Looks like the base is pissed with reports there will be no vicious confirmation battle:
Major liberal groups accused Democratic senators yesterday of showing too little stomach for opposing John G. Roberts Jr.’s Supreme Court nomination, saying newly released documents indicate he is much more conservative than many people first thought.
The response was quick and pointed, as two key senators unleashed their sharpest criticisms yet of Roberts and sought to assure activists that the battle is far from over.
That would certainly explain this quote:
“All this talk about whether Democrats will support the Roberts nomination is laughably premature. The hearings have not even begun. The White House has so far refused to produce relevant documents, and the documents we have seen raise questions about the nominee’s commitment to progress on civil rights.
John Roberts must still persuade the Senate and the American people that he is a worthy replacement for Justice O’Connor and the jury is still out on that.”
Worthy replacement for O’Connor? I am a little rusty on the Constitution, but I don’t remember that aspect of the confirmation process.
BinkyBoy
That can be read to say “worthy of being a Supreme Court judge” as well. I think you jumped to a conclusion because you want to. It does nothing for your argument, however.
But I guess I’m not sure what your argument is at this point? Do you believe that Roberts needs to just be passed without any questions? Do you think he should go through questioning and if he won’t answer certain questions and the documents that are requested are never given that the Senate should just forget about it and move on?
What is the price America could pay for having the wrong person on the Supreme Court?
I’m still open to the findings, I’d like to know more about him, but I’m not automatically opposed or for him until all the cards are on the table.
John Cole
I wasn’t aware I was really making an argument, other than just noting what the WaPo story said.
Blue Neponset
The two key Senators were Leahy and Kennedy. Erick from Redstate posted something similar.
I will ask you the same thing I asked him. How is anything Senators Kennedy or Leahy say proof that Democrats as a group are liberal lapdogs (as Erick put it)? Aren’t Leahy and Kennedy two of the more liberal members of the Senate already?
If Senators Nelson & Pryor were ‘attacking’ Roberts you might have a case, but to accuse Kennedy and Leahy of being liberal lapdogs is like accusing Senators Coburn and Cornyn of being a conservative lapdogs.
BinkyBoy
Arn’t you attempting to attack the Kossak for his choice of words, though?
John Cole
No- That was where I saw the Harry Reid quote yesterday. That was not a Kos quote, but a Harry Reid quote.
Otto Man
I read the Reid quote as sign that the jury’s still out. They haven’t held the hearings, and they haven’t gotten much of the documentation they’ve requested.
As I’ve said before, I suspect Roberts will fly through the SJC hearings and the floor vote. But for the Senate to give him a stamp of approval before the process has even begun just seems a little too much. Part of this is likely playing to the Democratic base, but a larger part, I think, is a desire not to jump to any conclusions just yet.
Another Jeff
I think Roberts will be confirmed fairly easily, but it should be noted that Clarence Thomas looked like smoothe sailing all the way up until Anita Hill popped up.
I’m by no means a lefty, but given how thoroughly the Bush people vetted Kerik, a last-minute skeleton popping up (even if it’s one like Anita Hill who was completely lacking credibility) isn’t out of the question.
Clever
Will Roberts be approved? Unless something majorly screwy is discovered, signs point to yes. But I would have to agree with Sen. Reid on the “pre-Approval”…things might change as information comes in. To assume a rubber stamp would be silly, He’s a conservative judge whom most Dems know little to nothing about. Couple that with the hesitance of the Administration to produce documents [much like Bolton], of course Dems are going to be wary.
Especially with things like this…
Shygetz
Worthy replacement for O’Connor? I am a little rusty on the Constitution, but I don’t remember that aspect of the confirmation process.
That aspect is under the “advice and consent” portion of the Constitution, which essentially says that the nominee better be whatever the Senate says they should be. I don’t know about the Senate, but the people they supposedly represent have clearly responded in polling that they want a moderate in the mold of O’Connor.
Boy, in the last few days you have really reverted to partisan form.
Steve
I think John acknowledged that he just threw that in there because as a blogger he is obligated to follow up a quote with a snarky comment.
Geek, Esq.
Of course Democratic Senators are going to have to answer to liberals and people generally on the left side of the divide. That’s who put them in office.
It’s an atrocious act of cowardice for Democratic Senators to be jumping on board the bandwagon before they’ve had hearings or reviewed the documents.
PotVsKtl
That would be Article II, Sec. 2, cl. 2.
Many people quite rationally believe that the Senate has an implied responsibility to maintain a certain balance of power within the SCOTUS. If you hold that belief, it follows that whether a nominee fits within this power structure is a concern to be dealt with through the “Advice and Consent” charge of the Senate.
PotVsKtl
I suppose I should have read the comments first… Shygetz covered that bit.
PotVsKtl
I’m not seeing anything along those lines.
Steve
PotVsKtl
I haven’t got any idea how you could possibly extract that meaning from that text.
Steve
PotVsKtl
Yes, I’m capable of reading English. Thanks. Nevertheless, John’s response isn’t really a response at all. He clearly was making an argument. Saying:
Is not “noting what the WaPo story said.” It’s making an argument. Pretending he wasn’t making a statement which is clearly the basis for the beginning of a debate does not translate to: