31 Comments

1. klrfz1:

Seems to me this news makes it more likely there will be a Democratic filibuster of the next Supreme Court nomination (but not Roberts). Reid is saying even he doesn’t need a real reason to vote no. I bet Roberts won’t get 60 votes. When Democrats filibuster the next nominee, will John McCain and the moderate Republicans vote to change the Senate rules to allow a vote? Yes! At that point it will be in McCain’s interest to again take center stage and be seen to be taking charge. All the anger at McCain for his deal that prevented the rule change last May will be swept away by the confirmation of the second nominee. If McCain can pull this off, I will have to admit I admire his political skill. I’ve never thought he was particularly smart (remember campaign finance “reform”) but maybe I’ve misunderestimated him. Or maybe, Karl Rove is …

Sep 21, 2005 - 2:18 am 2. Terrye:

The Constitution makes it plain that not only does the president have deference in regards to judges, it is his job.

Democrats are like bad children.

Sep 21, 2005 - 5:28 am 3. Rick Ballard:

Clear Fizz-wan,

That’s a very interesting juxtaposition. Two leading Senators from opposing parties joined in a demonstrated ability to place principal above principle. Keating Five McCain may well do as you say but he is very damaged goods in the eyes of the base of the party. Should he abrogate the simpleton’s agreement signed by the Republican Seven Dwarves, isn’t he in the position of fixing which he himself broke? It is more than serendipitous that the elephant is the symbol of his party and the measure of his lack of intelligence lies both in the McCain-Feingold anti-free speech bill as well as becoming the lightning rod leader of the Seven Dwarves. Men who rise each morning to see a future President looking back from the mirror are often lead to do foolish things. When such a man is a fool to begin with the foolish thing can be downright stupid.

I agree with Roger that the probable explanation of Reid’s action is a result of control of the party having passed to the Moveonmoron wing. The Soros financed 13%ers are now calling the tune and soon sealing the Democrats doom.

Mindless ooposition to the nomination of a man demonstrably superior in intelligence to those who questioned him – on either side – during his confirmation hearings is the clearest evidence one could hope for that the Billionaire Boys Club is calling the shots. One might hope that the Bing/Lewis/Soros consortium derives some sort of satisfaction from controlling a party so clearly willing to place principal over princple but I can’t imagine what it will be. Losing is just losing. And losers are just losers.

Where is a Ross Perot on the Democratic side? There is a great opportunity for a person of wealth and integrity now open to be taken.

Sep 21, 2005 - 5:47 am 4. Knucklehead:

“Filthy Lucre” apparently has much to do with it. The NYT seems to have decided that it serves a niche “information” marketplace and rather than do what is necessary to expand into broader markets has decided to develop the niche and target their product accordingly.

Whether or not they were ever serious about “All the news that’s fit to print” I can’t say. Their business model now is apparently “Whatever our audience niche is willing to pay for.”

I’ve mentioned this before, and hope to expand upon the theme at Flares Into Darkness in the near future, but is there a point where, as an example, the NYT becomes a commercial “information refinery” rather than part of “the press”?

Sep 21, 2005 - 5:47 am 5. SMGalbraith:

Well, if Harry Reid was nominated to SCOTUS, he would have to oppose himself (stay with me) since he’s against abortion and, presumably, thinks Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided.

Less sure on that last part but it does seem to follow logically from the first part.

Although it’s dangerous to employ logic when we’re discussing the tribalism of politics.

SMG

Sep 21, 2005 - 6:51 am 6. richard mcenroe:

Gee. A Democratic whore. What are the odds.

Sep 21, 2005 - 7:38 am 7. David Thomson:

Sep 21, 2005 - 7:41 am 8. markus:

If Reid wants to vote against Roberts’ nomination because he doesn’t like the ties he wears, this is his prerogative, under our Constitution.

In reality, his decision is akin to a man symbolically firing a shot in the air instead of challenging his opponent to a duel. Roberts is in, and I agree with Roger when he says this is probably no problem for Reid. No problem for me either — Roberts is a good Bush pick, who’ll make a fine replacement for Rehnquist. And if a symbolic “no” vote also helps raise Democratic money, then that’s a plus that I hadn’t thought of. Really, though, this is all about replacing O’Conner.

