With next round ahead, Roberts vote presents dilemma for Senate Democrats

Christian Science Monitor, via Yahoo ^ | September 23, 2005 | Gail Russell Chaddock,

[YaYa123]

WASHINGTON - It's official. The long-anticipated Senate battle over the first vacancy on the US Supreme Court in 11 years has been downgraded to a skirmish, as both sides position for the next, more critical court fight.

With three Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee voting to confirm John Roberts as chief justice Thursday, the last prospect for a party-line stand to block the nomination on the Senate floor next week expired.

[YaYa123]

This is as good an article as I've read anywhere, on yesterday's Judicial Committee vote, and what happens next.

[egfowler3]

Legal analysts say the split Democratic vote is a bid for individual senators, and the party as a whole, to preserve credibility going into a second court fight. While Judge Roberts is replacing a conservative vote on the Supreme Court, the next vacancy replaces Justice O'Connor.

"I suspect that Leahy and the Democrats' position is strategic: to defuse Republican charges that this is strict partisanship - that interest groups are controlling the show," says Sheldon Goldman, an expert on judicial confirmations at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

"Leahy's vote is a show of independence that also makes him more credible to oppose a much more extremist candidate for the O'Connor seat, or someone who cannot present as relatively reasonable a position as Roberts did," he adds.

It always helps to maintain a positive image when your opposition accuses you of being partisan and you say you are not. The Rats have been masters of manipulation since the days when they were slave owners. This is not my personal opinion, but historical fact.

[TexasGreg]

Legal analysts say the split Democratic vote is a bid for individual senators, and the party as a whole, to preserve credibility going into a second court fight. While Judge Roberts is replacing a conservative vote on the Supreme Court, the next vacancy replaces Justice O'Connor. "I suspect that Leahy and the Democrats' position is strategic: to defuse Republican charges that this is strict partisanship - that interest groups are controlling the show," says Sheldon Goldman, an expert on judicial confirmations at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

IF the only Democrats to vote against Roberts were to be the 5 who so-voted on the committee, that would be one thing ... this analysis might be right. But, the simple fact is that about 65% of the Democrats ... perhaps more ... will vote against Roberts. Based upon what we've heard thus far, Hillary is voting against Roberts, and there will be many more. Yes, it's not monolithic, but that's not necessary to demonstrate that the Democrats will oppose ANY Bush nominee ... and that is a rank ideological divide which is starkly different from the Republican approach to these issues, in which the vast majority of Republicans voted for a Leftist like Ginsberg.

[Amalie]

True, the Dems will let a few off the reservation just to make this look like a reasonable response. Like your tagline...

[TexasGreg]

True, the Dems will let a few off the reservation just to make this look like a reasonable response.

A "reasonable response" would be for 5 or 6 Democrats to vote no, but the rest vote yes ... NOT the other way around. In doing so they have demonstrated the full measure of their obstructionist schemes.

Like your tagline...

Thanks ... it's a quote from, of all people, Cartman on Southpark ... the best thing that foul character ever said.

[YaYa123]

Yesterday before the Judicial Committee vote, Lindsey Graham nailed the Democrats. He said everyone knew their votes were political, that they were already thinking more of the O'Connor vote than this one.

(I hope someone finds the transcripts from yesterday. Graham was particularly eloquent. I noted Kennedy and Schumer were up and about the entire time Graham spoke. Rude to the max! )

[uncbob]

ifferent from the Republican approach to these issues, in which the vast majority of Republicans voted for a Leftist like Ginsberg.

Which they shouldn't have . She is the activist that we all knew she would be
GOP is the Stupid Party

[Polyxene]

"I noted Kennedy and Schumer were up and about the entire time Graham spoke. Rude to the max!"

Those two RAT weasels couldn't be civil if they tried. No manners -- no couth -- no intelligence -- just abject hate.

[bert]

.....After groups spent more than $2.5 million to shape public views of the court fights .....

The meaning of this seems to be that efforts to shape public views were not successful. The propaganda effort failed.