Wouldn’t that be a hoot. Couldn’t you see the veins popping in in Dobson’s head.
Jan Crawford Greenburg. I have no information on her boobage.
Y’know what would be funny? This guy’s confirmation is pretty much a fait accompli. What if the Dems do absolutely nothing to stand in the way? Fast hearings, routine interviews, vote to confirm, done in a week, leaving nothing to distract from the really juicy business already at hand. Bada-bing!
Somebody needs to hire me as a strategist.
Does anyone here think Duhbya would nominate anyone that wouldn’t toe his line?
That won’t give the religious right everything they want?
That won’t give the business lobby everything they want?
Remember that duhbya wants to be the president that changed America. The easiest way to do that is get the SCOTUS to do his wishes.
And mark my words. Roberts will.
For many years to come.
Which is exactly the reason he was elected for a 2nd term
You may be right. You may not - many of the things being said about Roberts were said about O’Connor. Bush doesn’t know what will come from this any more than we do. Certainly, he hopes you are correct.
But let’s say you are right. What do you propose? Initial reaction from Senate Democrats reflects the initial reaction on this board: grill the hell out of him, then - however begrudgingly and reluctantly - confirm him. I’ve said before, and I firmly believe, it could have been worse.
Do you have a secret plan, perhaps in a jar in your backyard, on how precisely we can get a Democratic Supreme Court nomination from out of a Republican administration?
I disagree. I’m a Liberal. Roberts will be the best choice this old-style Lib could have expected. This is the best choce we could have hoped for. Speaking as a Liberal.
What you do for your clients isn’t always what you believe. You are hired to build a house, according to the way the client wants it built. You build it.
Now, you are hired to a new job, and you are entrusted to build a house, using your best, professional judgement. You do this. It might not be what the client envisioned. But you do your best job.
That’s gonna be our new Supreme.
First off…I’m not a democrat thankyouverymuch.
I have voted for both parties in my voting career.
IMHO I think we should change the fact that SCOTUS judges sit for life. No other federal position does other than judges.
Why shouldn’t they answer to the people just like any other position? They do more to affect our lives than most political positions.
Boy, that sure sounds like NPR isn’t so much neutral as it is a voice of the intelligent left.
Right?
I mean… correct?
How in the world do you get that out of his statement?
There just isn’t all that much of public substance to balk at at this point. Or to cheer for, for that matter, except that the guy is exceptionally bright and has an agreeable demeanor. It seems like we’ve all read pretty much everything there is to read on the guy of relevance, and are drawing a bunch of 
's because there just ain’t all that much there. I’m sure somebody knows very well what he’s all about, but it ain’t us, NPR, or anybody else outside of the DC elite who Roberts habitually rubs elbows with. We’ll just have to wait and see.
Then let me rephrase my question: Do you have a secret plan, perhaps in a jar in your backyard, on how precisely we can get a Supreme Court nominee who is not a conservative Republican from out of a conservative Republican administration?
I think there should be an age limit these days, nothing more. Would you be happy if all the judges Clinton or even Carter appointed had been voted out of office by now? Judges should be the last people who should be affected by the political whims and passions of the moment.
Reeder, weren’t you one of the people who defended life appointment for the very reason that it protects them from temporary shifts in the political wind, back when all the tighty-righties were screaming about judicial activism and how horrible it was that there’s no accountability for the judiciary, etc. etc.?
I’ll come right out and admit that I was one who was defending life appointment myself. And I still defend it, even with the possibility that one of those life appointees to the highest court is going to be lockstep with the Bush admin (although that’s not a guarantee and no president has EVER been able to really predict what their appointee will do once they’re seated). It’s actually that life appointment that might moderate Roberts’s tendency toward troglodytism (if he has such a tendency), awed by the majesty and tradition of the highest court in the land and not having to constantly slip the ravening hounds of the right juicy steak strips out of his pocket to keep them from tearing him to little black-robed shreds.