For someone who gets accused of thinking he knows all the answers, I sure am one ambivelent Democrat on this issue. Part of me wants to do whatever possible to make Bush more likely to nominate a half-decent moderate like Gonzalez. Part of me wants to filibuster and stop legislation if he instead nominates someone like Janice Rogers Brown. Part of me hopes he DOES nominate her, and she does get confirmed, so that every complacent, pro-choice woman of childbearing age who loves tax cuts and Arnold and has gay friends is forced to contemplate the agenda of the Republican Party’s theocratic base. Part of me thinks it is unwise to set a precendent that makes it almost certain that the Republican Senate minority does the same to President Clinton’s nominees in 2009…

Sep 21, 2005 - 8:28 am 9. JB:

“every complacent, pro-choice woman of childbearing age who loves tax cuts and Arnold and has gay friends is forced to contemplate the agenda of the Republican Party’s theocratic base.”

And after she’s done contemplating she’ll consider the alternative.

And shudder.

Sep 21, 2005 - 9:26 am 10. vnjagvet:

I think it far more likely that the next nominee will be Edith Jones or Patricia Owen. Either will be hard to filibuster or vilify. Neither will be an ideological nut from any direction. This will peeve the 10%ers from both ends of the political spectrum, but will be good for the republic.

Sep 21, 2005 - 9:27 am 11. Knucklehead:

Markus,

If Reid wants to vote against Roberts’ nomination because he doesn’t like the ties he wears, this is his prerogative, under our Constitution.

Perhaps. When it comes to the ‘portant work of gubmint, however, the folks who elected Senator Reid (and those who live in his state regardless of whether or not they voted for him) have ample right to expect something a bit more, ummm…, principled.

In reality, his decision is akin to a man symbolically firing a shot in the air instead of challenging his opponent to a duel.

The “duel”, so to speak, was the confirmation hearing. Reid had his “duel”. Assuming he viewed it as his chance to prevent Roberts from sitting on the SCOTUS as Chief Justice he apparently missed his target.

I sure am one ambivelent Democrat on this issue.

Please consider trying to work through your ambivalence.

Part of me wants to do whatever possible to make Bush more likely to nominate a half-decent moderate like Gonzalez.

Hmmm… What is within your reach to do to try and realize this desire for a “moderate”, “half-decent” of otherwise? And are you really looking for a “moderate” or, rather, someone who has demonstrated they agree with you on a particular single issue?

Part of me wants to filibuster and stop legislation if he instead nominates someone like Janice Rogers Brown.

Shut down the legislature over a judicial nomination? Is that moderation?

Part of me hopes he DOES nominate her, and she does get confirmed, so that every complacent, pro-choice woman of childbearing age

Why only “childbearing age”?

who loves tax cuts and Arnold and has gay friends…

Has that something to do with the issue at hand? When dealing with ambivalence it is sometimes helpful to strip away things that are irrelevant.

…is forced to contemplate the agenda of the Republican Party’s theocratic base.

Contemplation is certainly in order. As for the “theocratic base”, you may safely take my word for it that there are precious few “theocrats” in the base. You may also safely take my word for it that one needn’t be “theocratic”, or even the slightest bit religious, to hold a position that differs from your own wrt to the single issue you apparently feel trumps all others.

While this contemplative phase is ongoing, however, it might be useful to add in thoughts about other issues. After all, if strip out some of the irrelevant rhetorical items there would be comtemplative space available for short term leasing.

For example, some folks want the SCOTUS to help keep the gubmint out of people’s wombs, bedrooms, gun cabinets, medical records, and so on and so forth. Might issues such as “emminent domain” enter into that contemplations wrt that which is “important”? Is it possible that there are issues of equal or greater importance than the one so many seem to believe trumps all others?

If government has the power to take one’s home for a broad range of reasons, what good is it to worry about one’s bedroom?

There is little danger of the SCOTUS obliterating access to legal abortions. “Choice” (or, more accurately, that particular “choice” which is only one among several these days) is not in serious jeopardy regardless of one or two, even three, SCOTUS appointments. There are, however, other important issues that potentially affect much larger segments of the population. If we are not safe in our homes we will, I assert, not be safe in our wombs or bedrooms or anywhere else.

Sep 21, 2005 - 9:53 am 12. erp:

Do senate Democrats even know that they’re admitting their vote is for sale (or at least, for rent)?

Sep 21, 2005 - 10:13 am 13. markus:

Knuck — good writing, bud. seriously.

gimme a few hours to respond. I don’t wanna lose my job and become another unemployed liberal looking for a handout.

Sep 21, 2005 - 10:23 am 14. Charlie (Colorado):

I’ve mentioned this before, and hope to expand upon the theme at Flares Into Darkness in the near future, but is there a point where, as an example, the NYT becomes a commercial “information refinery” rather than part of “the press”?

Knuck — what’s the difference?

Sep 21, 2005 - 11:00 am 15. MarkD:

Where is the Ross Perot on the Democratic side? Well, if it’s money we’re talking about, we’ve had Kerry (rich candidate) and Soros (financier). If it is principle, we had Joe Lieberman.

Each lasted about as long as H Ross Perot did.

I had to hold my nose to vote for GW – he is no fiscal conservative and no friend of small, non-intrusive government either.

As long as the submit or die crowd are on the warpath, NOTHING else matters. The adults will get my vote.

Sep 21, 2005 - 11:06 am 16. Kevin P:

Markus:

The Democrats have already announced that Gonzales is not a moderate as you say but is unacceptable. Reid, with his inane and historically incorrect statement about the Presidents role in selecting who sits on the court, shows the basic problem with the Democratic leadership. Reid acts as if he is still leading the majority party in the Senate. Yes, you are right, he can vote as he wishes. But he tries to pass off obvious partisan arguments as logical reasonimg. I would have more respect for him if he said “I am a democrat and I will never vote for anyone that George Bush sends up that I have not pre approved’. That is the reality of his actions. He vainly tries to build a principled wall of arguments against Roberts but upon examination they are tissue thin and do not hide the fact that the Dems are trying to create a new standard for SCOTUS nominations. Reid is trying to set up a new tradition of super majority approval for passage of nominations. And you are right to worry that HRC will be the primary victim of this new standard if Reid wins. At this moment I think a Clinton presidency is very possible. but a 60-40 Democratic Senate is not going to happen and if Reid wins this time the Republicans are not going to go back to the traditional method. There will be no Judge Ginsburgs allowed.

Sen. Reid is in denial. He really thinks that if your party loses the House, the Senate, and the White House there are no consequences. He seems to think that the Senate Minority leader has more say on who sits on the court the the President does. Even the L.A. Times came to the conclusion that Reid is going down the wrong road. And tactically, he has to rely on the Republican half of the gang of 14 to commit party suicide to save the fillibuster. A large vote against Roberts will give them the perfect cover to save their political and for some Presidential futures and dump the agreement.

Sep 21, 2005 - 11:25 am 17. Bob D:

It’s not only funding he’s after, but this senator sees himself as presidential material.

Sep 21, 2005 - 12:01 pm 18. effie:

Nevadan here, NOTHERN Nevadan. Reid is an embarassment, if Nevada had the grace, as Twain suggests, to be embarrassed. He is loathed in the northern parts of the state, elected mostly by Blue Las Vegas. Only a party that proffered Gore could see Reid as anything but small time. Only as party as intellectually bereft as the Democrats at this point would even notice him.

On a side note, ranchers have been known to come to meetings featuring him bearing arms.

Sep 21, 2005 - 12:14 pm 19. markus:

Kevin P — Yup, I’m leery of requiring supermajorities myself. And if liberal or leftist interest groups are against Gonzalez, fine, but unless they’ve got something more on him, I DON’T CARE, and more importantly, I don’t think a significant number of Democratic Senators will care either.

What I most object to, however, is the implication that somehow Democrats lack the authority or legitimacy, to play the political hardball that Republicans have learned to play very well over the years. You, and many other here, seem to want Democrats to “accept the results of the election” by rolling over, playing dead, and letting the Grover Norquists of Washington engage in their idea of bipartisanship, AKA date rape. Anything else is putting partisanship above principle, party above nation. The 1988 Presidential election was about Democrats nominating the sort of spineless gentleman wimp that you would probably approve of, and watcing him getting the shit kicked out of him by ‘principled’ Republican thugs. That was my first vote, and I say, “never again.” Politics is war — no more unilateral disarmament.

The President gets to pick nominees, the Senate to “advise and consent”, and then there is a filibuster. What this should all mean in practice is that both the President and the Senate are constrained, the Senate more so than the President. He gets to pick a nominee with his general outlook and orientation, and Senate moderates of both parties get to make sure that this nominee has a high threshold for overturning precendent, and shows himself in any other respects to be a responsible professional, not an arrogant ideologe.

Everyone knows that “advice and consent” is built in to the reality of the nomination process anyway. Bush’s people are today calling up the various interest groups, putting out feelers about potential picks, etc..

With his low approval ratings, and with the increased backbone of Dems, he’s probably been sending out feelers to Leahy and others. Good for him, good for all of us.

knucklehead — still working on yours…

Sep 21, 2005 - 1:01 pm 20. Knucklehead:

Markus,

I’ve cut an enormous amount out of you post, but I think I’ve captured an essential bit of what you are getting at:

I’m leery of requiring supermajorities myself… …then there is a filibuster.

You seem to support the filibuster. Filibusters are simply a matter of Senate rules. Using them, however, is the equivalent of imposing a requirement for supermajority. Doing so for votes re: nominees, such as to SCOTUS, is AFAIK, not standard practice – i.e, it is a “bending of the Senate rules” for purposes for which it was not. Filibusters were, of course, essentially created to create an ad-hoc, on demand, requirement for supermajorities. It isn’t at all clear, however, that the intent was to stretch them to include the “advice and consent” role of the Senate for judicial nominees.

So this represents an “abuse” of the Senate rules. Ergo the “nukular option” - abuse the rule too far and the rule get’s nuked or, conversely, the abuser gets the same treatment when it’s “his turn”. The Dems, if they were smart, shouldn’t want either of those options.

I’m a bit at a loss re: this hardball you believe Republicans have played so avidly in the Senate specifically or congress in general. You called up the 1988 POTUS campaign as an example, but campaigns are different animals. US campaigns have ALWAYS been eat the young and take no prisoner affairs. The idea that they are somehow “nastier than ever” is not supported by historical evidence. I think Washington was the first and last candidate to get a pass. Since then its been a wild free-for-all. In fact, they’ve tamed a bit over the years. It’s been a good long time since candidate’s wives were called whores and such.

Sep 21, 2005 - 1:28 pm 21. markus:

Knucklehead — I don’t necessarily support filibusters, but I do support the threat of filibusters. This is not a specious distinction. It is unreasonable to insist that that President Bush nominate another David Souter. At the same time, if we wants to nominate another Bork or Clarence Thomas, he better have 60 votes or more to back him up. Within those two extremes, there are lot of John Rogers and other qualified conservatives who nevertheless respect precedent and disdain judicial activism of all stripes. “Advice and consent” means neither a rubber stamp, nor the right of a Senate minority to dominate the process. It means the President gets to choose, but if he wants to be cocky and in your face with his pick, he needs a supermajority. And as to what is being reasonable and what is being cocky, that is a subject worthy of the Senate’s advice and consent.

Responding to your earlier response to my comments on pro-choice women, I certainly agree that with you there are many other important issues besides abortion. At the same time, the idea of American women no longer having a judicially-enshrined right to choose is one that many, many voters will find quite distressing, no matter how persuasive some originalist fisking of the Griswold decision might be to you, and perhaps also to me. Many voters, PARTICULARLY FEMALE VOTERS, which is why I mentioned them, are appaled at the notion that a woman living in Tulsa, OK who wants an abortion should be able to do so only with the permission of the Oklahoma legislature, particularly given that this is a state that just elected to the Senate a man who wants to execute doctors who perform abortions.

The last time that the possible overturning of Roe did become a political issue was in the Bush 41 presidency. And my memory of that time was that it hurt Republicans and helped Democrats. The “gender gap” in the 1992 presidential election was huge, and most polling showed that abortion had a big role to play in this. The Casey decision, plus the election of Clinton, put these fears to rest, and abortion started to wane as a PRO-CHOICE issue, as pro-choice American no longer felt threatened.

Regarding hardball, we are in the era of the permanent campaign. And the reason that people fight over issues so harshly is that so much is at stake, from Iraq to the Supreme Court. My problem is with people who refuse to acknowledge the LEGITIMACY of those on the other side of the political divide. Too many people seem to feel that opposition itself to a position they happen to support is somehow BEYOND THE PALE. Opposing the war is beyond the pale. Opposing the President’s nominee wishes is beyond the pale. So on and so forth. This is by the way a problem both on the left and the right. It is essentially of subspecies of political correctness.

Sep 21, 2005 - 2:30 pm 22. markus:

One more thing, regarding whether filbustering judicial nominees is against the Senate rules, I’ll leave that up to the Senate parliamentarian. Both the current one and the preceding one, whom Trent Lott was able to have removed, agreed with Democrats and refused GOP demands to rule it out of order.

Sep 21, 2005 - 2:37 pm 23. Knucklehead:

Markus,

“Advice and consent” means neither a rubber stamp, nor the right of a Senate minority to dominate the process. It means the President gets to choose, but if he wants to be cocky and in your face with his pick, he needs a supermajority.

Is there some evidence that the current POTUS is likely to make a “cocky and in your face” nomination to the Supreme court? His first, and so far only, nomination to SCOTUS seems like a pretty darned capable and qualified nominee.

Who is “cocky and in your face” as far as this process has gone so far? That wouldn’t be Reid, Biden, Kennedy, and Pelosi, would it?

Which brings me, out of proper order, to:

My problem is with people who refuse to acknowledge the LEGITIMACY of those on the other side of the political divide.

It isn’t the fact that there are people on the “other side of the political divide” that is causing such consternation and backlash against the Democrats these days. It is, specifically, the illegitimacy of the form of their opposition. The behavior of the Democratic Party – the opposition party – is, quite frankly, illegitimate.

George W. Bush is not a stark-raving madman, a bible-thumping theocrat, the second coming of Hitler, a moron, Evil Dick Chaney’s puppet, The Chimp Who Stole the Election, he doesn’t control the weather, and he didn’t invent global warming or any of the other horsemanure that is, apparently, the single extant plank of the Democratic Party platform anymore. He’s a twice elected POTUS and his party holds the majority in both houses of congress. Therein lies “legitimacy”. His nominees for various posts deserve at least the respect of semi-civilized hearings and confirmation processes.

It’s more than 4.5 years into his presidency and if it isn’t clear to the “opposition party” yet that he is a “moderate” by any definition of the term that doesn’t label Ward Churchill as “moderate”, then that’s their problem, not his.

The Democrats have got to stop their infantile shrieking or be beaten out of existence. If you are a Democrat you might give some serious thought to delivering that message. Behaving like crack-adled teenagers who can’t get the car keys from Dad is not “legitimate” opposition – it is stupid and counterproductive and not in the US citizenry’s best interests.

Now, I really don’t wish to start any abortion catfights, but it ain’t 1974 anymore. Abortion is no longer an issue of rusty coathangers wielded by drunken quacks in moldy basements anymore. And even if the worst thing any “liberal” could possibly imagine, overturning Roe v. Wade, were to happen we wouldn’t somehow snap back to some black and white world of innocent bobby-soxers who, in a brief moment of youthful lust, found themselves with no option but the rusty coathanger or condemnation by society for all eternity.

It is now 2005. In addition to the fact that the citizenry has made it perfectly clear that they want abortion, within some as yet undefined liimits, to be legal. There are now a plethora of contraceptive methods. Condoms are available right next to the danged bubblegum. There are abortion pills. If SCOTUS were ever to overturn Roe within 48 hours at least 40 of 50 states would continue on with their current state of legal abortions. In the other 10 or less the issue would be tied up in various legal actions until about three centuries past armegeddon. And the citizens of the 40 or more states are not all that concerned with Oklahoma’s attitude re: abortion – presuming it is substantially different than the national attitude. The Abortion Genie cannot be stuffed back into the bottle. There is far more standing between 2005 and 1974 than Republican POTUS SCOTUS appointments.

Abortion is a vastly different issue today than it was back in the day of Roe v. Wade. It has long since moved on from “legal” or “illegal” to matters of parental notification (and if you don’t think a whole lot of parents who aren’t mouth-breathing, bible-thumping, incestuous neanderthals find THAT portion of the issue are real big freakin’ deal you haven’t been paying attention) and is every abortion method within the capabilities of modern medicine really necessary to condone. Stir in the fact that a fair number of people are beginning to get fed up with only one, of the many available, “choices” being blessed as “legitimate”.

Abortion is the biggest “non-issue” issue in American politics. I, for one, an sick of every judicial nomination being turned into another tired abortion argument. We have other problems like emminent domain and McCain-Feingold to worry about. I’m far more concerned about property rights and free-speech for ordinary citizens than I am about “choice”.

There, I’ve vented. Let the beatings begin.

Sep 21, 2005 - 3:56 pm 24. Kevin P:

markus:

The intellectual dishonesty of the Dems regarding this issue is shown by your honesty. You claim this is war and thats the way it is going to be. I appreciate the honesty. The Dems are trying to create the myth that the fillibuster is the norm for SCOTUS nominee’s when historically it has been a rare thing. And there is a difference between a majority party stalling in committee, a practice that has been common, and a minority party fillibustering a SCOTUS nominee which is a historical anomaly. Majority infers a heightened power over the minority in the Congress. They are given more power as far as the commitee’s.

