September 21, 2005
THEY BOUGHT IT, THEY OWN IT:
Roberts Poses Calculus Test for Democrats: Senators Weigh Whether Vote Should Send a Message to Bush, Liberal Base or to Centrists (JEANNE CUMMINGS, 9/21/05, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL)
New York Sen. Charles Schumer has told colleagues that Judge Roberts overall acquitted himself well before the committee. But a yes vote could undermine Mr. Schumer's ability to raise money from anti-Roberts donors for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which he now heads. When asked Tuesday if he had made up his mind, Mr. Schumer answered, "Nope."Similar battles are bedeviling Democrats not on the committee. Some moderates, such as Florida's Sen. Bill Nelson and Nebraska's Ben Nelson, face re-election next year in Republican-leaning states and are eager to pocket some centrist credentials by voting for Judge Roberts. Mr. Nelson of Nebraska said Tuesday he has "not seen anything that would cause me to vote against" the nominee. Another red-state Democrat, Max Baucus of Montana, said, "I'm inclined to vote for him."
By backing Judge Roberts, some Democrats argue, the party will have more credibility if it takes on the president's nominee for Justice O'Connor's seat, one that arguably is more important because she has played a critical role in rulings on issues such as affirmative action and abortion rights.
"It makes the case that they are mindless obstructionists much weaker," says Ross K. Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers University in New Jersey.
But liberal activists are near unanimous in opposing Judge Roberts, who they say echoed the pre-appointment positioning of conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. They are pressing Democrats to vote against Judge Roberts to send a message about the party's priorities. Those arguments likely will weigh heavily on Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, who both have presidential ambitions and are trying to juggle the left-leaning voters in the party's primaries with general-election voters, who might favor a more centrist approach. "I have not" decided, Sen. Clinton said Tuesday.
Which came first: losing the support of the electorate or becoming beholden to the special interests and big donors? Posted by Orrin Judd at September 21, 2005 10:14 AM
The Democrats are two parties, one of mildly populist centrists and one of dogmatic faith-based liberalism, and the centrifugal force is killing them.
The Republicans are also two parties, small-government libertarians and big-government social conservatives, but the two are only pulling at right angles to each other, not direct opposites. The centrifugal force is giving us bad government, but not destroying the party.
But the Democratic party, considered as a unit, is comfortably larger than either of the Republican factions. As long as this persists, the current (undesirable) political situation will persist.
There aren't enough libertarians to matter. The Democrats aren't twoi parties, they're just a series of discrete interest groups interested in only their own issues and not bound by any common ideas. That spells their doom.
Posted by: oj at September 21, 2005 10:41 AM"But a yes vote could undermine Mr. Schumer's ability to raise money from anti-Roberts donors"
Is she suggesting that Sen. Schumer's vote is for sale?
Chuckie's more of a rent-to-own type of guy. Especially if you throw in some additional TV face time from folks sympathetic to whatever position he takes (and since a "yes" on Roberts would mean less time before the cameras, that's another reason for him to vote "no" on the nomination).
Posted by: John at September 21, 2005 11:06 AMWaPo thinks Harry is shooting his party in the foot:
Words That Will Haunt; Wednesday, September 21, 2005; Page A22
IN ANNOUNCING his opposition yesterday to the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to be chief justice of the United States, Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) made a remarkable statement: "The president is not entitled to very much deference in staffing the third branch of government, the judiciary." Leave aside the merits of the Roberts nomination, which we support; if Mr. Reid regards Judge Roberts as unworthy, he is duty-bound to vote against him. But these are dangerous words that Democrats will come to regret.
This country has only one president at a time. That president, right now President Bush, is tasked with naming judges. The Senate has the role of providing advice and consent on the president's choices, which is a significant constitutional task. But if the presidential election means anything in this arena, it must mean that the president's choice has a heavy presumption of confirmation. ...
Republicans may still be in the majority the next time a Democratic president nominates a justice. Is it now okay for them to vote against a person who -- as Mr. Reid put it of Judge Roberts -- is "an excellent lawyer" and "a thoughtful, mainstream judge" who may make "a fine Supreme Court justice" simply because the nominee doesn't represent their ideal? When that day comes, and Democrats cry foul, remember what Mr. Reid said about how little deference he believes he owes Mr. Bush concerning Judge Roberts.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://brothersjuddblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 21, 2005 11:55 AM
Lehey says he is going to vote for confirmation. I think Roberts will get about 70 votes.
Posted by: Earl Sutherland at September 21, 2005 2:28 PMReid doesn't owe the president any deference, he just needs to perform hus duties as outlined in the Constitution and allow and up or down vote on nominees.
BYW - Will any media pick up on Reid's admission that his votes are for sale?
erp:
In the media's mind, everyone's vote is for sale. And, for most Congress-critters, it is.
Slightly O/T, wouldn't it be nice to George Bush personally demand the $254 million for Don Young's bridge? After Young's moronic statements of yesterday, he needs to take the Trent Lott walk, no?
Posted by: jim hamlen at September 21, 2005 3:55 PMFortunately, we now have Campaign Finance Reform, so lobbyists can't tell politicians how to vote any more.
Wait a second ...
jim:
All government expenditures that further the automobile culture are evil.
Posted by: oj at September 21, 2005 4:25 PMBayh's situation is fun to watch. If he votes against a Hoosier endorsed by the Washington freaking Post for gosh sakes then he's really drunk the Move-on Kool-Aid. Not a good idea as his primary money will have to come in large part from centrist midwesterners and southerners.
Posted by: jeff at September 22, 2005 5:48 AM