried out in back rooms not out in the open.
Seriously though, WHY should the President get any deference in the case of judicial appointments? The Congress should not cow tow to the President, that’s stupid they are co-equal branches.There was noting particularly wrong with the Senate rules that allowed any Senator to put an indefinite hold on a nomination for any reason.
Yes, objectively qualified is important. But “qualified” can mean an awful lot of things - even objectively. If the President can consider how a judge will vote in selecting them, why can’t the Senate look at the same when confirming them? Personally, I don’t like litmus test on judges. But I also don’t want ideologues as judges. Let me be very clear, I don’t want conservative OR liberal ideologues as judges.
Be that as it may, political ideology has always been and issue in nominations. They have been held up for a lot of reason. Holds put on them, or potential nominees removed before they were named. Hell, the second person to be nominated for Chief justice went down for mostly political reasons - and being too young if I recall without actually looking it up. So I’m not sure exactly which horse we would change in mid stream here. So the point is, there is no reason to say fie upon ye to these Senators if they honestly think they are acting in the best interest of their constituents. That is their job, they have no other job. That is their primary duty, to protect the interests of the people of their state period.
As to the particulars of this case. From what I’ve seen there is nothing particularly wrong with Roberts — certainly Bush could have nominated someone who is ape shit insane instead. And that is why I do not see any reason, politicly speaking, to stop the nomination by any means necessary. Ideologically speaking things could have been a lot worse. If I was actually going to make a decision on him, I would actually want to talk to him about some things. But the decision is not my job, so it does not matter what I think.
September 29th, 2005 at 4:04:57 pm
Loy,
Nice research. We’ve reached an impasse on this issue. I can’t prove Ruth’s confirmation would be contentious in the current climate, and you can’t prove that it would be the same as it was 12 years ago.
As I said above, the atmosphere that existed pre-Gingrich revolution was far less partisan and more collegial. Due to the current acrimony, I’m not willing to throw the Democrats under the bus alone. In my opinion, there might be 19 more right wing republicans who would challenge Ms. Ginsberg.
Also, your self fulfilling prophesy argument is true, to an extent. The 22 have opened the floodgates for the far right of the Republican party to oppose next time around.
September 29th, 2005 at 4:12:55 pm
Dane, I’m not being naive; I know that politics has always played a role in these things. But it seems to be getting worse and worse, and I don’t like that. What’s your rebuttal to the Ginsburg stuff I cited? The anti-Roe Republicans could stomach voting for someone explicitly pro-Roe because they felt she was nevertheless qualified for the job, but listening to NARAL-style Dems and liberals, it is perfectly clear that they could never support a candidate who is either explicitly anti-Roe or who, like Roberts, doesn’t say one way or the other. They could ONLY support someone who is explicitly pro-Roe, which is obviously an absurd expectation when a Republican is president. (Again with the “elections matter” mantra.) What Senator Cohen said in 1993 is basically what I believe today: “judicial ideology should be used only to determine if the nominee’s philosophy is ’so extreme that it might call into question the usual confirmation prerequisites of competency and judicial temperament.’”
Leahy, I concur that we pretty much have to agree to disagree on this, but I do wonder how the Bork battle (also described in my Ginsburg link) fits into your “everything changed in 1994″ theory.
September 29th, 2005 at 4:18:02 pm
Was it the Gengrich Revolution or the Limbaugh Wave?
I am a die-hard Republican and if we had our way, we’d drag Bourke back up to the Capitol and run him again and again until we got him on the SCOTUS.
But Bush does not play to his base, like Chucky and Kennedy, et al.
Roberts is a moderate and a jurist, at best. Roe v. Wade will be nice and safe for a while.
