Why does a single vote from a newly-elected Senator up for debate at all? Is it because everyone really cares about how Senators from Illinois vote? Why not Clinton? Kennedy? Reed? Or even Stabenow (Go Michigan!)?
Nevermind, don’t answer. We already know why.
Senator Obama has a law degree from the one most prestigious educational institutions in the world. I think Obama is qualified (probably more than other Senators) to judge whether Robert’s jurisprudence meshes with the desires of Obama’s largely liberal constituency.
As for me, I supported Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court **until ** I learned of his writings during the Reagan administration. I found them to be morally reprehensible and not in the spirit of the political and civil freedoms that have evolved in the last fifty years. I would have given the man the thumb’s down too.
No, Obama’s vote bothers me because when I was watching his campaign against Keyes I was pulling for him, mostly because I wanted to see Keyes get creamed but also because I thought Obama was a good, young, moderate Democrat.
Now that he has demonstrated that he won’t vote for a good, young, moderate judge I have reevaluated my opinion of him. The bloc that he voted with is collectively and individually the biggest bunch of pricks in government, and if he chooses to identify with them that’s fine. However, I am allowed to alter my opinion accordingly.
I think reasonable people can argue that Roberts’ writings during the Reagan administration would be evidence that he is not truly a moderate. Obama’s objections as he described them seem to be well thought and reasonable.
I find it laughable that the Democrats are being described as “partisan”. If only Democrats voted, Roberts still gets in. The Democrats did not vote as a bloc, each voted his/her conscience. Contrast this with the Republicans, who voted 100% for nomination. Which group of Senators appear to have voted on conscience as opposed to obeying political instructions?
Sen. John Kerry (one of my Senators)? His last election campain gives me a sense of reasonable doubt about a lot of things. Sen. Clinton? Again, obvious presidential aspirations. But Obama? By the time he can reasonably have a shot at the presidency, no one will remember any of this.
Really? You don’t think Roberts will still be Chief Justice 10, 15, 20 years from now? You don’t think the “radical conservative Bush court” won’t be campaign issue long into the future?
I just don’t think how Obama voted on this will be a salient issue that far in the future. How Kerry voted (against) after the Thomas hearings in '91, for instance, was not on anyone’s radar, and Bush wasn’t using it to criticise him. Unless he was one of the absent two, that he must have voted for Antonin Scalia in '87 seems not to have bothered any Democrats enough to make it an issue, either.
The Roberts vote will still be fairly fresh in memory in 2008.
It would only be an issue for a Democratic primary where one Senator voted for and one voted against. None of the scenarios you describe had players like that. And no one wants to be in that position now. True, it may be a low probability event, but suppose you are Obama or HRC or Bayh. You have nothing to gain and everything to lose, politically, from a yes vote. It’s not worth the risk.
I think that’s a poor reading of what he said. “[Roberts’s] deeds” don’t equate to ‘he’s Bush’s boy’ and the “overarching philosophy” might come close, but I don’t think it’s at all the same as voting no because to the man who nominated him.
It’s about as good an explanation you can give, in my opinion, for the wrong vote.
Why? Dean made it a point to say he would not have voted Bush permission to act in Iraq as Kerry did. A state Governor can certainly criticise (and they do) the voting record of a national Senator. It’s the entire reason the Senate is proving to be a difficult path to the Presidency. Why didn’t Dean, for instance, contrast himself more starkly with Kerry on the subject of Supreme Court Judges, as that was an obvious issue the next President would face? Kerry has a long history of voting on Presidential appointees one could pick apart. The fact is, nobody remembered or cared. The assumption always was, whatever any Democrat would have done, Bush was bound to be far worse.
Obama can’t hope to run with any success in 2008. He’s young, relatively inexperienced, and black. He’s got a long row to hoe before he’s Executive candidate material. Not so Kerry. An HRC run is probably foolhardy in 2008, but she seems to think she’s got a shot. Presidential ambitions are a reasonable concern for these two. Obama? He seems too smart to not know what he’s up against for now.
If she doesn’t run now, she may have to wait eight more years. In fact, she could in theory have to wait eight years and then run against a sitting VP. This is the best shot she can guarantee she’ll have.
All that is true, but you still haven’t answered the key question: What is the upside to Obama for voting “yes” on Roberts? A “no” vote for him is a no-brainer. The reasons he gives in his press release aren’t reasons, they’re excuses.
I really don’t know how anyone can answer this with any more certainty that would satisfy you. What’s the upside for Leahey, or any of the other Democrats, individually? My assumption is the Dems. collectively looked at the Roberts vote and decided it would be absurd to fight it with a filibuster. Beyond that their own reasons could be myriad, be they the wishes of constituents, potential runs for Executive office, or, apparently the least likely, they actually believe what they’re saying. Do we know that Obama even has Presidential aspirations? At this point it’s too soon to tell, IMO. Up until the disaster in front of the Security Council, I would have said Colin Powell was the only black man in America who could hope to become President. Now, it seems, there are none. Only time will tell with the freshman Sen.Obama, and he’d be a fool not to know this.
Obama won his seat by the healthiest margin in Illinois history. He’s not going to lose the next Senate election over Roberts. To me, either one must dismiss his statement as partisan using only the highly uncertain suspicion he will be a Presidential contender at any time in the future, or acknowledge that it’s quite possible he’s sincere.
You keep asking for it and so now you will get it. Here’s an article from Patrick Leahy (a Democrat, I know) but the key point, he quotes Orrin Hatch’s book “Square Pegs” about how Clinton consulted with Hatch about a controversial nominee, and Hatch suggested a likely more successful nominee – Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
I now formally consider you to be without a leg to stand on. Either concede my point or come up with some credible cites of your own that directly address this issue.
Yes, and he DID handle things differently, but you can hardly cite earlier votes as evidence of Republican bipartisanship when it arose from an initial state of Democratic bipartisanship.
Well, it might serve the purpose of getting all this shit hashed out in private rather than in public where every objection becomes an official position, making it much easier for the Senate and the White House to communicate effectively. It’s serve that purpose DAMN well.
Of course there’s no requirement, but when you say the guy is “without question qualified”, then you set yourself up for charges of blatant partisanship. Not that there’s anything wrong with that-- just don’t expect anything else from the other side.
As to your request that I conced the point about Clinton, there isn’t any point to concede. I just wanted a cite for your assertion-- I said you could be right. I wasn’t arguing against it, I just wasn’t familiar with the details. Frankly, though, I still find it hard to believe that Hatch “recommended” Ginsburg. He may have done so from a list supplied by Clinton, but I’d be amazed if Hatch thougth of Ginsburg on his own. Maybe Hatch just thought if Ginsburg was “without question qualified” he couldn’t in good conscience vote agaisnt her, even if he disagreed with her politics. Times have changed.
The irony will be if Roberts is a closet liberal who was hiding his convictions to advance himself in the Reagan and Bush administrations. Maybe the Senators he was really evading were the Republicans not the Democrats.
