Senators save breath for next court debate (but Clinton rejects inaction)

[papau]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2005-09-15-roberts-analysis_x.htm

Senators save breath for next court debate
By Kathy Kiely, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The big question surrounding John Roberts as he wrapped up testimony before a Senate committee Thursday was not whether he will become the nation's 17th chief justice, but how the vote on his nomination this month will affect President Bush's next Supreme Court pick.

Roberts, 50, seems assured of confirmation because several members of the "Gang of 14," a group of moderate Democratic and Republican senators whose support would be needed to block his nomination, say they don't think such an effort would be justified. "I can't imagine a filibuster," said Sen. Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat. Neither can Sen. John Warner of Virginia, the group's senior Republican, who says he has talked with others in the group. <snip>

An important factor in the Democrats' strategy: how best to position themselves for the next Supreme Court debate. The president has said he will act in "a timely manner" to fill the seat of retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a critical vote on the often divided nine-member court. Because O'Connor is a moderate conservative who — unlike the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist — often voted with the court's four-member liberal wing, her seat affects the court's direction.<snip>

Democrats in the group want what Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas calls "a nominee who will unite us, not divide us." They hope Bush will consult them, as he did before nominating Roberts. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., said Bush aides asked her about Edith Clement, a judge on the U.S. appeals court that covers Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi. Clements' lack of controversial writings on abortion could make her an appealing candidate.

"She would be very high in my book," Landrieu said.<snip>


Some say a strong vote against his nomination could prod the White House into naming a centrist to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a crucial swing vote. Others say that supporting the Roberts nomination could make Democrats appear reasonable, giving them more credibility to oppose the next nominee." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/16/politics/politicsspecial1/16democrats.html

(ABCNote): And then Sen. Clinton immediately gets to work at debunking those theories with this priceless quote: "'I have found it is very difficult for Democrats to influence this White House on anything, and so I don't count on them paying attention to our legitimate concerns,' Mrs. Clinton said, adding, 'They will do what they think is in their interest, however they define it.'"

[OzarkDem]

1. What do Dems have to lose by voting no?

Are they only alloted a certain number of "no" votes they can make against at SCOTUS nominee?

Do they feel the Dem voters who elected them will abandon them if they vote against Roberts?

Do they really think any benefit will come from supporting Roberts?

I'm not sure I understand exactly what negative consequence there will be in voting against him.

:shrug:

[Totally Committed]

2. Spineless, gutless, weak-ass wimps!

Arrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:nuke: :grr: :nuke: :grr: :nuke: :grr: :nuke: :grr: :nuke:

TC

[MintOreoCookie]

5. I think it's about saving their political capitol for a nominee that will

change the balance of the Court. If the democrats filibuster anyone Bush nominates, they look like jerks. Roberts is replacing Rehnquist--a con for a con. I have no problem with that, and I would be disappointed if the dems tried to filibuster him.

However, my whole opinion changes for the next nominee. If that person will change the balance of the Court, I want the dems to filibuster.

[Pepperbelly]

7. 'no' votes aren't the issue ...

With their agreement, they can vote 'no' all day long with Sundays off. No, the issue is whether Roberts should be filibustered. Personally, for me, since Roberts would replace ol' Lame-assed Rehnquist, who is probably, if there is indeed a God, roasting his sorry ass in hell before being banished to the 7th circle for his betrayal of trust as a SC justice, I do not think we should shoot that bullet. The real test is going to be when Bush nominates to replace O'Conner.

When he tries (as I do not doubt for an instant that he will) to put a anti-choice, anti-liberty, theocratic imbecile to replace O'Conner, I sincerely hope that the Democrats pull out all the stops.

I hope ...

[welshTerrier2]

3. did Clinton criticize Dems inaction on Roberts? NO!!

sounds like someone's trying to arrange the dots to make their very own picture appear ...

Clinton criticized bush but i don't see any reason to conclude she doesn't approve of the Democrats current strategy ... seems like a stretch to me ...

[papau]

4. What is "Democrats current strategy"???..

Seems I - and ABCNote - read her comment as a rejection of the idea of voting "yes" just so as to have street cred for a later no vote on the next nominee.

One can never guess motivation or even what the meaning of is is - but my best guess is that she is showing more balls than the other Dem Senators.

[hopein08]

6. I hate to agree re: Clinton but I do...

whatever her reasons are, it's what I like to hear. I still won't vote for her but I'm glad somebody caught on. I'm also glad that she's realized that being cozy with the right isn't the best plan. Maybe there is hope for her.

[CityDem]

8. Pretty naive

Democrats in the group want what Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas calls "a nominee who will unite us, not divide us."

Since when has Bush ever done something to unite this country. When has * ever reached out to the democrats in the senate to achieve a compromise. Bush is going to do what he wants to do -- appoint some right wing, extremely conservative person who has a stealthy record. And the dems in the senate will scream and then vote to confirm the nominee. The agreement by the gang of 14 sucks and our senators should have kept filibustering AWOL's judges.

edited for grammar