As witnesses go, Judge Roberts was one of the most impressive. As I suspected when I prepared my statement, the Senate Judiciary Committee needed a way to get information, for Roberts himself was volunteering nothing.*
-- John Dean
Leahy said he still has some concerns about Roberts. "But in my judgment, in my experience, but especially in my conscience I find it is better to vote yes than no," he said. "Judge Roberts is a man of integrity. I can only take him at his word that he does not have an ideological agenda."
The Senate Judiciary voted John Roberts' out of committee by a 13-5 vote, which means that if everyone voted, the vote among the Democrats was 5-3 against. This translates to a 73-27 sort of vote for the full Senate, which sounds about right. Sen. Leahy was among those who voted for the nominee, since he "trusts" him. I assume Pat expects us to take that seriously. I know I do not.
Judge Roberts can be a man full of integrity, at least depending on how you define the term, and still prove to be a conservative stalwart. As suggested, Sen. Feingold (who voted for Ashcroft) supported him as well since the hearings suggested that he "will not bring an ideological agenda to the Supreme Court." While in private practice, Roberts dealt with less fatuous individuals at his children's "take your parents to work day" ... his children are I believe in elementary school. Meanwhile, centrist sort Sen. Feingold (CA) voted against him along with the usual suspects. But, not Leahy, ranking member ... yeah ok.
These people need to read a bit of history. Consider the Civil War. Early on, Eastern generals took the "big set piece battle approach," each time fighting the rebs, eventually led by Lee, and then running behind the nearest river. This stalemate lasted about until Lee stupidly fought that third day at Gettysburg. Grant stepped in and saw that it was a battle of attrition. He wore the rebs down, getting bloody himself, but he licked them in the end. The Dems might have less troops, but they like Grant really have the majority of the country on their side.
And, not realizing defeating the enemy forces (and that is what we are dealing with, not "men of integrity" or whatever) is a long term goal is moronic. Yes, Roberts is going to be confirmed, so the "real" battle is to fill the O'Connor seat (Sen. Specter sensibly suggested that Bush ask her to stay on the term ... not surprisingly, Bush wasn't too keen).
But, it is not a singular battle with no connection to the past. The Roberts battle underlines where the Democrats stand and their willingness to be firm (or not, as it turns out). A quick "no" vote would show that they can simply allow an "up and down vote" when the situation is not drastic, even if they oppose the nominee. And, when it is especially important, they would still have the possibility to say "see, we let him in ... but this time it's more important and different ... we have to filibuster." A difference, you see.
Compare this to the business about the appellate nominations that were filibustered. They did not just filibuster one particularly troubling sort -- they had enough for it to be a significant battle, while generally allowing an up and down vote. Now, it would have made more sense if more senators voted "no" some of those times. And, another thing. When the other side pointed out that the Dems were annoyed at things the nominees did that turned out to be accepted by the Supreme Court (like supporting the ability of states to block the federal government from forcing them to protect disabled employees), they can say "yeah, and the Supreme Court was wrong. The best we can do is not to support someone particularly gung ho about such things BEFORE the SC made it the law of the land." But, they did see it as a long drawn out campaign.
So is the Supreme Court. It is not out of the realm of possibility that a Republican controlled Senate will have two to three more nominees to handle before el presidente is out of the White House, especially if the Dems do not shape up before midterms. This must be seen as a united campaign -- not just separate battles in which only one is handled particularly harshly. You know, where a consistently liberal ranking member of the committee votes against the stance of his PRO-LIFE minority leader. One who is worried about the nominee, but still votes for him!
We are just to take the CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES on faith. The path to a faith-based government is now complete. The electorate took the president on faith, and now the head of a second branch of government is as well. After all, "Senator Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, said he had been persuaded because of the nominee's 'sterling reputation as a lawyer and a judge' and was therefore voting with 'my hopes, not my fears.' "
It's official -- the "extraordinary circumstances" rule now applies to Supreme Court justices. Or, rather the "I hope, I hope, with sugar on top" standard. How freakening depressing. Again, yes Virginia, you can oppose Roberts ... like the minority leader ... and still filibuster the next one. A firm opposition is a big part of how your party lost power in the '90s. If the Civil War is too far back, how about more recent history?
---
* The "judges are umpires" remark was rightly ridiculed by many quarters. Umpires generally do not get to decide the rules of the game, though when it comes to balls and strikes, they in practice have loads of flexibility. This remark alone, deemed by some as impressive, is but a taste of why "impressive" is not the best word to apply to his remarks, but "crafty."