Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama needed to be talked out of voting for John Roberts.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:43 PM
Original message
Obama needed to be talked out of voting for John Roberts.
This is straight fromm Obama's website:

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/27/the_outsiders_ins...

Sen. Barack Obama had hired Pete Rouse for just such a moment.

It was the fall of 2005, and the celebrated young senator -- still new to Capitol Hill but aware of his prospects for higher office -- was thinking about voting to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice. Talking with his aides, the Illinois Democrat expressed admiration for Roberts's intellect. Besides, Obama said, if he were president he wouldn't want his judicial nominees opposed simply on ideological grounds.

And then Rouse, his chief of staff, spoke up. This was no Harvard moot-court exercise, he said. If Obama voted for Roberts, Rouse told him, people would remind him of that every time the Supreme Court issued another conservative ruling, something that could cripple a future presidential run. Obama took it in. And when the roll was called, he voted no.

"Pete's very good at looking around the corners of decisions and playing out the implications of them," Obama said an interview when asked about that discussion. "He's been around long enough that he can recognize problems and pitfalls a lot quicker than others can."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. On the other hand someone who listens to good advice is an improvement
No more non-inquisative isolate, bubble presidents!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. Hey, at least he can be reasoned with. I like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoFlaJet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. man they are really fucking reaching today
aren't they dkf?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. Yeah. It is getting very bad. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InAbLuEsTaTe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #6
19. It's called desperation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoFlaJet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. I'm telling you guys
it HAS to be the 65,000 new voters Obama's camp has just signed on...they have some internal data out of Pennsylvania that is very very troubling-I'm telling you I can feel it-something's up
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandyd921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #2
18. Maybe I'm naive
but my standard for Democrats seeking high office is a bit higher. I expect them to "get" what cons and right-wingers have been trying to do to the courts and government of this country over the last 30 or so years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
murielm99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
3. What does this say about Obama's future
SC nominees, if he is President? Is he going to reach across the aisle to find some nice right-wing judges?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. You are kidding right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
5. "...something that could cripple a future presidential run"
No comment
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
7. That's the way it is supposed to work.
Roberts does have an admirable intellect, obvious to anyone who admires intellect. You have to look a bit harder to see that it works in the service of a worldview obnoxious to the balance of powers and the more Democratic view of constitutional law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Funny how other Dems didn't have to think twice about voting against Roberts.
They KNEW what he stood for, or should I say, against.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. I didn't follow the individual "for and against" rolls
but I admire a senator who looks at the case, considers the man and his positions, seeks the advice and opinions of his staff, does his due diligence and then makes the right decision.

Again, that is the way it is supposed to work. I suppose the alternative would be to either jump to conclusions or toe the party line, neither of which are presidential attributes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Feingold vote for him. Hillary, OTH, voted for the bankruptcy bill and against cluster bomb ban. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bettyellen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. he chose primarily to serve his own ambitions, and admits it. why can't you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. He did the due diligence and voted against Roberts.
Its a bit hard to call that a self-serving choice without calling every senate vote of every candidate self-serving or based upon political maneuvering, rather than right or wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bettyellen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. that's why he's not really a "change" or better than hillary in most respects...
they are one in the same in most respects, there's no reason to belive her would have voted against IWR, yet that's his biggest appeal around here.
same old same old, he's just younger and more palatable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressIn2008 Donating Member (848 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
9. OMG, this is almost hilarious - Obama doesn't want to oppose judges on "ideological grounds"
as president! Great to know! Really makes me feel confident about his SCOTUS picks and his commitment to choice!

At least he's not hiding his phoniness on The Website, LOL: "still new to Capitol Hill but aware of his prospects for higher office..." "...something that could cripple a future presidential run..."