September 29th, 2005 at 4:19:20 pm
Oh, Brendan, you are *such* a cynic ! (grin)
Andrew - you are managing to forget that, when making historical references, the only important ones are the ones which support the One True Move-on/Kos Position … anything prior to that, while logically and consistently relevant MUST not be considered … thus, what was done to Robert Bork is not up for consideration …
standby Leahy continues to emphasise the validity of his own position with a statement such as “You’re still clinging to a pre-1994 version of civility. “ … somehow the Evil Newt’s influence managed to be in effect even during 1994, itself, prior to the Evil Newt having actual political power as Speaker …
September 29th, 2005 at 4:22:17 pm
Bork was so beyond the pale that I don’t think it’s appropriate to compare him to Ginsberg. His views on the civil rights cases, coupled with his views on women’s issues, doomed him from both sides of the aisle. Clearly, Democrats led the charge, but didn’t some Repubs. vote against him as well?
September 29th, 2005 at 4:24:07 pm
Honestly Brendan, I don’t know that it matters. Really I don’t see the point of booing them for voting the way did. Just like if an extra handful of Republicans had voted against Ginsburg. It really does not make a whole hell of a lot of difference.
September 29th, 2005 at 4:25:10 pm
Ally,
Thanks for dropping in for a little gotcha. Obviously, pre-94 refers to the election which carried the repubs. into power. But don’t let that obvious fact get in the way of a good barb, Scottie.
And stop staring at Bea’s cans. You’re making her nervous.
September 29th, 2005 at 4:29:33 pm
Gee, Brendan. Last time I looked, Chucky was a politician. He is there to represent his constituents, most of whom voted for him and not for Bush. In addition, Chucky is hardly towing the “party line” when a majority of his party voted FOR Roberts. As for doing what is best for the country, you assume Bush does what is best for the country on a regular basis. As we have seen from the FEMA debacle and the mess he has made of Iraq, he doesn’t. Why should the Supreme Court appointees be any different (your personal biases aside).
September 29th, 2005 at 4:30:03 pm
Charles,
Congratulations on knowing how Roberts is gonna vote. Nobody else does.
September 29th, 2005 at 5:19:45 pm
Brendan,
I’m not saying they should or shouldn’t vote for a candidate based on ideological issues alone, i’m saying that just because they aren’t voting for someone who you believe is qualified does not ipso facto mean it is a knee-jerk opposition.
And while I disagree with it, what is to say that someone who feels strongly about being able to kill babies/have an abortion doesn’t equate that as a fundemental right that any judge overturning would make them unfit?
Again, it may be something you think is wrong from a number of perspectives (litmus tests, political suicide, etc), i just disagree with the idea that it is therefore against common sense/knee-jerk.
September 29th, 2005 at 5:20:54 pm
I was outof the office so could not respond to you Coach. One, I said no, my comment that Dems are ruining Califrnoa is NOT objective. All I was asking is, what is Ken’s argument? He just posted a link, I was asking for some background on that. I said that politicizing stuff that shouldnt be political is bad, then I said I think Dems in California suck for soing it. You are focusingon the later, which I DO NOT claim to be objective, whereas all I want is to know what Ken is thinking, is all. Jeez.
Also, I am NOT A DIE HARD REPUBLICAN!!! Where in the hell did you get that idea! Ask ANYONE who knows me, Dems, Reps, my parents, Andrew, Brendan, heck, even David, if I am a diehard Republican. Actually, I bitch about the Republican Party as much as the next Dem, publicly, privately, openly and to anyone who will listen, including–gasp, my former boss and other Republicans with more clout that I will ever have. Moreover, how does ANYTHING I have ever said on this blog make me a diehard Republican, let alone while you have been visiting? If anything, I am the kind of Republican that drives Republicans crazy, because I am socially libertarian, pro-gray marriage, pro, gay adoption, and narrowly pro-choice. In fact, I have often been told I am not a REAL Republican. You are just wrong on this one, Coach, but believe me, I wish the Republican party was more like me and less like they really are :)
September 29th, 2005 at 5:22:49 pm
Oh, and, claiming that liberal dems are ruining California is not just a Republican way of thinking, and thinking the legislature sucks is not just a Republican way of thinking, or David would have never been recalled! Now, I am not about to defend the current governor, fake Republican that he might be, but yeah, I am not alone in my assertion that the dominating party is running the state into the ground—which is not to say mods dems, whereever they might be hiding would do the same, just the current set of lib dems calling the shots, ALL the shots.
