visionary Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 Top Democrat says he will vote against Roberts Reid to oppose chief justice nominee; other Democrats will support him BREAKING NEWS The Associated Press Updated: 4:29 p.m. ET Sept. 20, 2005 WASHINGTON - Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid announced his opposition to Chief Justice-nominee John Roberts on Tuesday, voicing doubts about Roberts’ commitment to civil rights and accusing the Bush administration of stonewalling requests for documents that might shed light on his views. At the same time, two other Democrats edged toward expressions of support for Roberts, and Reid signaled he would not support any effort by die-hard critics in his own rank-and-file to block a vote on the nomination. “I have reluctantly concluded that this nominee has not satisfied the high burden that would justify my voting for his confirmation based on the current record,” the Nevada Democrat said on the Senate floor. “The question is close, and the arguments against him do not warrant extraordinary procedural tactics to block the nomination,” Reid said. Taken together, the developments indicate Roberts remains on course for confirmation next week to succeed the late William H. Rehnquist and become the nation’s 17th chief justice — but may draw significant Democratic opposition. No opinions voiced earlier Reid had successfully urged fellow Democrats to refrain from taking positions on the appointment until after the completion of last week’s confirmation hearings and the regular Tuesday closed-door meeting of the rank-and-file. He told some associates of his decision in advance, and then informed fellow Democrats of his intentions during the meeting. Within minutes, other Democrats had begun to signal their intentions. “I’ve not seen anything that would cause me to vote against” Roberts, said Ben Nelson, who represents Republican Nebraska and often crosses party lines to support President Bush’s legislative proposals. “I’m inclined to vote for Roberts unless something else comes up,” said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. “It’s a close call.” Reid said much the same about the narrowness of the decision in remarks that nonetheless pleased women’s groups and civil rights organizations that had feared he would support Roberts. “This is a very close question for me. But I must resolve my doubts in favor of the American people whose rights would be in jeopardy if John Roberts turned out to be the wrong person for the job,” he said. Delayed civil rights protections? Referring to publicly released memos that date to Robert’s tenure as a Reagan administration lawyer, Reid said they showed the young attorney “played a significant role in shaping and advancing the Republican agenda to roll back civil rights protections.” “No one suggests that John Roberts was motivated by bigotry or animosity toward minorities or women,” Reid added. “But these memos lead one to question whether he truly appreciated the history of the civil rights struggle. He wrote about discrimination as an abstract concept, not as a flesh and blood reality for countless of his fellow citizens.” Reid also said Roberts followed a “disingenuous strategy” at last week’s confirmation hearings of suggesting that the views in the memos were not his own. Democrats have tried without success to persuade the administration to release documents from Roberts’ tenure as principal deputy solicitor general, a senior Justice Department job he held in the administration of the first President Bush. White House claims to shield the documents are “utterly unpersuasive,” Reid said, adding that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had refused to meet with Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., to discuss the papers. Reid: Senate treated with ‘disrespect’ “The failure of the White House to produce relevant documents is reason enough for any senator to oppose this nomination. The administration cannot treat the Senate with such disrespect without some consequences,” Reid said. Dana Perino, White House deputy press secretary, said in response to Reid’s remarks that Roberts was “clearly qualified in terms of intellect, ethics and temperament, and it would be unfortunate if some in the Senate use his confirmation to seek to change the historic approach to Supreme Court confirmations.” “In confirming recent nominees like Ginsburg, Breyer and Scalia, senators based their decisions on the qualifications of the nominee, not on whether or not the person doing the nominating was in their same party. The public does not want to see the Supreme Court become an extension of partisan politics,” Perino said. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed on a vote of 96-3 in 1993; the 1994 vote on Stephen Breyer was 87-9 and Antonin Scalia was confirmed 98-0 in 1987. © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. © 2005 MSNBC.com URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9409608/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 Heard that too. There will be plenty who vote against Roberts, probably half the dems, but he'll still get confirmed. The problems I've read they have, was because of his sidestepping answers on his thoughts. Personally I don't think he will be an ideolog, and instead will be a great justice, but again, that's only my personal perception of him. Only time will tell, but he seems great right now. Personally, I think the dems got word of his stance on Roe v. Wade, and the Repubs know he will vote to repeal it. This is the only conclusion I could come to, because if I was a repub, I would be scared to death this guy would be baby Bush's Souter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdowwe Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 Definately will get confirmed. Glad to see it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 Ole' Dingy Harry..... continuing to make himself irrelevant. :doh: It's not the he opposes many of Robert's thoughts or beliefs... he just opposes the man who nominated him so he's an automatic opponent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 Come on Cskin, you know reid and this guy don't see eye to eye on a number of issues. So he'll vote against him. It seems like the right thing to do to me. Roberts will be confirmed, as he should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 Was Reid part of the hearings? I missed the part of the hearings where Reid was involved and paying attention to all that was said. Or maybe... Is he simply posturing? Making up his mind before the committee even votes on Roberts? Hmmm... perhaps they should just skip the debate in the Senate and go straight to the vote. That would save a lot of time, and it appears that the debate isn't even necessary anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted September 21, 2005 Author Share Posted September 21, 2005 Come on Cskin, you know reid and this guy don't see eye to eye on a number of issues. So he'll vote against him. It seems like the right thing to do to me. Roberts will be confirmed, as he should be. Not sure about that...issues don't have anything to do with confirming judges to the Supreme Court. They shouldn't anyway, and they usually haven't before. And I don't know that Roberts and Reid disagree with much. Reid is just doing what he is expected to do (but not necessarily what he should do or what precident says he should do) as leader of the Democrats in the Senate, by fighting Bush's nominee and trying to prop up his side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 you guys are playing insane if you think that bush would nominate someone who supports roe v wade. same thing here. The partisanship stems from real differences about what is right and good. A liberal thinks that a good judge upholds the constitution to the fullest extent and that no republican understands what that means. and republicans believe the same thing. Neither is wrong, but they believe the other is wrong. Thats why there's no such thing as the best justice. That being said I think roberts may be the closest to perfect from amongst the conservative pool. Anyway, issues have everything to do with it. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkLadyRaven Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 How is he a TOP democrat? Hes just doing it to appeal to the liberal wing- a guster for show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted September 21, 2005 Author Share Posted September 21, 2005 Well he is the minority leader of the Senate...but other than that... :-) (his party's head in the senate) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 What a shock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Not sure about that...issues don't have anything to do with confirming judges to the Supreme Court. They shouldn't anyway, and they usually haven't before. Did you miss all of Nixon's campaigns in the 70's? Well, of course you did - I did too, but it wasn't too long ago that appointing Supreme Court Justices was ALL about the issues. In fact, the entire Republican talking point about making the process about qualifications rather than issues was developed as a political platform for Nixon and later Reagan to run on. They earned votes by criticizing the Court then appointing Justices to change the law. It might be Thomas Jefferson or FDR that politicized the Court in earlier times, but the issues that are driving Court appointments today have their origins with Nixon and Reagan - abortion, executive power, federalism, to name a few. To believe that appointments to the Court are not about politics is to ignore history and to blind yourself to the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SILKYSMOOTH21 Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 I thought you were going to say Tara Reid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted September 21, 2005 Author Share Posted September 21, 2005 Not sure about that...issues don't have anything to do with confirming judges to the Supreme Court. They shouldn't anyway, and they usually haven't before. Did you miss all of Nixon's campaigns in the 70's? Well, of course you did - I did too, but it wasn't too long ago that appointing Supreme Court Justices was ALL about the issues. In fact, the entire Republican talking point about making the process about qualifications rather than issues was developed as a political platform for Nixon and later Reagan to run on. They earned votes by criticizing the Court then appointing Justices to change the law. It might be Thomas Jefferson or FDR that politicized the Court in earlier times, but the issues that are driving Court appointments today have their origins with Nixon and Reagan - abortion, executive power, federalism, to name a few. To believe that appointments to the Court are not about politics is to ignore history and to blind yourself to the truth. and yet the Republicans allowed Breyer and Ginsberg to easily pass, by humongous amounts of votes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted September 21, 2005 Author Share Posted September 21, 2005 Oh by the way Leahy is voting for Roberts and Kennedy and Kerry are voting against... LOL big surprise by the last two...heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 They know these are basically symbolic votes. He's in, they are not going to filibuster or anything, so now they can cast the votes that they think will serve them best politically with their bases and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Why can't it possibly be that they are voting against him because they think he is not what is best for the country? It seems clear to me that this is what they are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 and yet the Republicans allowed Breyer and Ginsberg to easily pass, by humongous amounts of votes... Roberts will also be confirmed by a humongous number of votes. Maybe not quite the number that Breyer, Ginsburg, or Scalia got, but it will probably push 75. Thomas was only confirmed 52-48, Bork lost 58-52, and Fortas of course never got a floor vote. Close votes aren't exactly groundbreaking in this area, and this one won't even be close. They know these are basically symbolic votes. He's in, they are not going to filibuster or anything, so now they can cast the votes that they think will serve them best politically with their bases and such. Why can't it possibly be that they are voting against him because they think he is not what is best for the country? It seems clear to me that this is what they are doing. I think both Predicto and Ignatius are right. The senators are voting against him because they do not think he is what's best for the country AND it is politically advantageous to do so ... funny how that is - that the people who elect Democratic Senators tend to agree with Democratic Senators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Why on earth does anyone have a problem with this? It's his job to vote yes or no. I dont have a problem with this at all. And it's totally appropriate as the Minority Leader to make his intentions known ahead of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted September 22, 2005 Author Share Posted September 22, 2005 Fienstine and Biden are now saying that they voting against him. Biden had said that if Rpberts was a Kennedy or a Renquist that he would vote yes, and if he was a Scalia he would vote no. This was at the end of the hearings, and now he is voting no. I'm not exactly sure what that means, but I suppose that he thinks he is another Scalia, or maybe Biden is just a liar or he forgot what he said :-) (Robets answered a lot more questions than Scalia and Renquist had an agenda to undo a lot of the "liberal progress" of earlier years, and somehow Roberts is worse than that? So I find it hard to see how Biden can justify this vote without going back on his word... It is looking like Leahy will be the only Democratic vote on the committee for him. (maybe Leahy will decide to change his vote...lol) Ok it seems that Kohl is voting for him too. Wow, Feingold is voting yes too, Roberts has Wisconsin locked up ;-) (he says that if Roberts weren't so magnificently qualified he probably would have been forced to vote against him, because of his inability to distance himself from past memos and the Bush administration and his decisions to be not give too much information.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.