Kohl, Feingold to vote to confirm Roberts

[Freddie Stubbs]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Wisconsin Sens. Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl said Thursday they would vote to confirm John Roberts as chief justice, with both senators saying they were reassured by the nominee's commitment to upholding precedent.

"This has not been an easy decision, but I believe it is the correct one," said Feingold, a Democrat and possible presidential candidate, at a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting.

Added Kohl, also a Democrat, "I will vote my hopes and not my fears."

Feingold said that in both private conversations and the committee hearings, Roberts demonstrated the proper respect for precedent. That's an important barometer for abortion rights supporters such as Feingold, because of the 1973 landmark abortion ruling, Roe v. Wade.

more: http://www.madison.com/tct/home/topstories/index.php?ntid=55114&ntpid=0

[trotsky]

1. Oh but of course.

Because we all know that Republicans ALWAYS keep their word. :sarcasm:

The minute Roberts gets in there and the court starts overturning precedent, all these assholes had better get it rubbed in their faces.

[Melodybe]

5. I can't wait to replace Diane next year

Martin Sheen for California Senate!

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. Senator Feingold's first name is Russ

[OKNancy]

11. She voted against him

:shrug:

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. Some people are so filled with hate toward certain Democratic Senators

that they do not bother to let facts get in the way of their emotions.

[OKNancy]

15. XX

:-)

[LionInWinter]

25. Feingold - Feinstein

You mean they're not the same?

:evilgrin:

[Kingofalldems]

30. Some people are so excited about Roberts

that they post all over the place about him.

[Dr Fate]

41. I know- they act this guy is a moderate or a Democrat or somthing.

n/t

[pokercat999]

93. Well......he IS gay.........lol

[0007]

56. You've noticed that too?

[Baconfoot]

65. Um... it's BECAUSE of the facts that I will never vote for Feinstein

I am not "filled up with hate" at all.
I vowed to myself never to vote for her in 2003 when she voted for the prescription drug fiasco of a bill.
That was the last straw for me.
I will support a challenger in the primaries if there is one.
I realize it will be difficult to hold the seat if we run someone other than Feinstin but we DON'T really hold the seat now.
And I think that if the repubs put up a pro-choice candidate against her, that it would be a real dogfight. In fact, it will probably be a dogfight for that seat no matter what.

On revision... Now that I'm thinking about it I will most likely have to vote for her in the big show because of her pro-choice views. But I won't in the primary.
So "never" really means... in the primary.

[Amy6627]

67. Feinstein voted against, Feingold voted for Roberts! This time she did the

right thing.

[digno dave]

91. no sheeeat. It's like the Christian Right blacklisting moderate Repugs

Our far left brothers and sisters do the same to moderate dems, all to our demise.

[onenote]

55. why? Did you want her to vote FOR Roberts?

Feingold, not Feinstein.

onenote

[digno dave]

92. Yeah, martin sheen, there's an idea. Lord help us.

[genius]

40. That's the end of Feingold's Presidential bid

He cannot vote for military tribunal backer, child abuse backer, torture backer, sexist, racist Roberts as chief justice and expect anyone from the affected groups to back him. The parents of America will say no to Feingold and will protect their children from Roberts and all who vote for him.

[Khaotic]

48. Feingold Won't Make It Past Iowa

Scott County Iowan here.

Don't worry ... Russ will fall flat here.

I'll do what I can to make sure of it.

Bye Bye Feingold, if you have aspirations in '08 they're done.

This vote will be your doom.

[laylah]

84. Welcome!

I am across the river in RI county! I had hopes for Feingold but, IMVHO, he just screwed the pooch with his vote for Roberts. :mad:

A belated "welcome" to you :toast:

Jenn

[Freddie Stubbs]

49. Yet just last year ago

the party nominated someone who voted for both the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq. Don't assume that most primary voters will apply the same litmus test than you do.

[howmad1]

60. Feingold though John Ashcroft was the cats' meow.

What the fuck is wrong with this putz?

[jasmeel]

2. WHAT!!!?

[glitch]

3. I hope this ends any talk of Feingold for President. Sorry, but principles

need evaluating when circumstances change, and always bowing to the will of the executive branch for appointees only works for the executive administration, NOT for advise and consent DUTY in USSC appointments.

[bbgrunt]

9. I concur.

I am terribly frustrated with Russ. First Ashcroft, now this. Not to mention Roberts' conflict of interest that Russ questioned him about without any result. Sorry, Russ. You're not ready for prime time.

