NYT: Senate Democrats Are Shifting Focus From Roberts to Other Seat

New York Times ^ | September 9, 2005 | DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

[OESY]

Senate Democrats say the death of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist has eased the pressure on them to oppose the Supreme Court nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. but has set the stage for a more contentious battle over the other vacancy on the court.

"When you are thinking about the balance of the court, you say, 'O.K., Judge Roberts is replacing Justice Rehnquist,' " said Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut. " 'Consider him on his merits, but it doesn't alter the balance of the court.' "

Democratic senators and strategists say they are weighing whether to save their ammunition for the next nominee, who would succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, often the swing vote on social issues.

Liberal groups had vowed to hold accountable any senator who voted to confirm Judge Roberts if he ended up moving the court to the right on abortion rights, affirmative action or other issues, but the death of a conservative justice revives the possibility that the next nominee may preserve the current equilibrium.

Since Chief Justice Rehnquist's death, some prominent Democratic critics of Judge Roberts have acknowledged more openly that he is likely to win confirmation.

"Has anything come up before the hearings that is a showstopper for Roberts? The answer is no," said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic whip, who, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, voted against confirming Mr. Roberts to a federal appeals court seat two years ago.

With hearings on Judge Roberts's confirmation set to start Monday, Democratic leaders are already laying the groundwork for the next battle....

Although Mr. Reid has not taken a position on Judge Roberts, he recently made clear that he would object....

[jmc813]

"When you are thinking about the balance of the court, you say, 'O.K., Judge Roberts is replacing Justice Rehnquist,' " said Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut. " 'Consider him on his merits, but it doesn't alter the balance of the court.' "

All this "balance of the court" stuff is dopey. One of the benefits of being resident is that you are able to reshape the court to your liking.

[DoraC]

She'd be the PERFECT choice right now just as the Dems say Bush hates Blacks. He should nominate her today.

Demonrats can lie and get away with it. They do it all the time. They will probably say: he wants more black votes in 2006, but he still hates blacks. How could they have said this in the first place? Bush was the first president to nominate a black man as Secretary of State, and now a black woman.

Anyway, Michael Luttig is obviously the best choice. He is brilliant and conservative, but he has served long enough on a lower court as to pay at least some respect to precedents.

[Republican Wildcat]

Bush should put up a nominee the Democrats would be tempted to obstruct - it would rally the GOP base to turn out in the off year election. With them having more seats to defend, it would put many Dems in a sticky situation.