August 30, 2005
THEY WONDER AS THEY WANDER:
The Democrats' Supreme Conundrum (E. J. Dionne Jr., August 30, 2005, Washington Post)
Most Democrats are certain that Roberts is significantly more conservative than Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whom he would replace, and that he will push the court to the right. But they wonder whether that alone can justify a full-fledged fight against him, let alone a filibuster. [...]Yet many Democrats are frustrated over the difficulty of establishing exactly what kind of conservative Roberts is -- or, in the case of liberal groups firmly opposed to his nomination, of proving that Roberts is still the conservative ideologue who emerges from his memos as a young Reagan administration official on matters such as civil rights, disability rights and the right to privacy. If trying to stop Roberts is a short-term political risk, letting him through without a fight might be a long-term risk to the judicial principles that liberals care about.
Roberts would not only immediately shift the balance on the court, he is also a potential nominee for chief justice, a post in which his political skills could allow him, in tandem with another Bush appointee, to create a powerful conservative court majority for a generation. If Democrats fail to amass enough votes against Roberts in this round, they will be in a weak position to challenge him as chief justice in the next.
Democrats are also under pressure from their liberal allies to challenge Roberts by way of clarifying what they stand for. "One of the worst consequences politically would be for the majority of Democrats to vote for someone who, in the near future, would overturn well-established precedents on clean air, clean water, privacy, equal opportunity and religious liberty," said Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way.
You'd be worried to if you faced the prospect of making it clear your party stands for abortion, terrorists' rights, homosexuality, and racial quotas and against Judeo-Christianity. Posted by Orrin Judd at August 30, 2005 12:24 PM
"'One of the worst consequences politically would be for the majority of Democrats to vote for someone who, in the near future, would overturn well-established precedents on clean air, clean water, privacy, equal opportunity and religious liberty,' said Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way."
Doesn't the "Republicans want to poison the air and water" arguments get old after a while--even to E. J. Dionne? We've had a Republican Congress for a decade; the air outside my window doesn't exactly look like I need a knife to cut it.
Posted by: Ed Driscoll at August 30, 2005 2:16 PMEd:
That's because Global Warming has impeded it from doing so - but you just wait and see.
Posted by: obc at August 30, 2005 2:28 PMThat a lie is always more difficult to keep consistent than the truth is not a conundrum but a truism. Roberts is a hate-object because he makes their duplicity evident. Dionne is clever, but even he can't violate the law of non contradiction.
Posted by: Luciferous at August 30, 2005 5:46 PMI expect to the heads of several Democrat Senators explode during the confirmation process as they are torn between their sense of electoral self preservation and the demands of the left wing money machine of their party.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://brothersjuddblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 30, 2005 9:48 PM
Unless they filibuster (which is the one thing they won't do), let them vote against Roberts. He still wins. There isn't a Dem majority anymore.
Posted by: Bob at August 31, 2005 9:48 AM