As Senate Democrats announce their intentions on the forthcoming John Roberts vote (Leahy, Feingold, , Kohl – yes; Biden, Reid, Kennedy, Feinstein, Durbin – no), a couple of things become readily apparent: first, that John Roberts will in fact be the next Chief Justice, and with a decent bi-partisan “yes” vote; and second, that—though some on the left have been pushing Senate Democrats to spend all of their political capital on defeating Roberts, Senate Democrats are, on the whole, not quite so stupid as their leftist base: Roberts’ is eminently likeable, eminently reasonable, and has a record and reputation that is virtually bulletproof—something the Senate Democrats understood, and will now act upon in a calculated (in my opinion) way that positions them for the bigger battle forthcoming over replacing Sandra Day O’Connor.
I my estimation, the elevation of John Roberts to Chief Justice nominee was a gamble on the part of the White House; as a replacement for O’Connor, Roberts was the perfect selection insofar as his relative lack of paper trail and clean, largely uncontroversial record (even in the briefs he wrote for the Reagan White House) would have made him very difficult to defeat—and would have robbed the Democrats of their most powerful weapon for manipulating public opinion, namely, the argument that O’Connor, who as a conservative justice was “not an ideologue” (read: she was a politician who ruled, on occasion, out of political expediency rather than from some consistent judicial philosophy) should be replaced by someone quite similar in judicial temperament, as if the President’s responsibility in nominating justices is to maintain some kind of ideological stability that the party out of power finds pleasing and acceptable.
But the President’s job is to nominate qualified candidates, and for the Senate to give advice and consent based on the candidate’s legal qualifications and anticipated performance as a judicial thinker—not, as Senator Feinstein would have it, based on what kind of husband or man she thinks he might be as determined by his unwillingness to personalize his testimony. Indeed, it sometimes seems to me—and the Roberts hearings oftentimes suggested as much—that some Senators, from both sides of the political divide, have no idea what the role of the judiciary is, or rather, they know, but they know that many Americans don’t, and so they try to sell the public on the idea that Supreme Court justices are a kind of supralegislature, and that—because they will be ultimately responsible for finessing legislation to further a particular social agenda—we have a right, as citizens, to know before hand how they’ll rule on particular issues of ideological import, or at the very least to know “what’s in their hearts” so that we can reasonably conclude how they might rule on specific cases of ideological import. Quite a strange stance for those supposedly looking for nominees who aren’t “ideologues” to assume.
But whether the Democrats’ strategy of appealing to a sense of judicial equilibrium is Constitutionally coherent or not, it is, nevertheless, politically powerful—particularly when many in the media will support the agenda and shape their coverage of the next nominee in such a way that he or she will be compared with O’Connor, who—though a conservative—pleased many on the left by ruling reliably liberal on so-called women’s issues, and by punting on such things as race-based affirmative action, two major components in the liberal social agenda. Roberts, who I believe would rule Constitutionally (rather than expediently) on such issues, would have moved the Court back toward classical liberalism had he replaced O’Connor, and the Democrats would have had a more difficult time selling the judicial equilibrium argument when it came time to battle the replacement for a more staunch conservative justice like Rehnquist.
Now, however, the Democrats have placed themselves into a decent fighting position, and the vote we’re about to see will be calculated to shore up that position: Leahy, Feingold, and other Senate Democrats, by voting for Roberts, will “prove” that, given the right candidate, they are willing to “vote their consciences” and not vote strictly along party lines. And by doing so, they are positioning themselves to fight the next nominee—in effect, establishing their non-obstructionist credibility with the American people while providing cover for the press w(ho, mark my words, will point out incessantly, as these same Senators violently oppose the next nominee, that they voted for John Roberts and show are therefore anything but knee-jerk partisans)—all in an effort to justify, should they need it, a potential filibuster, and so influence the President’s next selection.
I doubt it will work—for one thing, the timing of the Pledge of Allegiance decision upholding an earlier 9th Circuit Court ruling helps conservatives (at least cosmetically), and for another, I don’t think the American public will support a judicial filibuster over a qualified conservative court nominee, and Rebublicans could potentially parlay such a maneuver into a major issue in the 2006 elections—but it is the Dem’s best hope, as the Bush Administration is at its weakest in years, and so may not have the political capital to force through a more activist conservative nominee. In that regard, the Leahy, Feingold, et al., votes are cagy, and very smart politically.
****
update: Senate Judiciary Committee approves Roberts 13-5
****
update 2: More here.
Also, I don’t mean to imply that all Senate Democrats are cynical on this matter; but some are, and I think it’s no accident that we’re being treated to a very visible split on the matter. Leahy, in particular, strikes me a someone who has enough credibility with left judicial advocacy groups that he could afford to vote the way he did without risking a serious backlash. And so he was the perfect high-profile Democrat to side with Roberts. I think under normal circumstances—if the vote was going to be close, for instance, or if Senate Democrats thought they had a chance in hell of defeating the nomination—Leahy would have sided with Kennedy, Feinstein, Durbin, Schumer, et al.
I heard Judge Roberts’ kids were gay. Is that true?
A no vote on Judge Roberts is intellectually and morally indefensible. Hence we can sensibly conclude that no votes are cynical and political. No surprise there, but damaging to Democrats nonetheless.
It’s clear that Kennedy and the Kos kooks will never support a Bush judge, even if he nominated Michael Moore. I think that’s apparent to moderate America. There won’t be much public support for a Borking. So long as Bush nominates a candidate in the Robert’s mold, that candidate will be confirmed, albeit after a long and stupid hearing.
So, let’s see if I’ve got this whole thing clear:
Any Democrats who vote against Roberts are cynical, knee-jerk partisans who probably also hate America and love terrorists.
Any Democrats who vote for Roberts are cynical, knee-jerk partisans who probably also hate America and love terrorists.
That about right? Because if so, your words of wisdom will certainly help me make a decision at the ballot box next time around. I mean, who would want to vote for knee-jerk partisan America-haters? Clearly, the only choice is the Republican party, though I’m sure that wasn’t the pre-determined conclusion you were intending to elicit.
Thank God you’re around to cut through the liberal media’s cynical, knee-jerk partisan framing of the issues of the day with such objective, non-partisan analysis… although you probably could have saved yourself a lot of typing by compacting this post down to “DEMOCRATS ARE EVIL!!1!” or something along those lines.
Just sayin’.
I agree that the Dems have positioned themselves pretty well, but they’ve miscalculated a bit in at least one respect.
By arguing that the Chief Justice’s position on the court is more important than an Associate Justice’s (I think Harry Reid said something like “the stakes are higher”), and that therefore Roberts’ nomination as Chief Justice somehow demanded more scrutiny, if he passes with decent bipartisan support it’s going to be tougher for them to obstruct Bush’s next nominee on those grounds.
“You’re not wrong Walter, you’re just an asshole.”
— The Big Lebowski
I don’t remember anybody calling the dem Senators on the Judiciary Comittee “cynical, knee-jerk partisans who probably also hate America and love terrorists”.
Well, except you, that is.
Not that you’re wrong…
I guess CJ didn’t read the post. He obviously didn’t read the previous posts re assigning intent to language.
I would like to think that there some of those Dems that are voting for Roberts are doing so because he is well qualified. You know….think the best of someone & take them at their word. I also believe, as you do, that some of the Dems are positioning themselves for the second chair on SCOTUS.
I think the next hearing is going to be verrrrry interesting. One thing the Roberts hearing did do is to establish the ground rules for the next nominee re answering questions and what papers will be released.
I’d love to see the Democrats try to demonize Janis Rodgers Brown. That would be interesting to watch.
BECAUSE THEY HATE APPLE PIE!!!
mojo:
So you rebut my argument by saying that although no one explicitly said what I said (other than me), I’m not wrong, and I am an asshole. Indirectly, by quoting a movie.
Were you born a sniveling coward, or did the insidious side effects of the homosexual agenda just make you that way?
Also, of course, you missed the point so completely that I won’t bother responding to the rest.
and rls:
Sorry, try again. I did read the previous posts, and my comment was nothing of the sort. Your grasp of what Jeff was talking about (which, by the way, I happen to agree with almost completely) is obviously rather shallow at best if you believe the two are analogous. Let me try to simplify it for you: I read what Jeff had to say, including between the lines, and concluded that his intention was to frame the actions of the Democratic senators as cynical and calculating (he actually used the word “calculated”, so I can’t be too far off). Now, my comment may have been slightly exaggerated as to the extent of Jeff’s overall point, but what I didn’t do was try to impose an interpretive context on the post that was either tangential or completely unrelated, as was the case with Oliver Willis’s ridiculous racial paranoia. There’s a pretty big leap from “reading between the lines” to re-signifying language.
