The Roberts vote IS a win for Democrats and not because of
pyrrho's comical reasons.
Pat Cleary of Redstate, linking to
this piece criticizes the 22 Democrats who voted against Roberts "for shamelessly kowtowing rather than putting partisanship aside and focusing instead on his impressive qualifications," citing these vote counts:
John Paul Stevens, 1975: 98-0
Sandra Day O'Connor, 1981: 99-0
Antonin Scalia, 1986: 98-0
Anthony Kennedy, 1987: 97-0
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 1993: 96-3
Stephen Breyer, 1994: 87-9
Eric Brandt notes the inconsistency (shall we call it hypocrisy?):
22 vs 9 ... A World Of Difference!
Clearly, I think we can all agree that 9 Senators voting against a nominee (say, Stephen Breyer) is nothing less than a wonderful example of noble and decent Senators voting their hearts, but 22 Senators voting against a nominee (say, John Roberts) is a horrific example of vile hatred and obscene partisanship!
kyle8 hopes "we will never again see the Republicans giving a pass to some whacko radical leftie like ginsburg again." Whereupon Collideascope rains upon his parade by inconveniently pointing out:
According to Orrin Hatch ...
... Bill Clinton's first choice for the first vacancy of his Administration was Bruce Babbitt. Hatch told Clinton that the GOP would oppose Babbitt, then suggested both Ginsberg and Breyer as nominees the GOP could live with.
'Free pass'?
The ranking GOP member of the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended her! This per Hatch's autobiography, "Square Peg".
You should take your whining and sniveling to Orrin Hatch.
jipo2003 believes the Democrats did the intelligent thing:
Basically, the Republicans had the Dems in a tough catch-22 - either vote against and look obstructionist, or vote for and look weak and ineffective. The Dems took the one halfway intelligent path - they split it down the middle, voting their consciences (supposedly). Now, they look both brow-furrowing concerned AND reasonable at the same time, and they still have ammo for the next nominee, should he raise more of their ire.
I don't have the link handy, but I suggest that all of you who think there are no intelligent Democrats read Ron Wyden's press release on his "yes" vote. If that prevails as the Democratic strategy, look out in 2006.
nuffield understands the the refusal to release requested documents will lead to good faith doubts about the candidate:
I think there is also some room to recognize that there are a few Senators who have a sincere belief that this is a Separation of Powers conflict between the President and the Senate, and that the refusal to answer many of the questions and a refusal to get Solicitors General documents from Bush I--when the White House gave up the arguably more defensible White House counsel documents from Reagan--constitutes a challenge to the Senate.
Acbonin cuts right to the heart of the matter:
I'm confused
I thought what Republicans demanded were "up-or-down" votes on every judicial nominee. Turns out, what you really want is just an "up" vote on each of them.(emphasis mine)
Your attempts to still paint Democrats as extremists for having less-than-half of them voting against your nominee, while never attempting a filibuster, are sad. Roberts won with a support of the majority of Democrats, despite a thinner judicial record than anyone since Thomas (and for a loftier post). Stop positioning, and be glad you got your man.
Overall, the Democrats got to have their cake and eat it too. They got to register their protest and avoid obstructionism. An aside: I was surprised to find out (courtesy of Redstate) that it is not at all uncommon for appointments to the Supreme Court to have
little to no actual experience as a judge. The rhetoric gymanastics at Redstate
over Robert's inexperience was truly entertaining. According to their resident legal beagle, a judge for the highest court in the land doesn't need judicial experience, or even law experience, to qualify. From thomas, "I say that it's
not relevant here." (emphasis his). (Gee, maybe I can get Bush to appoint me; after all I am a totally nonpartisan, independent with no legal experience whatsover. Maybe I can please everybody).
According to Erick at Redstate, who claims to have reliable White House sources, Gonzales is among the top three contenders for the next spot. In fact, Erick quotes one of his sources as saying, "The president wants Gonzales. That is what is dragging this thing out." If Gonzales is announced, I believe Democrats have an obligation to go all out to prevent his confirmation, and wage even a bigger battle than the one that ensued when he was appointed Attorney General. America simply cannot have a Supreme Court judge who was willing to reinterpret the Geneva Conventions to suit his boss. It is a nonpartisan issue. As an independent, I want a judge who upholds the law and the American way regardless of his party affiliation. As I wrote a couple days ago, torture is UnAmerican and UnChristian, in addition to all the pragmatic reasons it should be eschewed.
In other news, notice the condensending adhominem characterization that ensues when someone suggests that the GOP is only using abortion as a political ploy. This response is very typical of RedState moderators when backed into a position they cannot defend.