You are honest enough to see that Roberts and Gonzales are conservative, yet they are not radical. Yet the Dems name every Bush pick as radical, even if the don’t fillibuster. If the republicans had adopted the Democratic logic Ginsburg would not have been put on the court, let alone get all but a handful of Republican votes. her politic and views were no more out of line with republican political views the Roberts are from the Democrats. Yet they followed the traditional standards for SCOTUS picks and voted her in except for 3 or 4 votes. Reid is trying to set up a liberal litmus test for what he calls “mainstream”. If Reids standards were the mainstream the DEMS would not be the minority in ever national house of power. And since you have decided that this is all out war I am sure you will not cry out about tradition and the raping of senate rules if the fillibuster is eliminated for judges. It would be hard for you to declare war and then whine when you get shot at. Unless you are like Reid who creates standards as he needs them.

Sep 21, 2005 - 4:13 pm 25. AST:

Harry Reid is hardly someone you associate with the phrases “Bold Leadership,” “Standing on Principle,” or “Imagination.”

His support or opposition seems to have about as much of an effect as room temperature.

Sep 21, 2005 - 4:16 pm 26. Kevin P:

markus:

The intellectual dishonesty of the Dems regarding this issue is shown by your honesty. You claim this is war and thats the way it is going to be. I appreciate the honesty. The Dems are trying to create the myth that the fillibuster is the norm for SCOTUS nominee’s when historically it has been a rare thing. And there is a difference between a majority party stalling in committee, a practice that has been common, and a minority party fillibustering a SCOTUS nominee which is a historical anomaly. Majority infers a heightened power over the minority in the Congress. They are given more power as far as the commitee’s.

You are honest enough to see that Roberts and Gonzales are conservative, yet they are not radical. Yet the Dems name every Bush pick as radical, even if the don’t fillibuster. If the republicans had adopted the Democratic logic Ginsburg would not have been put on the court, let alone get all but a handful of Republican votes. her politic and views were no more out of line with republican political views the Roberts are from the Democrats. Yet they followed the traditional standards for SCOTUS picks and voted her in except for 3 or 4 votes. Reid is trying to set up a liberal litmus test for what he calls “mainstream”. If Reids standards were the mainstream the DEMS would not be the minority in ever national house of power. And since you have decided that this is all out war I am sure you will not cry out about tradition and the raping of senate rules if the fillibuster is eliminated for judges. It would be hard for you to declare war and then whine when you get shot at. Unless you are like Reid who creates standards as he needs them.

Sep 21, 2005 - 4:16 pm 27. richard mcenroe:

I still say Bush should nominate Cindy Sheehan supporter David Duke… what better way to show we can reach across the aisle?

Sep 21, 2005 - 4:57 pm 28. AST:

Heh.

I just heard John Eastman and Erwin Chemerinsky debate this on Hugh Hewitt’s program. Erwin tried to argue that the Constitution is plastic and that people are entitled to select judges according to their political views.

John tore that to bits. He denied that the Constitution is supposed to be stretched that far. “Words have meaning.” You have to interpret the meaning of things like “equal protection” but you can’t make it fit denying it to white people in order to make up for denying it to others in the past.

There have to be other ways to lift the disadvantaged up without pushing everyone else down.

You can’t ask nominees to commit to specific outcomes on various issues. For one thing, what could you do to them if they lied about it? For another, what can you learn about their qualifications and the quality of their thinking if you force them to lie or refuse to answer?

Reid, Kennedy and Kerry are selling out to PFAW, NOW and NARAL and ignoring a Senator’s real duty. The Dems shouldn’t let these pressure groups stampede them towards a cliff like this. Leahy announced he’ll vote for Roberts. Probably because he didn’t want to spit into the wind.

Sep 21, 2005 - 5:48 pm 29. madawaskan:

Knucklehead-

Way to hit it out of the park. The abortion issue is a huge money maker. Reid is not the organ grinder begging for money- he’s the organ grinder’s monkey.

Sep 21, 2005 - 7:06 pm 30. RogerA:

Gee–you mean its about money? who knew. The Senate remains the same joke it was in Rome when Caligula had his horse declared a Senator. Nothing changes–pontificating and bloviating, ku klux klanners and panderers to special interests. It is a shame, however, that they wrap their words around the constitution–but since they are all unprincipled, what does it matter.

The bottom line to me is that once a justice is confirmed it doesnt matter one whit whether it is by one vote or unanimous. And I think even the senators are smart enough to understand that and prostitute themselves accordingly.

Sep 23, 2005 - 9:03 am 31. markus:

Knucklehead, Kevin P, others: I’ll respond in general on one of Roger’s newer SCOTUS related threads.

Sep 23, 2005 - 10:38 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: