The Democrats aren’t even going to mount an opposition:
Democrats have decided that unless there is an unexpected development in the weeks ahead, they will not launch a major fight to block the Supreme Court nomination of John G. Roberts Jr., according to legislators, Senate aides and party strategists.
In a series of interviews in recent days, more than a dozen Democratic senators and aides who are intimately involved in deliberations about strategy said that they see no evidence that most Democratic senators are prepared to expend political capital in what is widely seen as a futile effort to derail the nomination.
Although they expect to subject President Bush’s nominee to tough questioning at confirmation hearings next month, members of the minority party said they do not plan to marshal any concerted campaign against Roberts because they have concluded that he is likely to get at least 70 votes — enough to overrule parliamentary tactics such as a filibuster that could block the nominee.
Now I am not Chuck Schumer or Pat Leahy, but 70 votes seems to mean pretty broad support consaidering the current political climate.
Right now, the only thing that interests me about this debate is which way Hillary votes, because that says more about the possible tone of the 2008 election than anything else. At least right now.
Matt
I would expect, then, to see the noise from the Religious Right ramp up in opposition to Roberts. Their entire schtick is based around being persecuted. If it isn’t the Dems persecuting “their guy,” then it must be the administration persecuting them by putting a “Souter” on the bench.
Brian
Yeah. If the democrats were smart (titanic “if”) they’d create a front group called “Gays for Roberts” and buy a bunch of ads on Fox News and in the red states praising Roberts’ commitment to gay rights. Then vote him through in a hurry.
BinkyBoy
All the noise the “liberal” media reported on was just the normal questions and concerns that people all over the country had. It wasn’t necessarily the Democrats attempting to kill the appointment, it was just a process. He passed, ok? Can we stop falsly accusing the Democrats of political opposition grandstanding?
Bolton is/was an ass. He doesn’t deserve the appointment. Roberts is a generally decent judge with no huge red flags for anyone to use against him. Great! I’m impressed the Bush Administration found such a man, but this should go a long way to proving that Democrats arn’t blocking appointments based on general opposition.
But in reality I’m reading this thread because I can’t wait to see how the right will spin this.
Geek, Esq.
What it amounts to is the fact that national Dems are, when it comes down to it, a bunch of damn wimps.
Any Democratic Senator who wants the nomination in ’08 had better closely consider the consequences of capitulation.
Lee
Don’t believe it. You should never question the party in power, that is just a treasonous line of thought
/sarcasm off
Questions were asked. Some of which I actually want to know the answer to. I think that is how the process is suppose to work.
Geek, Esq.
Have they held the hearings yet?
No Dem Senator should be planning to vote for the guy until he is forced to answer the privacy/Griswold question.
Steve
Whether or not this is the actual Democratic strategy, they are smart to get the word out, because it defuses the Republican line that “the Dems will just fight any nominee, no matter how reasonable.”
Geek, Esq.
Conceding that this is a reasonable choice before the full paper record has been examined and the hearings have been held is not wise strategy.
Steve
Who’s conceding? If the guy comes to the hearing and says there’s no right to privacy, and the Dems then decide to oppose him on that basis, they look all the more reasonable given that they hadn’t planned on a fight coming in.
Geek, Esq.
Because if the nomination is a done deal a priori, there’s very little incentive for him to be candid during the hearings.
I have no doubt that Roberts is considerably smarter than the Dems who will question him, and will be able to be non-responsive to their questions while seeming perfectly candid.
capelza
Will I lose my liberal cred if I say that there are battles I would rather see fought than this one? That is said as a woman who has more to lose in regards to privacy.
As was said above, though, “Gays for Roberts” would be great. It would be great fun to watch the Dobsonites (the main reason I am a Democrat are people like him) froth at the mouth.
As was also said above, this is a good move. If the Dems are generally seen to be not so opposed to Roberts, then the ball’s in the Pub’s court. Let Roberts answer the privacy questions, and if he blows it, THEN let the fur fly.
