The question now isn't whether Roberts will get on the court. He'll get on the court. The question is not so much one of 'conscience' as one of strategy.
When the next nomination comes around, will the Democrats be in a better position having opposed Roberts, or having supported him?
I personally think that they would do better to support him. If Bush nominates someone more controversial, the Democrats will be able to say, "Look, we agreed to you first choice on the previous nomination. We compromised. Now pick another one just like him and we'll all skip off to Emerald City together."
On the other hand, if they oppose Roberts, they will have done well in making the point that they are not totally powerless, thank you very much! They have the power to make long speeches and raise a fuss. And they have the power to keep doing this forever and ever.
If the Democrats try and wage all out war on every front they're going to scream themselves into irrelevance. A better strategy would be for them to pull some punches and take moderate, reasoned positions. Then when something comes up that they really care about, they can come out with cannons blazing and make a bigger impact.
When you turn on the TV and every day find Ted Kennedy or Ronnie Reagan or some party hack gasping out the talking points it becomes white noise.
Further, with Harry Reid's public decision to vote no on Roberts, he is contributing to disunity within his party. The current Republican party is more united than it has been in years, and more in tune with the President's message than they have ever been. The vote approving Roberts is likely to be unanimous, or virtually so, with even pro-choice moderates like Arlen Specter announcing votes for Roberts. Of course Arlen Specter was pretty effectively beaten into line by the leadership earlier this year.
In the face of this strong bloc and strong leadership, it's not wise for Harry Reid to be saying, "vote your conscience." Reid needs to decide which'll be better strategically for the Democrats, yea or nay, and then he needs to charge around Capitol Hill until he gets a sizeable bloc on his side. "Vote how you want" doesn't cut it for me. When compared to the Republicans virtual unanimity on many issues, it amounts to muttering under your breath because the subways aren't running on time, and then deciding just to take the taxi after all.
Chked:NB
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - Lono
It seems the darkest of his history is anti-women's rights. Now that those are safely entrenched in society, he can't mess with them.
That being said, my guess is that the Dems are bracing for a candidate so far right it would make Anne Coulter blush. Roberts seems like a decent guy.
the next one, you can bet, will be a doozie. I also think the Bush administration will try to use all of these deadly hurricanes to slip the likes of Anne Coulter (this is not a compliment) through. They are masters of message. So, when the Dems says 'dude, you can not appoint adolph hitler to the supreme court' they will say - 'why aren't you focused on helping these poor victims. Let us handle the court stuff, you guys work on fixing the country'.
needless to say, I am not optimistic about the next pic the president gets. he has dropped the ball on every single aspect of his presidency... so I at least expect him to be consistant when he next fails us.
2 - Michael J. West
Out of curiosity, Sam Jack...are you a Republican?
3 - gonzo marx
of course he is
common tactic from the GOP is to advise the Dems to do what they say for their own good
funny stuff
Excelsior!
4 - PJ
And they usually do!
Bromo Selzior
ad nauseum, ad infititum
5 - billy
did somebody say drunk fat bitches?
6 - Sam Jack
Frankly I despise both parties; but you're right, it's impossible for me to have an opinion without having an agenda to advance, passed down from on high. I get mine from Santa Claus.
Gonzo, I love organizing people. I have myself a little spreadsheet and as soon as I can plunk someone into the correct political category, it excuses me from responding to any arguments they might make.
'That's just the kind of thing someone like you might say,' I say to them, and then they are just utterly devastated.
Most often they go back to their day spas and luxurious vineyards-- that's where they all live, you see-- and weep quietly into their tofu (since that is all that they are capable of digesting).
I know that they're out there, plotting every minute to overthrow the government and move in with yachts and Ph.Ds, welfare reforms and gay marriage. I am every vigilant.
You've caught me, Gonzo. This was all a part of my master scheme. Forgive me, Karl, for I have betrayed you.
-Sam
7 - gonzo marx
well, i'm glad that's all cleared up
watch yourself, or Karl will stick you in the room with Gannon/Guckert and the *gimp* suit...
but it's good to see yer not bitter...
Excelsior!
8 - Sam Jack
In other words, what do you think of what I'm actually saying, Gonzo? You've engaged in ad hominen.
9 - Leoniceno
Rather, 'hominem'.
10 - Al Barger
No Sam, that's all wrong. The Democrats shouldn't let Bush get away with choosing the Supreme Court justices.
Go to the mattresses, I say. Filibuster John Roberts. Show 'em you mean business.
No, don't be saving that ammo to attack Janice Brown when Dubya taps her to replace O'Connor. Burn up what little credibility you have RIGHT NOW!!!!!!
11 - Michael J. West
Jesus. Ask a question because you're curious and watch the whole goddamn thing blow up in front of ya.
I wasn't accusing you, Sam Jack; at least, I wasn't trying to. I wondered because there was nothing in the post that particularly indicated your leaning either way.
In any case...the one thing I have a hard time swallowing is that there's ANY situation where "vote your conscience" is bad advice, regardless of the party or the politics of the situation.
Voting your conscience is what we're supposed to do. Otherwise, what's the point of democracy?
12 - Bob A. Booey
Roberts will get approved easily, so the Democrat votes are merely symbolic.
A clean, clear, easy win for Bush would boost his political capital for the next nominee and take the fight out of the Democrats. Bush will make the argument that the second conservative nominee is pretty similar on paper to Roberts and that the Democrats are being obstructionist then.
The public doesn't care about the allegations of judicial obstructionism in the Senate. They do care about abortion rights, which is why you'll probably see all the Dems who still want to be President voting "No." It's always better to fight than lie down if you have larger ambitions and are running against the Bush record. Kerry's already said he's voting no.
It'll be interesting to see what Hillary and Biden will do. I'm pretty confident of a "No" vote from Biden since he seemed especially vexed with Roberts' refusal to answer his questions. Hillary will think hard about it, and probably also vote "No."
The Roberts vote is important because he'll be Chief and because most people are fairly confident that there's a decent chance he'll overturn the legal foundations for Roe V. Wade when it comes up. His statement in his belief in the "right to privacy" will mollify enough Democratic Senators to give him over 70 votes in the Senate, most likely, but was no guarantee that he believed the grounds for including abortion rights within the Constitution is worthy of continuing for "social stability and precedent."
He's also shown an awfully conservative track record when it comes to equal opportunity, affirmative action, environmental statutes and Title IX, if you care about any of those things.
Senator, your minstrel fantasy of having Janice Brown destroy civil rights from the bench is bizarre and won't happen. No one's mentioning her as a serious possibility and you have no informed knowledge which would make you think that other than that you think another Clarence Thomas would be really cool since it'd be a black woman taking apart minority protections and echoing your backwards social politics.
Roberts is handsome and smart, but there's no decidedly overwhelming public sentiment about him. Most people still say they don't know anything about him, so there's nothing for Democrats to "burn up" by fighting him now if they think it's the right fight.
I think some of the comments about why Democrats should lie down and give Bush an easy win on Roberts so they can save "ammo" for the next appointee reveal how little some of you know about Congressional politics. If Democrats truly believe Roberts is an arch-conservative judge and not a moderate, they probably need to set out their principles now if they want to have any chance at beating back an unacceptably conservative nominee to replace O'Connor. If they lay down now, they may also find themselves with very little wiggle room politically to oppose the next nominee and going up against a President who'll have gained some much-needed political capital from a breezy confirmation of his Chief Justice.
As it stands now, Bush has very little political goodwill or influence altogether on his domestic agenda (Social Security anyone?) and I don't think he has the capital to persuade Democrats to vote for TWO arch-conservative judges to the Court today. If he does, then he barely does.
I don't think, for example, that Bush could get someone like Michael Luttig, who I think might be a likely nominee, approved to replace O'Connor today.
That is all.
13 - Michael J. West
I don't think, for example, that Bush could get someone like Michael Luttig, who I think might be a likely nominee, approved to replace O'Connor today.
Not a chance in Hell. Not after he ruled that the administration can indefinitely detain Jose Padilla without charges.