[Dr Fate]

13. I agree- Kerry looks better now after this. LEADERSHIP is the key.

And voting "yes" to a man who witholds documents and cant answer questions is not leadership.

I'll never forget any Democrats who are stupid (yes, stupid) enough to trust Bush or his appointees.

[Barbra Whiner]

28. and did you know.....

that John Kerry served in Viet Nam?

[Dr Fate]

42. He voted "no"- and it was the right thing to do.

n/t

[ElectroPrincess]

83. This is not THE battle to go to the mat over ... wait for it

[gumby]

78. That's a Rush Limbaugh line.

Is that where you got it?

[ClintonTyree]

4. He votes his hopes, not his fears............

Does reality enter into the equation anywhere? :shrug: Fuck your hopes and fears, get a grip on fucking reality, Kohl!

[bluestateguy]

7. Now Feingold is going to be bashed. Just watch

Here comes the "what have you done for me lately" crowd.

[Guaranteed]

36. As he should be. nt

[Dr Fate]

43. Would you prefer a parade in his honor, or a hearty "congratulations"???

He voted for a guy who would like to undo everything he ever fought for.

Many of us think that was terrible decision.

[Raiden]

68. I waiting...

I hope this stops all the infighting on DU regarding Roberts. We really are going to have to be prepared to fight the next nominee--maybe Priscilla Owens or Janice Rogers Brown :yoiks:

We have to save our political capital for the next battle.

[CityDem]

76. We need to fight every important battle

And this was a very important battle.

[xxqqqzme]

8. HELLO?....

rethuglicans LIE - get it?

If I know this and everyone here knows this, why in the hell R these elected persons so f*cking thick?

They know NOTHING about roberts except he is getting paid 4 all the work he did in FL in '00.

[Dr Fate]

10. They should have showed leadership & said "NO" to the Right Wing.

And if they really believe Roberts, who never once gave a straight answer to them, then they are not showing good leadership.

[zara]

12. Pure Russ Feingold

Asks all the right tough questions, doesn't get the answers, so caves.

[Rowdyboy]

16. So we should forget that Russ Feingold led the way on campaign finance,

voted against the Bush tax cuts, voted against the Patriot Act, and voted against the war in Iraq. All of this should be forgotten and he should be condemned for having a mind of his own and voting for a nominee who was already guaranteed to win.

I'm sorry. I can't join in the condemnation of Feingold, Leahy and Kohl. Its just not warrented over this vote.

[Dr Fate]

18. I stopped trusting Democrats who claim to trust Bush.

"...reassured by the nominee's commitment to upholding precedent."

What does this even mean? A Supreme Court Judge SETS precedent- he is under no obligation to uphold anything- Feingold is either very gullible or is lying (Sorry- but when you say something that it not true, then those are the two choices...)

A "no" vote shows leadership against Bush- as nothing he has ever done turns out to be truthful or beneficial to this nation.

A "yes" votes shows that you are either stupid enough to trust Bush, or pretending that you trust him. Neither tactic has ever worked for Democrats.

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. Feingold did not say that he trusts Bush

He did imply that he trusts that Roberts will not try to overturn Roe v Wade.

[Dr Fate]

21. Trusting Roberts shows extremely poor leadership & judgment

There is no reason to trust him- he never even answered a single question and he withheld documents. His Resume is incomplete.

If Feingold were a better leader, he would have voted "NO" and cited the above as his reason- instead he is either stupid enough to trust that liar, or he is pretending to trust him.

Giving Bush what he wants has NEVER helped Democrats- NEVER. And pretending or actually believing it does shows poor judgment & leadership.

[ElectroPrincess]

86. Roberts is going to look like a choir boy compared to the

rabid right wing SHREW (yes it will be a woman) who will be nominated by "Dear Leader" *immediately* after his confirmation.

Feinstein and Kerry are corporate enablers. They KNOW they will be outvoted and are doing this ONLY for their careers. That way they will not displease their blessed corporate masters who OWN their asses.

Come on - WTFU people and realize that the NEXT nominee is the one to fight to the end ... until one's last breath ?

[Barbra Whiner]

31. Yes! Forget him!

Vote for AlGore in 08. He will never sell out.

[comsymp]

44. So, you're a big "Algore" fan, Barbra?

Maybe he and Hillary can team up - whaddayathink?

[Mitt Chovick]

70. Maybe he and Hillary can team up - whaddayathink?

Al & Hillary? No way. I really don't think they like each other anymore. I picked up that vibe in 2000 (1998 really) and don't think anything has changed.

My sense of fairness says Al in '08, he's already won once.

[Kingofalldems]

61. Too bad you're history now because I would like to know

how it feels to have to parrot oxycontin boy.

[Tomee450]

32. I am totally appalled that

any democrat would vote to confirm Roberts. I have heard enough to believe that he will be a strong conservative in the mold of Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas. Unfortunately, he may be on the court for thirty years and will have a terrible effect on this country. Look for this country to become even more right wing. Roberts is anti-minorities, anti women. I expect that he will ignore many precedents.

[cmkramer]

71. I agree

I can understand someone saying that they'd vote for him because they "trust" him to uphold precedent as he says he will. That is, I can understand them doing that if Roberts were in his seventies or eighties. But he's decades younger. If he's lying, we're in a heap of a lot of trouble.

[Zero Division]

38. I agree completely.

Though I would've preferred to see him vote differently. This is not a vote that erases his past acts of political courage in my mind.

I've given up the fantasy that even those few politicians that I have great admiration for will never disappoint me. Of course, I do believe we should expect and encourage the best in our representatives, but completely withdrawing support because of one or a few disappointments is simply irrational.

Even among those of us whose political beliefs would be labeled as liberal, we are not monolithic in our political beliefs and how we judge the actions of politicians, so why should we expect that the people who represent us would be so monolithic?

[alarcojon]

17. Oh well

I dislike Russ's stance on this, and he deserves all the negative phone calls, e-mails, etc. we can send him. His political calculation is clear - notice how the article mentions "possible presidential candidate." I would add though, that this black mark does not undo all the great things he has done in his Senate career, starting with his lone vote against the Patriot Act. At least not for me.

Kohl is just an asshat. "Vote my hopes and not my fears"?? How mealy-mouthed can you get? Still, I never expect much from that clown.

[Dr Fate]

19. Presidential candidates should show leadership- not feigned trust for Bush

n/t

[alarcojon]

22. You're entitled to your opinion

but you overlook the leadership Russ has shown in the past. Post # 16 summarizes the highlights well. Especially noteworthy is that Russ has taken several major political risks in his career. He ran his campaigns without special interest money, allowing his Republican opponents to outspend him to their hearts content (luckily, they were both idiots, and the good people of Wisconsin saw that). And his latest opponent for the Senate seat hammered him endlessly on his vote against the Patriot act, waving the flag at every opportunity. The right wing will not hesitate to try to paint him as an Ay-rab lovin' terrorist sympathizer for that vote, which he must have known at the time. He decided to vote for what was right, damn the consequences. THAT is leadership, my friend.

Unfortunately for all of us, Russ is the most principled potential Democratic presidential candidate with any chance (sorry, DK). Unfortunately, he has a propensity to let Republican appointments stand. So he isn't perfect, but he's not worthy of throwing in the trash-bin over this decision, either, IMO.

[Dr Fate]

35. And Roberts will do his best to undo everything Russ has ever fought for.

So I don't see how he showed leadership today by either actually or pretending to trust Roberts.

[Rose Siding]

23. Faith based committee votes

:thumbsdown:

[mvd]

34. I just thought Russ was above this

I can even see him voting to send it to the Senate (where I certainly hope he votes no.) But his reasoning is lame. Every Democrat should know that we need a signed agreement from Rethuglicans - and keep a copy of that agreement!

[sadiesworld]

24. Another sacrificial offering to TPTB, Russ?

So sad.

[Julius Civitatus]

26. Some people really, really like to wear PINK TUTUS

They don't seem to be aware that pink tutus are not longer in fashion.

:mad:

[Beacho]

27. Probably going to get flamed for this

and maybe rightly so, since I'm being cynical about the Roberts nomination.

The way I see it, confirming Roberts not only takes away the 'obstructionist' charge (which is lame, but it let's the rightards chirp about something other than their own corruption and incomptetence), it also shoves the abortion issue right into the face of the GOP forcing their hand on the issue. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation as far as theer prolife wing. If they pull the lever to overturn Roe, they lose the issue with that faction and invigorate the left. The GOP can look forward to losing the majority of state legislatures in the near future, as well as national offices. OTOH, if they don't overturn it, then I suspect that prolifers will feel stilted, along with other conservatives, and take their wrath out on their own.

