WP: Democrats Faintly Echo Republicans' Loud Praise

[DeepModem Mom]

Democrats Faintly Echo Republicans' Loud Praise
Minority Warns Against Stonewalling by Nominee

By Charles Babington and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 20, 2005; Page A11


Republican senators quickly embraced the nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. to the Supreme Court last night while Democrats reserved judgment, saying he would trigger neither immediate opposition nor instant acceptance from the minority party.

Democrats, who acknowledged that their ability to challenge any nominee is limited, appeared unable or unwilling to highlight weaknesses in Roberts's background, except for his dodging of some questions during his 2003 hearing before the Judiciary Committee. But they vowed to press him to explain his views on civil rights, abortion and other issues, warning that anything less than full disclosure could lead to a bruising fight on the Senate floor....

***

Privately, Democrats conceded gaps in their ability to mount a full-fledged opposition, starting with the fact that Republicans hold 55 of the chamber's 100 seats. A filibuster is the Democrats' only sure-fire way to block a nominee, but their ability to deploy the parliamentary tactic is hampered by a May agreement among 14 lawmakers who say filibusters must be reserved for "extraordinary circumstances." President Bush and his aides phoned or met with most Senate Democrats in recent weeks, which could undermine an argument used before by Democrats that he failed to consult with the minority party.

The combination of events left Republicans appearing jubilant and confident in the first hours after Roberts's nomination....Republicans noted that only two years ago, the Senate confirmed Roberts to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by voice vote. Democrats warned, however, that other appellate judges have been rejected when they aspired to the Supreme Court, and they cautioned Roberts against sidestepping their questions on his judicial thinking.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), an outspoken liberal and one of three Democrats who opposed Roberts in the 2003 committee hearing, told reporters: "You wouldn't say automatically he'll be a consensus nominee. You wouldn't say automatically he'll be a nominee that no Democrat will vote for. It's somewhere in that broad middle, and we're going to have to ask a whole lot of questions and do thorough exploration" before deciding whether to back him....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071901837.html?sub=AR

[Hawkeye-X]

1. Abandon de ship...

That "fragile" agreement applies to stupid judges, but certainly not for Supreme Court judges.

Filibuster away! Let them ATTEMPT to nuke once we've got every single bit of the bones of Roberts' skeletons out.

[punpirate]

2. Makes one wonder what the hell the contemporary definition...

... "extraordinary circumstances" is.

Republicans take a giant blowtorch to government and it's in the midst of meltdown?

Repugs want to nuke Slovenia for not aiding the coalition?

Repugs want to nuke Mecca and Medina because they feel like it, and asshole Tancredo says we should?

Bush's batboy can't find spare parts for the sacred mountain bike and he's going after the manufacturer with the 10th Mountain Division?

If Democrats let the press or the Republicans define what "extraordinary circumstances" are, we'll be well on our way to a nuclear exchange with China and Russia before they say, "umm, guys, we might have to invoke the filibuster to calm things down."

[Norquist Nemesis]

3. Extraodinary Circumstances seem to fit the bill for a Supreme Court

lifetime appointment, IMO. We're not talking district and appellate court judges who have to follow the rule of the SC. The SC is the TOP; the group of individuals who have the final word on the Law of the Land and get to keep their seats at the will of no one else but themselves.

Seems more than extraordinary circumstances to me.

[gatorboy]

4. Agree. I mean, what would they consider "Extraodinary Circumstances"

if not something as important as this?

[Taoschick]

5. I would agree

But I really think we boxed ourselves into a corner with the prior agreement.

[VegasWolf]

6. Oh oh! Looks like Ann Coulter and other fundies don't like Bush's pick.nt

[stanwyck]

7. William Session looked the fool

this morning on CSPAN's Washington Journal. He was all giddy about Bush's pick. He couldn't shut up about Brown's extensive legal expertise and brilliance.
So, a caller asked him specifically which decisions he was referring to. And since Sessions had mentioned Brown's numerous appearances before the Supreme Court, perhaps Sessions could fill the audience in on one -- one -- of those cases.
Sessions had to admit he didn't know the specifics of ANY of the cases Brown had argued.
But, he does know Brown is an excellent choice.
I'm so tired of this empty talk. Totally inanely empty.
Laura Bush wanted a woman for the court. Why? What reasons? Who specifically? She never said. She threw out the "woman on the court" so hubby would be covered....see, we really did think about it. Laura wanted a woman. (though for the life of her, she couldn't think of any decisions O'Connor made as the swing vote...but she admires her tremendously. Why, Laura? Tell us.
And all of you happy talkers on TV, quit speaking in platitudes. Quit throwing around "admire tremendously" and "brilliant" without any qualification whatsoever. You have no knowledge of who these people are or what they've done. Yet you have to chatter about their great gifts to America.
William Session, go google Brown and read his history. It's all there. Laura, same goes for you.
Get back to us when you've done your homework.
Otherwise, you're just wasting our time.

[qanda]

8. Excellent post!!!

If I could nominate a post, I would certainly nominate this one. You have made some very good points.

[sled]

9. And the one party...

good cop/bad cop charade continues...

[Patty Diana]

10. More puke crystall ball reading______any democrat who votes

for this fucker had better register as a repug before they run for office again. I AM ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE THAT LIEBERMAN VOTED FOR BUSH IN 2004, RIGHT ALONG WITH ZELL MILLER

[zara]

11. i suppose that raising consciousness through opposition...

is valuable, but wonder if a filibuster does this better than a thorough vetting, or even a 55-45 vote.
My assumption of course is that there are lots of other GOP hacks that could be nominated that while no better, are lots worse.
Asscroft. Bork. Ann Coulter. Janice Rogers Brown. Priscilla Owen. MIguel Estrada. How many could the dems filibuster?