« Hello, Media? Keep Paying Attention! | Main | What the Bolton Testimony Tells about the Plame Affair »

September 20, 2005


Reid's statement is today. I will update when I have read it.

The statement was to be made today. Reid's statement is printed in Raw Story here

Unfortunately it reads like a personal decision, not one that is calling on the party to unite and insist on transparency from the WH. While it's great that the anti-choice Reid is opposing Roberts, it won't mean much unless he really tries to exert some leadership, you know that thing he was chosen by his colleagues to do.

I watched the entire thing on C-Span then C-Span 3 on my little lap top, from beginning to end. Aside from Biden doing his usual schtick, Schumer doing a little shadow boxing and Durban bringing some humanity to it all, there was no real display of dismay or outrage that Roberts was stonewalling them all from beginning to end.

I fear we have the Manchurian Stepford candidate who will indeed do his ever so polite best to take this country back to pre-FDR times.

Leadership PLEASE! Somewhere . . . .?

Don't have much intelligent to add (I applaud Reid for this, though, because I think it will leave the Dems with a little more options). But a number of people are making estimates that would put Roberts right in that Rehnquist range.

Oh, I do have one more thing to add. I wonder what the role of constituent groups is in this? A number of labor and womens groups have come out against, as well as the CBC. If the Dems didn't make a respectable stand against Roberts, I think there'd be a price from some of these constituencies.

Reid based his opposition on Roberts' apparent hostility to civil roights and the civil rights movement as a young man, his refusal to own up to his own opinions and the woithholding of information. Not extraordinary this time, no filibuster.

Kennedy is also opposing (no surprise there) but Bloomberg quotes him as saying "This is really a leap of faith, isn't it?"

He went on to say, "There are those that took the leap in terms of the war. There are those who took the leap in terms of taxes, and now they are being invited to take the leap again in terms of Judge Roberts, and I don't think I am going to be among them."

Good way to put it, since he's going to be confirmed. Then when he proves bad, the Dems can point to their opposing votes, instead of having to explain why they now oppose someone they voted for. Only those in red states, like the Nelsons, Pryor and a few others are likely to support. I would now guess he is confirmed more like 62-38 nor 65-35.

Whoops, here's the thread!

You should have seen my inbox when I got home! OK, then, I'll just tack my e-mail right up here for everyone to see:

What do I make of it? I think Reid has read the tea leaves correctly with respect to the Democratic constituency. The Wurlitzer has the tar and feathers out for red state Dems no matter how they vote, as I've noted Boyden Gray has bragged about on numerous occasions. I also believe the analysis vis-a-vis Chafee, Snowe, et al. is right on, and probably Clinton, too, though if any Senatorial Nixon can go to SCOTUS China on this vote, it's her. But for Chafee, an "aye" vote without cover costs him the much-grieved-over NARAL endorsement.

I don't give that much credence to the notion that it's aimed at the next appointment, though. Or I should say, I don't think Reid puts that much stock in the "message" his opposition delivers. (But for the record, neither do I buy that this is merely a personal decision for Reid.) That nomination will be what it'll be, no matter how he or any other Democrat votes. Bush knows who'll be filibustered and who won't, and the vote count won't change that calculus.

Still, though, I think there will be a message divined by the punditry, because I'm having trouble envisioning many more than a dozen or so D votes for Roberts.

I have set the over/under for yes votes at 68. Place your bets.

I find it difficult to conceive of Hillary voting yes, regardless of how it plays out. Of course, the h8rs will give her no credit.

Kagro X,

You really think Chafee would lose the NARAL endorsement? I thought he had already received it.

Yes. And yes, he has.

It is commonly believed that Bloomberg's statement against the Roberts nomination was a quid pro quo for the NARAL endorsement he received. If NARAL cares what the powerless Mayor of New York says about Roberts, it certainly should care about how Chafee casts his vote.

About the only reason for NARAL to endorse a pro-choice Republican in the first place is if it gives them some degree of power over their votes on judges.

"The good lord givith and the good lord taketh, blessed be the name of the lord."

NARAL could back away without losing face by saying that they were only endorsing Chaffee for the primary that he now has with that whateverhisnameis rightwinger. Such a switch would be a devastating move, I think, for Chaffee.

I'm not the greatest student of this sort of thing, but I personally think Reid's move is masterful. No filibuster, so the red-state "moderstes" are freed to play to their constituencies, and yet hmaybe given the nudge to a few fence-straddlers like Feinstein, Schumer and, dare I hope, even Dorgan. So, I wouldn't be surprised at 39 or 40 votes against, 7 or 8 better than I expected last Friday.

Personally, I would have been pleased with a filibuster in spite of all the caveats about the Dems using up too much energy on Rehnquist's replacement when O'Connor's is the crucial one, and about how two filibusters could help make the charge of "obstructionsts!" stick to the Democrats. I was one of those who went ABB even while Sharpton and Lieberman were in contest for the very reason that Supreme Court justices are lifers.

But I'm a realist. And this, I know, is about the best we can get for the moment. I trust that when Gonzales arrives for his confirmation vote, Reid will see fit to consider him grounds for "extraordinary circumstances."

No face saving necessary. That's what single issue advocacy groups are for. Call it "extraordinary circumstances," if you like.

"We thought Lincoln Chafee had a brain in his head, and it turned out he didn't." 'Nuff said.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad