Considering his evasive answers and lack of a paper trail (at least, one that the White House would release), what evidence is there to support the “Roberts is a moderate! Really!” meme?
It is a subtle distinction, but “more moderate” was the qualifier.
Obama voted with the bubbleheads against a qualified candidate that was confirmed overwhelmingly. Yeah, I’d say that’s enough to make me take a hard look at him, and it’s certainly enough to allow me to form an opinion.
Obama voted on principle against a nominee who is his extreme ideological opposite (“moderate” my ass) and who gave evasive and shifty answers during his hearings. In so doing, Obama was reflecting the feelings of his constitutents and it was a symbolic vote anyway. There is nothing “reactionary” about voting against someone for ideological reasons, especially when that person is unwilling lay his ideological cards on the table in an honest manner.
-Or-
Obama voted to cover his ass against a nominee who might rule contrary to the wishes of the more extreme ideological groups from whom he expects to get money in the future. In so doing, Obama was reflecting the reality of the political situation and figured that a “no” vote will never hurt him, while a “yes” vote might. He knows the Roberts is qualified, and knows the way the game is played-- Roberts failed to fall for the trap some of the Senators tried to set for him so that they could “Bork” him. If a Democratic president put a liberal nominee before a Democratically controlled Congress, Obama would have voted for that candidate regardless of how many questions he failed to answer.
But does any judicial nominee lay it all down for careful scrutiny? And what evidence do we have, based on his short career as a Federal Judge, that Roberts’ ideology will make him an extremist jurist?
As long as Roberts is honest, ethical, has no “secret personal agendas” and is fairly moderate, that’s good enough. I don’t want an extremist of either kind.
I’m proud to see that both my Senators voted no on this guy. And since they both won election with over 60% of the vote in a state that is a cross-section of America, I would hardly call either of them a reactionary. (BTW, I am talking about Durbin and Obama.)
The word “reactionary” is usually applied to extreme right-wingers. Why are you applying it to liberals?
It doesn’t strike me as much of a basis for the term you used.
I think the hypocrisy of both parties has been established on this issue.
The Senator I left of my list was Lautenberg of New Jersey. So that list is Akaka, Bayh, Biden, Boxer, Cantwell, Clinton, Corzine, Dayton, Durbin, Feinstein, Harkin, Inouye, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Mikulski, Obama, Reed, Reid, Sarbanes, Schumer, Stabenow.
I didn’t get into many of the threads about it, but I was in favor of his confirmation. I just can’t get too worked up about the ‘no’ votes- from the beginning the opposition seemed pointless, more than anything else.
Tell me, who were those Republican powerhouses that each of them ran against last time?
(Once you know the answer to that question, 60% doesn’t sound quite so impressive.)
Fair enough. “Bubbleheads” is as good as anything else. It conveys that certain emptiness that keeps me entertained on a regular basis.
C’mon. A lot of you think that the Court should be a known entity, that it should just be some sort of rubber stamp. I don’t which I why I liked the fact that Roberts evaded the direct questions. Nowhere in his testimony did he show any inclination to rock the boat. He is a moderate of the highest order, the absolute best thing that could have happened to the Democrats, and there were 22 Senators that just couldn’t get past “Bush nominated him so we’ll vote No on principle”. That’s just shameful.
I don’t know, I didn’t scrutinize the proceedings or anything, but my impression of Roberts is that he’ll just be a judge, someone who I would rather be somewhat conservative in his approach and come to his conclusions based upon the legal system we have in place, rather than ideology. Perhaps I’m wrong, and he is an ideologue, but I just don’t get that impression.
C’mon, Airman Doors. The logic undoubtedly went something like this: “If I vote “no” on Roberts and he turns out to really be a moderate, everybody in my voting base will be relieved and happy and not inclined to point fingers. But if I vote “Yes” and he turns out to be a Scalia clone, everybody in my voting base will be VERY unhappy and VERY prone to ask why I didn’t do a better job of protecting their interests. So I’d best vote against him.”
This of course is the logic for Senators with a moderate/liberal constituency. Democratic senators who have a sizable conservative block would have found things a lot trickier. Frankly, though, I’m surprised Roberts got as many votes as he did.
You mean besides the whole evasive non-answers and withholding of papers business? It’s not evidence, but it is cause for suspicion…
Of course, but unless I’m misinformed, all judicial nominees give evasive answers when pressed on how their personal views on a controversial issue might color adjudication. It’s the main reason why nomination hearings are so functionally useless except as another forum for debate. Ideological suspicion is the baseline condition, in other words.
I mean, I guess I just can’t see any evidence whatsoever that Roberts is some kind of firebrand originalist extremist, like Scalia or his mini-me, Thomas. His history as a judge points to a reasonable deference to precedent. He’ll no doubt give too much leeway to corporate interests for my tastes, but again, this guy is no Scalia. You see, now, how low my expectations have gone, and how Roberts looks pretty good, given those expectations.
What specifically makes Scalia an extremist? Or dare I ask, lest we change the whole subject of this thread…?
Keep in mind that he was confrimed by vote of 98-0 in the Senate. That doesn’t prove that he’s not an extremist, of course, but it sure as heck suggests that not even one Senator thought so. Did he mislead the Senate about his judicial philosophy?
Not only that, it’s what they should do. I’d like to know what I’m getting with a judge, but you have to admit the obvious: it would not only be a bad idea for them personally to give those opinions, it wouldn’t be good from a judicial standpoint.