September 29th, 2005 at 5:26:33 pm
your personal biases aside
Oh, and what would those be? Please enlighten me. I’d love to know how the “personal biases” of a registered Democrat who voted for Gore and Kerry are responsible for my opinions in this matter.
September 29th, 2005 at 5:32:40 pm
Ken, please, do not tell me I have the Schawrzenneger view on ANYTHING, because, uhm, I do not. I disagree with the Governor on so much I do not even know where to start, but a shitty PR department and no will to stand for anything would be a good place to start. I form my own views, and I do not parrot talking points for the Republican Party. In turn, the Republican minority in both the Senate and Assembly are at oods with the Governor on many things, both publicly and provately, so even if the Guv says something, it does not immediately follow that that is what the party is saying as well. I read that same article, and well, other stuff just from being around the capitol and moving in those circles–Dems and Reps, I have good friends in both and live with a Dem. I think that Perata et al want to politicize–political figure, plitical leader, semantics, really–the DMV post, because yes, they have some political battles to wage on that front in the next couple of years, and making it a political appointment, as opposed to one based on merit and avility to do the job–which is not homeland security but testing drivers. But, please, tell me what is it about the article that made it more palatable for you that we politicize DMV? I sure as hell disagree, and it is not a party thing, I just think that we need to let the DMV do what it can barely do now–licensing drivers–without adding a another mission and another layer of political crap to the already clutered bureaucracy of the Department of Motor Vehciles.
September 29th, 2005 at 5:39:02 pm
Oops, I meant Davis, as in Gray Davis, not David, hehe. I think a die hard Republican would also defend the president all the time, all the way, and, uhm, well, have you ever heard me defend Bush, ever? Yeah, that’s what I thought. I never defend the man, I barely tolerate him.
September 29th, 2005 at 5:41:31 pm
Bea,
Misread your post. Sorry about that. I have no beef with the rest of your argument, as I’m unfamiliar with the whole Cali political scene. I think you are a pretty solid republican, I suppose we can agree to disagree re: die hard.
Note: outside of the backward heartland, many repubs. are pro gay and pro choice. I don’t view that as a radical position.
September 29th, 2005 at 5:42:28 pm
Freudian slip, Bea. You were thinking of incompetent Democrats with no legitimacy, and that name popped into your head.
September 29th, 2005 at 5:57:56 pm
Coach, you might not view being pro-gay and pro-choice as a radical position, but the Republican Party and the Republican base would probably beg to differ. Republicans by and large are pro-life and anti-gay marriage, and to not share those views is really not the norm within the party, and it is an uphill battle to be a Republican who is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, even in a more progressive state like California, specially during primary season. I am not running for office-at least not any time soon :)–so I can unabashedly say whatever I really think, even if it runs counter to party orthodoxy. As to what will happen to the social mods and the social libertarians inside the party, whether they will continue to compromise, get pissed and leave, or finally flourish, who knows, volumes have been written about it, and many a time I have had that discussion with die hard Reps and Reps like me, preferable over beer to easy the friction :)
I also want to clarify, when I say I am narrowly pro-choice, I mean NARROWLY. I do not think it is the business of the government to ban abortions, but I also think most people should not be having abortions in the first place. No need to hijack this thread once more with another non Roberts topic, but I want to clarify that I am not really that pro-choice.
David claims not to be a Democrat, so he might resent your comment. The S and the D arenext to each other and I was typing fast–I type like I talk, my tounge is a hindrance and my fingers too!
September 29th, 2005 at 6:07:08 pm
BEA,
And you have this interesting habit of toggling back and forth between ‘Bea’ and ‘Anonymous’. Quite mesmerizing….