Geek, Esq.
There’s no way he blows the privacy question if he knows he’s going to be confirmed. He’s way too smart to have a melt-down on the issue.
All he has to do is be persistently evasive and ambiguous, and it’s in the bag.
Stoopid move by the Capitulationists. They fillibuster an irrelevant figure like Darth Bolton but roll out the red carpet for an extremely conservative judge up for a lifetime appointment.
Otto Man
I think there’s nothing out there yet to justify a filibuster against Roberts. Is he qualified for the post? Sure. Just because he’s a staunch conservative doesn’t disqualify him. As long as he answers the SJC questions forthrightly, it should be smooth sailing.
That said, the Democrats would be smart to point out — civilly and clearly — the judicial consequences of voting conservative. This goes beyond Roe to the broader privacy issues rooted in Griswold. If you don’t believe in a right to privacy, then it overturns not just the abortion and contraception rights in those two cases, but opens the door to a lot of things that most Americans would reject.
This doesn’t require a filibuster, just some clear statements and votes of conscience. Make moderates and libertarians understand what a vote for the current Republican Party means when it comes to the courts. And make it clear that the Democrats actually stand for something, and something quite different.
Geek, Esq.
I agree.
Seriously, the idea that 30-50% of the caucus has decided to vote for him despite his ample history of arch-conservative ideology is really disturbing.
What the Dems are doing is the equivalent of whining about how bad the first three cards of their poker hand are before they see the remainder.
It’s usually a good idea to wait until one has seen all the cards before folding.
Caroline
Wouldn’t be so sure that he’s a slam dunk. I think Reid is playing a game with you guys. Roberts doesn’t support something as simple as “equal pay for equal work.” How well do you think that will play out there?
Looks like W. just put forth Roberts in hurry to keep the attention off of Rove.
A guy on the Boortz show was talking about how Robert’s nomination is beginning to unravel around the edges. It may be that if enough ravels around the edges, the whole fabric of his nomination may collapse.
space
Guess what? The line that Dems will oppose any Bush nominee always was pile of horse manure. When Dems oppose a nominee en masse it is because the person is unqualified, an extremist or both.
Bolton? George Bush should get on his knees and beg for the forgiveness of the American people for debasing the reputation of the United States by nominating such an inappropriate slimeball.
Priscilla Owen? An utter catastrophe. An ethically deprived judge who sold her opinions to campaign donors.
When Dems oppose them, Republicans should take a deep breath and ask themselves whether “winning” is really what they want.
Mike
“space Says:
Guess what? The line that Dems will oppose any Bush nominee always was pile of horse manure. When Dems oppose a nominee en masse it is because the person is unqualified, an extremist or both.”
Just remember you said that when maybe one day a Democrat’s in the White House again and Republicans oppose a nominee “en masse”. Of course some might say that only Democrats can be trusted to take this tact, and not Republicans. Of course these people would also be blithering idiots for thinking that.
ppGaz
Cannot agree, Geekmeister. It is useful to carefully choose one’s fights. Roberts is not something worth fighting over. Nor is such a fight winnable. In light of those two glaring facts, then a fight would be a fight just for the sake of fighting. Not wise.
Confirm him, and move on.
Mike
“ppGaz Says:
Any Democratic Senator who wants the nomination in ‘08 had better closely consider the consequences of capitulation.
Cannot agree, Geekmeister. It is useful to carefully choose one’s fights. Roberts is not something worth fighting over. Nor is such a fight winnable. In light of those two glaring facts, then a fight would be a fight just for the sake of fighting. Not wise.
Confirm him, and move on.”
ppGaz speaks truth and sensibility.
Neither of which will get him into the Moonbat Hall of fame unfortunately. ;)
ppGaz
Like Pete Rose, I can only stand outside and eat my liver.
Geek, Esq.
I don’t think he’s worth a fillibuster, but they should vote against him. Having him get confirmed with 75-80 votes will only open the door further for the next rightwing nominee.