The Dems know they can’t put up a serious fight against this guy. Because Bush is holding a trump card - another retirement coming soon, and perhaps a third. So this time he puts up a solid, moderately conservative pick that he really wants. If the Democrats filiuster this guy, then as it gets closer to the court going back into session there will be charges of obstructionism and interference with the workings of government for ideological reasons. And the thing is, if the public thinks Roberts was okay, then that’s going to hurt the Democrats.
Then Bush grins and puts up Luttig, and suddenly the Dems will be all, “Holy crap, we shoulda stuck with the last guy.” Because their own political capital will have been spent opposing a moderate pick, and now if they start opposing the new guy in the same way, it will just highlight how obstructionist they are basically being. The message the Amiercan people would get is, “Even though we weren’t elected, we will simply hold the Supreme Court hostage until we get the person WE choose.”
That won’t play very well.
On the other hand, if you graciously let this guy through, now YOU have the trump card on the next nomination. Even if Bush puts up someone only slightly more objectionable than Roberts, you can go after him, having shown the public that you could be reasonable when a good candidate is proposed. You could easily spin this as Bush taking a magnanimous gesture from the Democrats on the first pick and spitting in their face with the second. The politics of the next confirmation would be completely different.
So if I were a Democrat, I’d be advocating not just letting this guy be confirmed, but getting him confirmed in a great show of bi-partisan cooperation. Certainly do the hearings and due diligence - that’s Congress’s responsibility. But stay respectful, say nice things about him to the press, and in general make sure you keep Bush off the high ground. 'Cause that’s where you’ll need to be at the start of the next fight.
I completely agree with Sam.
So far, I haven’t seen any reason to believe the Dems would want to filibuster Roberts even if it wouldn’t be politically stupid. That’s exactly what the Bushies want. I say confirm this prick as quickly as possible, get the issue out of the news cycles and let’s return to kicking the shit out Rove.
It’'s the next appointment that I’m worried about. I’m sure that Bush has a real prize bastard lined up for the next spot.
Bush’s pick will be interesting, because you can make the case that either A) he pleased his base with this pick, which frees him to pick a ‘consensus candidate’ next time around, or B) Once he’s guaranteed at least one new conservative on the bench, he’s free to really go for broke and put up an extreme candidate.
The second pick and the ensuing fight will be an important factor in the 2006 elections, and maybe even in the 2008 election. If Bush picks an extreme candidate that’s too far to the right for the public, the Democrats can play the, “vote for us and we’ll restore balance to the court” card. The Supreme Court is very old, and half of them will probably retire in the next 10 years. If it’s a big election issue, Bush needs to stay on the right side of it. He can’t be elected again, but he doesn’t want to be a President who loses the Senate and governs his last two years as a lame duck. He wants to build the party and leave a legacy.
Bush being Bush, he might throw a curveball and put up another moderate like Roberts - maybe even one slightly more moderate. That takes the Supreme Court issue away from the Democrats and a couple of popular picks are just what an incumbent party needs going into an election year.
Suppose he says something like this:
Suppose he says he personally disapproves of abortion on religious principles, but recognizes that his new judicial status should not empower him to impose that on others. But he thinks RvW is bad law on constitutional theory grounds and should be reversed because it does a worthwhile thing (protects choice) in an illegitimate fashion.
Therefore he would vote to overturn to place the matter in the hands of state legislators, wherein it properly belongs. And if one of those laws comes before the Court, he would rule that the Federal gov’t has no standing to overule a state law because the Constiution is not sufficiently explicit to permit that, and that the Constitution intends that citizens of individual states should be empowered and entrusted to make such decisions.
The punchline: he favors a woman’s right to choose, but would be powerless to intervene if restrictions on that right are correct with the given state’s constitution.
The most extensive story on the man I’ve seen to date:
NYT
He won’t say anything of the sort, as that would be far too specific commentary on a case that could well come before the court.
His statement:
It suggests that the tone of the discussion on NPR is a reliable indicator of what the Democrats will do. It conflates intelligent strategy moves for the Democrats (sentence 6) with what NPR’s analysis indicates (sentences 2 and 7).
You really think that quote suggests NPR’s neutrality to the reader?