Skip to comments.Confirm Roberts(The Left Angeles Times no less!)
Posted on 09/20/2005 6:18:43 AM PDT by kellynla
IT WILL BE A DAMNING INDICTMENT of petty partisanship in Washington if an overwhelming majority of the Senate does not vote to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. to be the next chief justice of the United States. As last week's confirmation hearings made clear, Roberts is an exceptionally qualified nominee, well within the mainstream of American legal thought, who deserves broad bipartisan support. If a majority of Democrats in the Senate vote against Roberts, they will reveal themselves as nothing more than self-defeating obstructionists.
Most Democrats have not indicated how they will vote later this week in the Judiciary Committee, or subsequently on the Senate floor. The angst expressed by some senators who feel caught between the pressure of liberal interest groups and their own impression of Roberts is comically overwrought. "I for one have woken up in the middle of the night thinking about it, being unsure how to vote," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.).
One reason Democratic senators are struggling to reach a verdict on the Roberts nomination is that President Bush has yet to announce his nominee for the second vacancy on the court. They are trying to figure out how their vote on Roberts will influence Bush's next choice. This is silly; Roberts ought to be considered on his own merits. But even if one treats this vote merely as a tactical game, voting against an impressive, relatively moderate nominee hardly strengthens the Democrats' leverage. If Roberts fails to win their support, Bush may justifiably conclude that he needn't even bother trying to find a justice palatable to the center. And if Bush next nominates someone who is genuinely unacceptable to most Americans, it will be harder for Democrats to point that out if they cry wolf over Roberts.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Broder yesterday in the WaPo, and now the LA Times today. I hope to God we don't get another Souter or Kennedy.
Even if the Donks vote for him, they will have revealed themselves as "nothing more than self-defeating obstructionists."
The Lefties couldn't find any dirt on this man so they'll wait for the next candidate to dig in their heels(pun intended LOL)!
Oh, the Times ..they are a'changing:
Kinsley leaves the Times
You mean like Supreme Court Justice Bork?
The other perspective on this is that the MSM toilet rags made a choice to side with the radical left. They have put all their chips there -- at the same time, they are worried about how radical and non-sensical the far-left Dims have become.
Trashing Roberts would be the MOST STUPID thing they can do -- the rags know it. Just like the highly calculating, power-centric Marxist Medusa knows it. He will be confirmed with the radical Dims hating every minute of it...
I agree. they know this battle is lost.
Fall back and prepare for the next nomination.
But they have no guarantee they will do better the next time.
I'm thinking of political things.
Evaluating O'Connor and Alberto Gonzalez, I'd say that on a 10 point conservative scale (10 high) that Gonzalez is a closer to a 10 than was O'Connor. I consider O'Connor to be a wishy-washy 5...maybe even a 4+ Gonzalez, though, is a 6- or maybe even a solid 6.
This concession to the president is made strategically. IF the president will use his 3rd choice for a strong conservative, then I'm willing to gamble. My reasons:
1. There is a real possibility of another vacancy on Scotus. Some are ill, some are aged, some might just be tired. Many, though, are Republican. The most eligible of them could be given the back-channel message that it's time for them to take one for the team and step down.
2. The midterm elections need something to fire up the base. A knockdown dragout fight over crucial conservative issues would do just that. That would turn out the base and conceivably lead to a filibuster proof Senate after Republican gains. OR...in order to avoid just such a thing, the Dems could back off and let the 3rd selection glide on through.
Given the above, I'd support the president naming Alberto Gonzalez to the Supreme Court with his 2nd selection. It has some possibilities for misfiring, but strategically it makes sense, AND Gonzalez is more to the right than is O'Connor....which is not hard to do. Gonzalez would get quick confirmation.
This would open the way for a quick vacancy if one of the remaining Scotus team-members would play with the team. This could be determined before this step is taken.
"Broder yesterday in the WaPo, and now the LA Times today. I hope to God we don't get another Souter or Kennedy."
The MSM is setting Roberts up as a moderate so the next candidate can be labeled too extreme.
Miquel Estrada please report to the green room.
One thing I got from the Roberts hearing. Roberts is going to call them as he sees them. If the ruling is against something the right wants, you at least can be sure Roberts weighed everything based on the Constitution and not the ACLU.
Marc Steyn says Schumer looks like an accountant for the Mafia. If Schumer votes "yes," he'll get whacked by the people who actually run the Dim party.
So am I. I have a nagging feeling that we're being given another Souter.
Let's see, Ann Coulter is against him and the Washington Post, Boston Globe, and Los Angeles Times are for him.
Wasn't that the case with John Kerry?
NARAL is gonna be PO'ed.
I refuse to believe or accept that conservative ideas and beliefs must be hidden and that we must rely on innuendo and faith when a candidate is introduced. Nobody had a problem with Ginsburg knowing full well that she was liberal. Hasn't it been proved that conservative ideas win every time they are tried?
I hear Roberts will be more like Kennedy than Souter. Either way, George W. Bush betrayed conservatives by nominating Roberts. Ann Coulter was right to be worried.
Looks like a Souter or a Kennedy is what we're going to get, because if the left thought Roberts was a Thomas or Scalia, they'd be going all out to destroy him. This is NOT a good thing.
A stopped clock is accurate twice a day. The rest of the time it is wrong. That is my view of these dinosaur media newspapers.