September 29th, 2005 at 6:17:08 pm
Well, haloscan does not always remember me! Argh! So, just pretend like it says Bea, I am not trying to be anonymous.
September 29th, 2005 at 6:22:58 pm
Bea, you’re such a tease!
;o
September 29th, 2005 at 6:25:52 pm
Yes, I have been known to be a tease. Better to be a tease than to be sorry :) It is usually a bad idea to go with your beer-induced gut reaction.
September 29th, 2005 at 6:27:09 pm
I am indeed not a Democrat, I just got lumped as one because I very strongly oppose the current Republican party. Nice try though Leahy to lump both me as a Democrat and Bea as a die-hard Republican. Apparently you exist in a world with only two possible choices…
September 29th, 2005 at 6:29:58 pm
Not so, Davie. There’s always the Green Party, or LaRouche. Both viable options.
Take er easy, Lone Wolf.
September 29th, 2005 at 6:32:11 pm
Did you just use “LaRouche” and “viable” within three words of each other? HAHAHAHA. :)
September 29th, 2005 at 6:36:47 pm
Coach, LaRouchites are know for chasing Capitol staff down the hall and into elevators. Nothing reasonable about those kids. I did have a semi-civil conversation with a LaRouchite once, when he visited Senator Campbell’s office to tell me all about how Chile is going to collapse–it’s not going to collapsse, really–and I actually engaged him. Yes, I know, how stupid of me, but hey, the Sargeants where on my floor, only a panic button click away :)
September 29th, 2005 at 6:45:15 pm
Don’t be so quick to dismiss the LaRouchites. They serve a purpose.
If you’re ever having a bad day, they are a convenient target price to let off a little steam as you enter/exit the Metro. Though I would caution against using McDonald’s coffee.
September 29th, 2005 at 7:47:42 pm
Hmmm … seems like stand-by is projecting again …
Either that, or he’s being as accurate as ever …
A true David come to judgment !
(innocent smile)
September 29th, 2005 at 10:13:44 pm
No boo from me. I like Bayh. Schumer as well.
Carl Rove? booooo
September 30th, 2005 at 1:38:08 am
The people who are voting against Roberts are not going down in flames. They are playing to their base. It would be more damaging for someone like Shumer to vote FOR Roberts.
Hmm this is an interesting concept. What exactly does this base consist of? What groups vote most consistently Democrat? Leave race out of it. Let’s get started!
abortionists…
welfare queens…
flamboyant homosexuals…
university professors…
ambulance chasers…
media elites…
atheists…
expatriates…
wiccans, neo-pagans…
Bubbas still living in 1873…
feminazis…
hollywood actors…
crackwhores…
did i mention abortionists?…
Keep pandering to that base, guys!
September 30th, 2005 at 2:22:48 am
Bea,
“pro-gray marriage”
I agree. If older folks want to get married, I see nothing wrong with that. :-)
Gay marriage, OTOH…
September 30th, 2005 at 2:23:12 am
Hooray for inaccurate and offensive stereotypes!
September 30th, 2005 at 2:25:01 am
Callmemickey,
“david.. is kennedy really qualified to determine anyone’s qualifications for anything???”
I’m a different David, but I think one can answer this question, “Absolutely!” Who else is better qualified to determine one’s qualifications for mixing drinks!
September 30th, 2005 at 2:27:32 am
I wonder if President Bush were to really throw the Democrats a curveball and nominate Hillary Clinton to the Supreme Court, would this confuse them and they would all vote in a knee-jerk fashion against Hillary, because she was nominated by Bush? Things that make you go….hmmmmm.
September 30th, 2005 at 10:47:07 am
That’s genius David B. Do what they least expect. Like the New England Patriots intentionally fumbling the football twenty yards backwards toward their own endzone. It’s unconventional, but damnit it just might work.
September 30th, 2005 at 10:58:12 am
I once answered every question on a test wrong on purpose, just to confuse the Bar Examiners.
It worked.