14 - Sam Jack
In response to Michael, I didn't mean that you shouldn't 'vote your conscience.' I was speaking in terms of political message. A bunch of people voting their conscience does not make a large dent in the national conscience. The Democrats need a strong message, one way or the other. And Michael, it wasn't your question so much as Gonzo's flippancy that bothered me.
I shouldn't allow myself to become bothered by these bloggy squabbles.
And Bob, has there been anything to indicate that Roberts is an 'arch-conservative'? A benefit of the Democrats supporting Roberts that I proposed is that in supporting Roberts they establish a base-line on what is acceptable to them, which allows them to draw a sharper line of distinction on what is unacceptable. I suppose I know little about congressional politics, but I think some change of strategy is in order for the left, since their current strategems don't seem to be working.
Of course I realize that there is no shortage of people willing to 'advise' the Democrats, and that most of this 'advice' is pretty back-handed.
15 - gonzo marx
well hello Sam,
flippancy is part of my job description, but it seems that perhaps some of it spilled onto you when the actuality is that you truly wanted some intelligible discourse...
so, rather than stand accused of addled homily exchange, let us take a look...
i am with your stated intent of not really liking either of the Parties, for various reasons...
with that being stated i must disagree with your central Postulate...in my evaluation, the Dems have NOTHING to lose by voting against Roberts...hear me out
with the moderate Gang of 14 holding the swing vote, Roberts will pass easily without the possibility of fillibuster....by voting against him, the Dems lose nothing, they are already in the Minority...and this way if Roberts turns out to be totally insane they can always go back to their Constituency and say "hey, don't blame me, i voted against the guy"...if Roberts turns out to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, they still lose nothing with their base
as for the Dems overall bit being "screechy" etc...i fail to see where they are really losing any ground...but just hollering at things they don't like and staying out of the way, the GOP has managed to get itself into the lowest poll numbers in recent memory as well as buying themselves in a budgetary mess
since the GOP controls House, Senate and WH with a totalitarian grip, whatever happens...they OWN...nothing here can be blamed on the Dems...they can't even get a bill up for a floor vote in either House, much less get something passed...
therefor, those tanking poll numbers just hurt the GOP for '06...nwo it would be up to the Dems to get their message out in the next election cycle, all the while pointing towards anything that has gone wrong in the last 5 years while the GOP had total control
that help?
Excelsior!
16 - Bob A. Booey
Roberts is a serious intellectual who's charming and has a nice disposition but the only evidence we have that he's not a tried-and-true conservative through-and-through in the model of his mentor and (predecessor) Rehnquist is that he gave pro bono assistance to a gay legal group once. On virtually every issue that counts, Roberts has shown that he'll vote reliably conservative. If you object to the "arch" prefix, that's fine, but don't be fooled by what a wonderful, great guy he is when it comes to his judicial philosophy. I don't think he'll be an ideologue or iconoclast like Scalia and Thomas but he'll generally side with their decisions, as Rehnquist did.
Any Democrat who wants to be President will likely vote against Roberts. It's all about politics because Roberts will be easily confirmed by moderate Democrats, but if Democrats are serious about putting up a good fight to the next nominee and making sure Bush doesn't try and nominate someone like Luttig, they need to show that they'll put up SOME fight on the Roberts vote.
Really, they have nothing to lose and it's about more than pride. It's about perception and making sure Bush doesn't get political capital out of getting his way too easily.
That is all.
17 - alethinos59
13 to 5...
The problem is as much a Dem problem as a Rep problem. Both try to stack the Court and that is EXACTLY what many of the Founders FEARED and did not want to see happen.
What needs to happen is to begin a national debate on the philosophical underpinnings of both the Court's raison d'etre and what its function SHOULD be in relation to the Constitution in the 21st Century...
That's a lot to ask of a population in love with AMERICAN IDOL and the attention span of a 10 second commercial but it needs to happen.
Alethinos
18 - Bob A. Booey
Hey, I love American Idol.
And that public debate about the Court has never and will never happen. That's precisely why the Court holds such mystery and power in American politics -- the public rarely knows about its members or its decisions or what its views on the republic are. More importantly, the public has no say in shaping how the Court rules, which is tricky because it's become the de facto arbiter of almost all social conflicts and social issues in the modern era.
That is all.