Yeah, we got it. Your problem with Roberts wasn't his positions -- oh, that "admirable intellect" gave ya shivers -- but the presidential campaign you were already planning. What a surprise!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #9
31. It's called the Dubya syndrome similar to learning on the job.
I should think we would prefer someone who has his/her ideology well formed and has the ability to recognize the ideologies of others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
14. I wish someone had talked Hillary out of voting for the IWR.
I'd be interested to know if anyone tried. If not, she has sucky advisors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas Hill Country Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
15. Nice judgement Barak...
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 04:09 PM by Texas Hill Country
SCOTUS appointments scare the shit out of me and he almost voted FOR Roberts? Seriously?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
16. Who gives a shit who was chosen to replace Rhenquist?
They could have appointed Dick Cheney for all the difference it would make. Opposing Roberts makes no sense.

Now, selecting Alito to replace O'Connor is different thing altogether. And Obama's public statements about the filibuster have always pissed me off. He said something to the effect that it wasn't a good idea to use parlimentary tactics to block judges, or some such nonsense. In any event, he voted correctly, for the filibuster and against Scalito.

I still don't understand how the party could let this disaster happen. 41 votes were all that were needed to stop him, and 42 senators voted that he was unfit for the bench, and there he sits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Yeah, you're right - who gives a shit about our rights?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. Which of our rights do you figure Rhenquist was going to protect?
Rhenquist was a tool. What does matter who replaced him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas Hill Country Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. That is some serious dumb right there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. I don't know what you're referring to. Do you mean me?
Or do you mean the vote in the Senate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas Hill Country Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Mostly to the Senate vote, but you saying it doesnt matter is not smart either
every appointment matters. it wasnt pivotal, but Roberts is the Chief Justice now and that is a HUGE deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. Well, it didn't affect the composition of the court, at all.
It wasn't anything to warrant all the hand-wringing over. It was the status quo, which is good under the circumstances.

The Alito appointment, OTOH, is what really changed the court. As bad as some think O'Connor was, she at least seemed to value her membership in the human race. Roberts, as a replacement for her, as was first intended, should have been opposed vigorously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #16
29. This soured me on Obama early on- and confirmed my hunches
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 05:08 PM by depakid
about the nature of the man.

Instead of showing leadership- using his high powered rhetoric to rally the troops on what was perhaps the most important issue to come up during his tenure, he criticized the very process that ought to ensure that dangerous extremists didn't receive lifetime appointments to the federal bench.

What I saw in his statements was someone who didn't take "advice and consent" seriously -and coming from someone who taught constitutional law classes, I found that particularly disturbing.

Going along to get along- rather than standing up and leading the fight. It certainly wasn't his finest moment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #29
36. Exactly!
That was what I was trying to say. It frustrated me to no end, too. I still haven't heard any explanation that makes sense.

It's not as if any president in the history of the country has gotten an up or down vote on all their judicial nominees.

The pocket veto, which has been in place for my whole lifetime, was unceremoniously disposed of by Sen Hatch, in direct contravention of the Judiciary Committee rules. I'm still beside myself when I think about it.

Leahy couldn't believe it either. It was unbelievable. And Obama just somehow ignored it all. Or else he wasn't aware.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
23. Why didn't Bubba talk Hillary out of voting for the Iraq War?
She was sleeping with the last ex-President, wasn't she?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neshanic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
28. Well there he was supporting the gays. Can't fault him there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ampad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:24 PM
Response to Original message
30. Why oh why
Didn't someone talk Hillary out of voting for the IWR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. Hillary lapse of good judgment was trusting the revered
Colin Powell, CIA operatives, her fellow congress people and of course George Bush for thinking he would use force only as a last resort as stated in the bill, as many others believed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qnr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:36 PM
Response to Original message
34. My problem is this: I'm a HS dropout, not elected to a prominent office as a
Democratic candidate. I don't need to look around any corners and play out implications to see that Roberts is bad news, it was pretty obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zabet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
35. K and R
So personal ambition is what Obama
bases his votes on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GeorgeGist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
37. Of course it never clouded anyone's ...
judgment that John Roberts judicial experience was barely 2 yrs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoFerret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
38. Both candidates are deeply flawed
...but only one was hitherto believed to have been born in a manger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Dec 23rd 2014, 12:12 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC