Some Democrats Decline Opportunity To Join Roberts Obstruction
By California Yankee Posted in The Courts — Comments (16) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
As the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to recommend Judge Roberts' confirmation to be chief justice, Senators Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold, both Wisconsin Democrats, joined Democrat, Patrick Leahy of Vermont and voted in favor of Roberts' confirmation.
Democratic Senators Biden of Delaware, Durbin of Illinois, Feinstein of California, Kennedy of Massachusetts and Schummer of New York, all voted against Roberts.
According to the Associated Press, Feinstein, following Schumer's mythological "answer every question to my satisfaction strategy," said that her vote was decided after Roberts refused to fully answer questions from her and other Democrats in his confirmation hearing last week.
Those Senators following Chairman Dean's and Senator Reid's obstructionism should take note of the Washington Post's advice:
This country has only one president at a time. That president, right now President Bush, is tasked with naming judges. The Senate has the role of providing advice and consent on the president's choices, which is a significant constitutional task. But if the presidential election means anything in this arena, it must mean that the president's choice has a heavy presumption of confirmation.
[. . .]
Republicans may still be in the majority the next time a Democratic president nominates a justice. Is it now okay for them to vote against a person who -- as Mr. Reid put it of Judge Roberts -- is "an excellent lawyer" and "a thoughtful, mainstream judge" who may make "a fine Supreme Court justice" simply because the nominee doesn't represent their ideal? When that day comes, and Democrats cry foul, remember what Mr. Reid said about how little deference he believes he owes Mr. Bush concerning Judge Roberts.
The Final Judiciary Committee tally 13-5:
Yes: Specter (R), Hatch (R,) Grassley (R,) Kyl (R), DeWine (R), Sessions (R), Leahy (D), Kohl (D), Feingold (D), Graham(R), Cornyn (R), Brownback (R) Coburn (R)
No: (All Democrats) Kennedy, Biden, Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin.
Roberts' nomination now goes to the full Senate for a final vote next week.
« BREAKING: Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Indiana Voter ID Law — Comments (21) | Roberts Update: Sen.Clinton Votes 'No' — Comments (35) »
Some Democrats Decline Opportunity To Join Roberts Obstruction 16 Comments (0 topical, 16 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
. . .65-75 in favor with the rest either voting "no" or possibly a couple of abstentions.
By my count there are 5 Democrats who came out in favor (Kohl, Feingold, Lehy, Johnson, and Baucus) and 2 that are leaning "yes" (Landrieu and Conrad) with 10 declared "no's" (Reid, Boxer, Feinstein, Corzine, Lautenberg, Kerry, Durbin, Biden, Kennedy, and Schumer).
That leaves 27 left out of a caucus of 44. No word yet on how the rest of the 7 Democrats in the Gang of 14 were planning on voting.
That has been my prediction from the beginning, although I think the Democrats would be better served with a high 90s vote.
Ten Democrats already declared their "no" votes and of the remaining 27, it seems unlikely that that they're all going to vote "yes."
Any news on the O'Connor nomination. I have been reading rumors on the internet that Bush might announce at the end of the week. Is there any credit to this claim, and, if so, who is being thrown around as the possible pick?
My prediction is 63-37
It will be less than 90. I was merely pointing out what I think would be the best tactic for the Democrats right now.
As for the other 27 I think they will likely fall 80-20 in favor of Roberts. That's 20 or so yeah votes plus the 5 already in favor.
That's 80, give or take a few.
Why does anyone care how Democrats vote? They can't do squat to stop the Roberts confirmation.
At some point, liberals become too funny to even listen too, much less follow.
because if too many vote against Roberts, the president and other Republicans can point to that event and say, "Look, we gave you a GREAT candidate, and they voted against him anyway. They are nothing but obstructionists, and are not reasonable at all." and then have a reason to drop a nuke on the Democrat's ability to filibuster. (which would also drop a nuke on future Republican attempts to filibuster if Republicans become the minority party again.)
. . . to filibuster Democratic judicial nominees because as soon as we have a Democratic President and Democrat-controlled Senate, filibustering of judicial nominees will no longer be allowed.
Some very clever people (including, well, me) have been predicting here and elsewhere that Roberts will muster only 10 or so Democratic votes. If that's right (and, based on today's committee vote, it could be), then the line is drawn: Bush can plausibly claim that the Democrats aren't interested in mainstream conservative judges like Roberts, and Dems can say that--counting senators like Leahy and Feingold who who've warned that O'Connor's replacement will have an even higher standard--they've got enough votes to filibuster an "extreme" nominee.
Sounds like nuclear war to me.
get all the Democratic votes from the gang of 14 and quite a few more. I'd say 20 Democratic votes at a minimum on top of the Republican 55. A pretty easy confirmation.
I've set up a poll on my diary for redstate's recommendation:
Aside from the five on the Senate Judiciary committee, I'm guessing that the No votes will include:
Akaka
Cantwell
Corzine
Jeffords
Harkin
Kerry
Lautenberg
Levin
Mikulski
Reid
Stabenow
Reid, Kerry, and Corzine have already confirmed that they're "no" votes. I think you have a good list but I'd add Patty Murray and Mark Dayton on the "no" list.
Declared "yes" (9)
Baucus - MT
Bingaman - NM
Byrd - WV
Feingold - WI
Johnson - SD
Kohl - WI
Leahy - VT
Nelson - NE
Pryor - AR
Leaning "yes" (3)
Bayh - IN
Conrad - ND
Landrieu - LA
Declared "no" (11)
Biden - DE
Boxer - CA
Clinton - NY
Corzine - NJ
Durbin - IL
Feinstein - CA
Kennedy - MA
Kerry - MA
Lautenberg - NJ
Reid - NV
Schumer - NY
Undeclared (21)
Akaka - HI
Cantwell - MA
Carper - DE
Dayton - MN
Dodd - CT
Harkin - IA
Inouye-HI
Jeffords - VT
Levin - MI
Lieberman - CT
Lincoln - AR
Mikulski - MD
Murray - WA
Nelson - FL
Obama - IL
Reed - RI
Rockefeller - WV
Salazar - CO
Sarbanes - MD
Stabenow - MI
Wyden - OR
At this point in time, I am assuming that all 55 Republicans will vote for Roberts as the three thought most likely to defect (Snowe, Collins, and Chaffee) have all declared their support for him.
Looks like my picks are blown... :(
Time to start over.
So, what? 70/30? 75/25?...