My suspicion is that it will be the latter, since Roberts is there to serve the corporatacracy, not the mouth breathing yahoos of the freeper strain. As far as other civil rights are concerned many conservatives and even right wing constituencies are starting to worry, so any controversial decisions there are another 'No-Go' for keeping the unwashed in the republican pen.

I think the dem leadership is wise to let this one go and save ammo for something else. I have a sneaking suspicion that Roberts may end up as another Souter. Lets remember that Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren. I don't think that is the case here, merely pointing out that SC appointments rarely turn out as expected.

[alarcojon]

29. Good analysis

Politics is a rough sport. It IS a lose/lose situation, but I think Russ's cutting his losses on this one is the better political choice.

Kohl is still an asshat, though. Not in Russ's league.

[Goldensilence]

33. you know....

I agree.

I mean the repubs weren't that interested in hearing about his resume either. They're just assuming that he's a good ol Bush apointee. Also keep in mind that with requist passing away that this is possibly just exchanging one conservative vote for another I think Dems are more intersted in the Sandra O'Connor apointment. Which tey are asking her to stay on til We get a better sense of of what Roberts is going to do.I think they are wisely holding their hand til that apointment comes then we'll see the real fireworks.

As for Feingold...You're telling me that making this correct call makes him a political washout? A guy who voted against the PATRIOT act?I would like to see a better laymans's explaination of his vote but i'm sure that's just a political answer. They guy is smart i just would like to see a test of his political agenda...Keep this in mind too if he overturns roe vs wade.....it might....force democrats to agree on one unifying political issue.

[Dr Fate]

39. Roberts will work against Russ's views on the Patriot Act.

So he just cancelled that out.

[Dr Fate]

37. Is that the same logic DEMs used when they voted for the Iraq War?

"Lets give Bush what he wants- and try to look like good moderates-we will get him next time..."

Sounds like it is. Some learned from that mistaken strategy, some did not.

Save ammo? How much "ammo" does it take to cast a simple, principled "no" vote?

And who are we saving ammo for- for a minority or women nominee- yeah right- we will be hearing the same excuses then as well.

[Beacho]

45. and if they all voted no?

same difference, except this way you at least deny the RW Noise Machine a circus to spew and spit. I watched the news coverage early on and it was obvious the news punks were looking for a fight to cover and it was actuall satisfying to me to see them denied. Hannity et al were salivating at the prospect of using their prepared "obstructionist" talking points, which would have given them cover from actually having to defend the turd in the white house. Since the whole affair has been a relative snooze fest, it's all a bust for the propagandeers.

Any controversial decision made by Roberts will give us a tool to make the electorate realise what is at stake when you allow the repukes to have power. In 2000 I screamed from the hill top about the Supreme Court and got yawns and blank stares. It's unfortunate but it seems the only way to wake people the hell up about the SC is with a lash.

One other silver lining. Scalia will NEVER be chief justice, that's gotta at least put a semblance of a smile on your face.

[Dr Fate]

46. If they all voted no, it would show LEADERSHIP. Somthing America needs.

We need to stop basing our votes on what Hannity says- Hannity also said we needed to go into Iraq.

The Republicans and Hannity have been WRONG about EVERYTHING- and we need to start saying so and voting in a way that shows that.

[western mass]

47. Paraphrase: how to lose and keep on losing

This isn't a personal flame, I'm sure you don't deserve one.

But this is more of the same pathetic, capitulationist thinking that's landed Dems in the current sorry state. It's basically a strategy with two pillars: 1) go on the defensive from every ludicrous slander from the right, and 2) give the right everything, in the pathetic hope that if we give them enough, they might choke on it.

1) the "obstructionist" charge is nothing but a silly slander that doesn't even deserve comment. Every Dem should be sticking to one message: the OBSTRUCTIONIST GOP has been concealing information and OBSTRUCTING a proper selection process at every turn.

2) hand them the choice to overturn R v W and hope it bites them in the ass? You gotta be kidding, right? How about this: refuse to given them the choice without a fight, and while fighting, smear the GOP as extremists who only care about pandering to the extremist religious right. If it's a losing fight, at least you get the message out. And get ready to repeat this message over and over again to make the prospect of curtailing R v W that much uglier a choice when the time comes.

Basically, stop whimpering and start attacking.

[Beacho]

52. How can you refuse them anything when you don't have the votes?

just asking

And I will say it again, it is an electorate ignorant of the issues that is the problem here and senate dems impersonating Boone at the Alamo isn't going to do shit.

My points had nothing to do with capitulation but the reality of the situation on the ground. Acting on that in a way that will eventually get you what you want, not grandiose meaningless gestures, is leadership.

Forcing the hand of the repukes that have been 'eating their cake and having it too' with their prolife contingent is leadership.

I may be wrong and miscalculated what is going on, but I think that it is a risk worth taking, calculating risk, another sign of leadership.

[western mass]

63. you can call it meaningless gestures...

I'll call it informing the electorate.

Sure the electorate is ignorant: Blame the Dem leaders who continue to go along with the message that the GOP are fine, honest americans making reasonable demands with purity in their hearts. Why would the american people ever think otherwise with Sen. Leahy and company telling them at every turn how swell their judicial candidates are, etc. etc. etc.

You want people to get the message that these people are criminals, then start saying so, loudly and frequently. Who wins the vote is beside the point.

[howmad1]

69. Oh please. How many friggin times do the democrats "let this one go".

I am so sick and tired of dems constantly turning the other cheek in the hope that rethuglicans will someday have an epiphany and become bipartisan, liberal loving human beings. And what precisely is this "ammo" you allude to? Lets see, dems mostly voted for the war in Iraq, gave up on filibusters, can't come up with a single coherent platform, have the DLC to contend with, have Hillary as their best hope, and on and on; geeez, they really are loaded for bear. Get real.

[billbuckhead]

74. The Republicans are highly unpopular ascross the land right now

Haven't you seen the congressional polls? Being a obstructionists right now would be being on the right side of the curve. Hopefully this burys this NRA appeaser's presidential ambitions.

[rayofreason]

77. your analysis...

...makes sense, but the leadership did not let this one go.

Durbin, Biden, Kennedy, etc.. are against. If you are going to "let one go" then do it, but to have a bunch vote against and some vote for - I think it is the worst of both worlds, politically speaking. You get little credit (or result) for opposition, but you undermine your credibility ("they would never vote for anybody, so screw 'em") when you want to fight the real battle.

Dems need a new quarterback who knows how to call smarter plays.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

50. Do they actually believe anyone will be grateful?

Even a LITTLE BIT??? The rethugs won't remember them or care, and it could turn them into pariahs within their own party if he gets in and starts going wild on us all.

Kohl really should vote the national experience, NOT his hopes.

Fucking idiots.

[ElectroPrincess]

85. Not they are the SMART ones, the battle to FIGHT is the *next* nomination

Damn Feinstein still screws up but LOOKS good. She will sell her first born to her corporate masters. Make no mistake where her loyalties lie.

[Straight Shooter]

51. I hope Feingold is well-stocked in antidote.

This snake Roberts is going to bite him, and it will be poisonous.

:banghead:

[Vinca]

53. What a stupid move on Feingold's part.

Future political ambitions are now just a memory. Just when you think you've find a spine . . .

[EndElectoral]

54. Obviously Feingold has decided not to run for President!

[FightinNewDem]

57. More on Feingold

Feingold is also heading to New Hampshire to campaign for Manchester Mayor Bob Baines.

Baines has an anti-labor, anti-environment, anti-working class record, siding with developers over low-income neighborhoods time and time again. Oh, and his campaign chairman is a Republican corporate lawyer/business lobbyist.

Just thought you should know...

[Voltaire99]

58. It's astonishing how easily even smart Democrats become surrender monkeys.

Until today Russ was a hopeful figure, but I've lost respect for him. "This is worse than a crime; it's a blunder."

Impossible to believe in a party of weasels.

[Cookie wookie]

59. Any Democrat who votes for Roberts

is voting for fascism, plain and simple. They also help to feed the anti-Democrat sentiments among Democratic voters. They help to divide and destroy the Democratic Party. This is not a vote of reason. Democratic voters don't want these silly-ass Democrats to act trusting and supportive of things that are horrible for the country. What idiots they seem. We'll just take Roberts at his word. God. Why would anyone take a nominee that is made by the liar in thief at his word? It reminds me of that movie, "Mars Attacks," only it was funny when the president and congress and all their advisors kept trusting the martians even when all evidence was to the country. This isn't.

Only creeps like Hannity, OLiely and Rush and all their freeper minions care about the obstructionist label. It means nothing, nothing. Who cares what names fascists call legislators who do the right thing? What a bunch of nonsense. Why do some of the democrats ruin it for the rest? They do nothing but confuse, frustrate, and thereby lose their own supporters loyalty to the party as well as help the evil empire. I have always liked Feingold. He's now branded himself as a bush/fascism supporter.

What a sick yuck.

[Freddie Stubbs]

80. The obstructionist label was used quite successfully in 2004

Just act former Senator Tom Daschle.

[greekspeak]

62. To all the folks posting here defending Feingold, Kohl, et al....

I suppose that you are straight white, males who toe the line like good little sheeple. Because if you are not white, or if you are female, or gay, or commit any crime, no matter how slight, then this guy is a real life boogie man. Say good bye to women as more than vessels for babies. Say good bye to equal rights for gay people. Say good bye to equal rights for minorities that are not STAUNCHLY STAUNCHLY engraved into the constitution. Roberts is a monster, he is vile. So you go on pat old Russ and Patrick and all the other lap-dogs on the back for all the jim-dandy things they have done in the past, and forget the fact that the clock will be rolled back a century or two for a lot of us.

[ordinaryaveragegirl]

64. Feeling backstabbed by my own party...

What's up with all these Dems suddenly becoming the John Roberts cheerleading squad? What in the hell are they smoking? :smoke:

Don't they realize they're handing the country over to the fundies? Don't they realize what's going to happen socially if * gets one on as chief, and another as an associate? Goodbye, civil rights. Adios, Roe v. Wade. Sayonara, equality. We are SCREWED if this happens, people. Don't they get it???

[Kurovski]

66. I worry about everything, and yet, I'm not worried about this.

Yet.

I think we could have done so much worse. And Roberts might suprise everyone.

If Scalia were going to be chief Justice I'd be far more worried.

[merkins]

72. So Long Russ...

I was really liking what I was seeing from you till this.
You culda been a contender...
...Another One Bites The Dust

[LittleClarkie]

73. Biden and Clinton no, Feingold yes... ARMAGEDDON!! Dog and cats

living together... MASS HYSTERIA!!!

Eh, that's Russ for ya, generally giving nominees the benefit of the doubt. I still respect him. He's not playing politics. Doesn't mean I agree, however.

He still has his Patriot Act vote in his favor. But that's my maverick for ya.

Now Kohl, on the other hand, always does this shit. And nobody will touch him here in Milwaukee, news-wise, except the progressive newspaper.

[fujiyama]

79. Giving the benefit of the doubt

to cabinet members and lower court nominees is one thing...but it's another with a lifetime appointment to the top court in the land.

This is a real disappointment. I expected better judgement from Russ.

[Massacure]

75. It's amazing how many people can fit on one bandwagon.

It's not like it was surprising Feingold will vote for Roberts. Feingold is a principled politician with tons of maverick issues. On both sides of the isle. He is probably the least corrupt politician on capital hill. Just because he doesn't vote the way you want him to doesn't make him evil.

[TheVirginian]

81. Sorry, that's just being a bit too reasonable.

Roberts is obviously the re-incarnation of Satan. Being reasonable is for Democrats who want to win elections and neo-Nazis.

Why do we need reason and logic in a time like this!

[ElectroPrincess]

87. You got that wrong, IMO the Right Wing & DLC corporate crones

are the re-incarnation of Satan.

[Massacure]

90. Ah, gotta love Godwin's law.

:rofl:

[saddemocrat]

82. Could it be though...

that this is a good political move? The pubs are always screaming about how we reject everyone. In terms of evils..Roberts is the lesser. I'm not saying he's fabulous and we should all be out celebrating his confirmation...but...this takes steam out of the pubs sails because several dems voted for him. They can't complain about us always 'standing in the way of nominees based on blind partisanship'. Roberts was going to make it regardless.

NOW...we have a chance to put our feet in the sand and not budge on his next (certainly more conservative) appointee and say "hey, we voted for the last guy...but not this one!)

I think it gives dems more credibility...we don't look like partisan hacks...and now we can stop the next confirmation.

just a diff. point of view.

[ElectroPrincess]

88. Interesting ...

I never considered that angle. But that's not all bad. If we marched lock-step, we wouldn't like and/or claim ourselves.

Like Mark Twain quipped words to the effect that he would NOT belong to any club that would have him? :-)

[blindpig]

89. fine logic, kiss more ass

Who gives a fuck what THEY think? Or that mushy mystical middle that somehow never can be grasped?

It's either stupidity or a sellout. Roberts will consistently rule against labor, regulation and the environment. Is that OK with you?

Giving them Roberts gives them what they really want because money is all they really care about. The next nominee will be for the wackos and it won't matter win or lose because either way their troops will be whipped into a frenzy.