On the other hand, maybe Roberts is a stealth conservative, but I don't know if we have ever seen a stealth conservative before. Stealth liberals are more common. The troubling thing is that there is no reason why we should have ever had to doubt that George W. Bush was nominating a conservative. The truth is that nobody knows for sure where Roberts will go, but if the past is any indicator of the future, prepare to be disappointed.
Well all the usual suspects had their outrageous hypberbolic prognositcations that as soon as Souter was confirmed the Civil Rights Act would be overturned, Roe v Wade would be reversed, women would be turned into sex slaves, (I made that last one up, but it was in the penumbras of their arguments), etc.
Of course: he is absolutely committed to his core to voting against ANY Republican nominee, yet realizes there is absolutely no sane argument for voting against Roberts, and he'll look like a whiny brat if he fails to approve Roberts.
Bush: dumb like a fox.
No, more like Roberts will support the same agenda that has been in place before the court - unlimited commerce power, soft on the Bill of Rights, etc. Robert is in the legal mainstream - more is the pity. What we need is another Justice Thomas.
BINGO! They have been looking very juvenile lately.
The MSM is raising the White Flag of Surrender, hoping it will make them look more reasonable as they try to Bork the next nominee.
I wasn't talking about Roberts' agenda/style/whatever.
I was talking about Schumer's head exploding because Bush was actually clever enough to put up a nominee that Schumer can't object to without looking like an idiot.
Whether I like Roberts for SCOTUS is a different matter.
As JFK's father said: "I want to buy a win, not a landslide."
I'd rather see a candidate so blatantly a strict Constitutionalist that he gets nominated by a bare majority.
"a candidate so blatantly a strict Constitutionalist that he gets nominated by a bare majority" I like the way you think.
The hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a chainsaw. First, the LA Times decries voting for or against Roberts based on political considerations, and then in the next breath they attempt to direct their party toward the best strategy for Borking the next nominee. I truly hope Bush nominates Janice Rogers Brown for the Supreme Court. The Democrats can drop dead. We won, they lost.
We are about to see if Bush has any cajones.
When Bush nominates a conservative to replace O'Conner, who will alter the 'balance', look for the real opposition to emerge; the left in full cry and attack ..
"We won, they lost."
Something that escapes the Lefties, the MSM and the 'Rats in the Senate; those who win elections get to run the show and select judges and candidates for the Supremes!
Roberts will be more politic in how he goes about eliminating the liberal legacy of lawlessness on the court, but that is probably what is needed, a slow, step by step approach. People don't understand constitutional law, and we can't rip out 70 years of unconstitutional decisions overnight.
When Bush nominates Janice Rogers Brown to replace Ginsburg, just sit back and enjoy the reaction. I can't wait to have the judicial debate between the lightweights on the committee and a brilliant black woman. That right there might be worth a few percentage points among black voters.
Bush should nominate Diana Ross for the Supremes.
THAT would sure confuse the rats.
Personally, I would like to see Mark Levin nominated...
now that would give the 'Rats a cardiac! LMAO
but I could live with any conservative ...
scary. A man is sometimes known by those who admire him.
Another Anthony Kennedy is not what we need or want either, and it's not what Bush promised us. What is needed is a constitutionalist, an originalist, a strict constructionist. Some things that Roberts says sound very much like that, but other things sound very much unlike it.
Why do conservatives blindly support these nominees?
I remember when Young Americans for Freedom came out against O'Connor (I was on the Platform Committee that year.) YAF wa routinely cursed up anbd down in the movement. I remember when the Conservative Caucus came out against Souter and people practically read them out of the conservative movement for daring to oppose a Republican Supremem Court nominee.
We were right about these nominees. I hope that conservatives like Coulter, Farah, and others are wrong about this nominee, but experience tells me that they're probably right.
And the LAT and the others are just giving them cover (and gritting their teeth doing it).
I really can't believe you are still beating this drum
"Let's see, Ann Coulter is against him and the Washington Post, Boston Globe, and Los Angeles Times are for him."
Is this your idea of analysis? Don't you think you should have included all the conservatives who are for him?
"I hear Roberts will be more like Kennedy than Souter."
From whom? Anybody you heard that from is talking out of their hat.
"No, more like Roberts will support the same agenda that has been in place before the court - unlimited commerce power, soft on the Bill of Rights, etc."
Nonsense. He's already voted in a way that would limit congressional use of the Commerce Clause. Why do you ignore that?
Because he said so in his testimony to the Senate during his recent confirmation hearings. That's why.
Right. He said "I will support the same agenda that has been in place before the court - unlimited commerce power, soft on the Bill of Rights, etc."
C'mon what did he really say? And again, why ignore his actual record?
read my prior message or don't expect a reply
Ok, the L.A. Times is a bridge too far...time to pull Roberts.
"read my prior message or don't expect a reply"
Wow, how arrogant you are.
All right I read your prior message. Not sure what I'm supposed to take from it. You said, in a nutshell, that Roberts said he would support unlimited commerce clause power and less protection under the bill of rights. I challenged you factually, both that he said such things and that his record led to an inference of the opposite.
Your most erudite response was "because he said so." I challenged you. You said read the prior post. I did. It's non-responsive.
So will I be lucky enough to have the favor of a reply since I followed your order?
Wait is your #48 the prior response I'm supposed to read? That's after this post.