Still begging the question, CJ?
How about that wife? Still beating the bitch?
.
Say what you will. Jeff did not say those words, you assigned them to him as his intent. I would say that if Jeff had intended those to be his words, he would have said them.
What you are doing is just taking what someone says and making it say what you want it to say. You infer that was his intent. I say you are wrong.
I’m not seeing the names of people posting – which makes it hard to handicap the ‘sphincter sweepstakes’ that seems to be developing…
Turing Word: “Same” – as in ‘Same sphincter, different day.”
Never mind – I was blocking JavaScript on the page – oddly, the only thing missing seemed to be the poster’s names and the formatting buttons.
Turing Word: “Other” – insert witty comment here…
*What you are doing is just taking what someone says and making it say what you want it to say. You infer that was his intent. I say you are wrong.*
Obviously, to democrats, intent is far more important then actual, you know, words or actions.
No, rls, what I’m doing is stating the logical extension of Jeff’s argument. If voting against Roberts is Bad, and voting for Roberts is Bad, then what, exactly, could the Democrats do in order to not be Bad?
And again, if Jeff would care to chime in and explain, in small words and short phrases, the difference between logically inferring intent based on content (“calculated”), tone (sneeringly insulting – “not quite so stupid as their leftist base”), and context (a critical analysis of the opposing party by an avowed partisan (again, unlike in the case Oliver cited, where the subject in question was actually being praised)), and arbitrarily assigning intent based on membership in a group (a la Oliver), I’m sure we can get this little sidetrack debate quickly resolved.
How about not getting into the partisan grandstanding in the first place? How about not having filibustered judicial nominees solely because they happen to share the President’s views on the role of the judiciary? How about not being assholes who may not necessarily be wrong (except when they are).
Or he could just compare thee to a rectal sphincter…
McGehee, that’s a completely spurious argument. You’re saying they should just roll over and play dead, which, if they did that, they wouldn’t be much of an opposition party (however ineffectual), now would they?
How about not being assholes who may not necessarily be wrong (except when they are).
Speaking of begging the question…
I’ll take odds on Gonzales. I know he’s not a conservative (heh heh). But he’d get in. watch, AG gets nominated for SOC’s spot, W leaves AG’s AG spot open for at least a year by nominating someone spectacularly unacceptable (to the left). Becomes a mid-term campaign issue for the ‘pubs, especially here in the lower mid-west and south.
Then the Iluminati release the information on the hidden Chinese oil fields to Fox News, the Chinese Gov’t awards Halliburton the contract to prepare the area for drilling and thousands of euroweenies and trustafarians riot in the streets of Hong Kong because the oil fields are right in the middle of the giant panda habitat. China takes none of this lying down and the tanks roll in, the death toll reaches the tens of thousands. Later that year so many deisel VW Jettas hit the used market that not only does Volkswagen go belly-up, bankrupting half of Europe and Brazil, but the price of gas drops by 70% in California. Pundits and campaign workers give credit for this to 2nd term Gov. Arnold due to a well-timed repeal of sales tax on used cars.
An amendment is quickly passed to allow Arnold to run, the 22nd amendment is repealed weeks after election day. A Bavarian is in the white house.
The first ship lands on a moonless January night somewhere outside of Flagstaff. . .
TW: thing. Break out the flamethrowers!
Speaking of Supreme Court justices, here’s some asshattery from Ruth “Buzzi” Ginsburg.
Feinstein’s reason for voting “no”—that Roberts had failed to prove he was good marriage material—was imaginative.
But Durbin’s was my favorite. He admitted that the reason he’d voted against Roberts for a seat on the Court of Appeals had absolutely nothing to do with his qualifications or fitness for the office; instead, he had crassly used his vote to take revenge on Republicans for not confirming more of Clinton’s nominees. This time, though, he was putting aside such partisan gamesmanship and voting “no” strictly on the noble grounds that Roberts didn’t have enough “heart.” Which, for those of us with a Chris Rock magic language decoder ring know, actually means “I’m still pissed that more Clinton nominees weren’t confirmed.”
No, I’m saying they should act like grown-upsm, instead of like two-year-olds who can’t accept that they’re not going to get the sugary cereal they want.