Leahy to vote to CONFIRM

[StellaBlue]

Yes for Roberts. "Man of integrity," says Leahy.

Just said so on the floor; saw in Headline News.

[Arkana]

1. Let the Pat Leahy bashing commence!

:popcorn:

[acmavm]

2. Man if integrity? How the hell could he tell?

Asshole.

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. Senator Leahy, I admire you, but this.... Well, you had just

better know something the rest of us lefties do not know about this man that makes him worth having on the bench 30+ years.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. Who cares?

Quite frankly, the guy's going to pass anyway. I don't know why we're watching so intently when nothing anyone says or does will even be remembered two weeks from now.

And don't forget - a "yes" vote now makes a "no" vote later more palatable. We don't know who the next nominee is yet, and since we can't stop this one why waste your bullets?

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. True. He could be biding his time.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. There Was A Good Article In The NYT

That some Dems will vote for Roberts to appear reasonable and fair minded so they will be positioned to fight like Hell if Bush nominates a real nutjob like Janice Rogers Brown...

[lastliberalintexas]

23. Well that's ridiculous

To worry about how a party and its officials are viewed at a time like this is rather ignorant. Roberts will very likely guide the Court for the next 20 years, and very well could be there for 30. The damage that this man can do is incredible, and we're worried about being viewed as reasonable?

If there is no filibuster, Roberts will be confirmed anyway. But that doesn't mean that our guys have to vote yes. Just by allowing the floor vote they are acting "reasonably" for that much sought after mythical swing voter. Every Dem should vote no, and make darn certain to hang Roberts around their necks like a dead albatros.

But then, I'd also prefer a filibuster considering how important this seat is.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. They Are Reserving The Filibuster For The Next Pick...

If Bush nominates a nutjob I fully endorse and expect a filibuster...


Roberts is a done deal and gives rightly or wrongly the veneer of reasonableness....


The Dems would be stupid to shoot their wad (filibuster) on him...

[Blackwater]

12. Exactly...

A tactical retreat is not a surrender.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. Welcome to DU!!!

Glad to have ya on board! :grouphug: :yourock:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. Don't Play Checkers When Your Opponent Is Playing Chess...

nt

[digno dave]

59. We control no branches of govt., this is the right thing to do

we can't go bitching about Roberts and drag it out when we know he will be confirmed anyway, and then do the same thing for the next one. That would look BAD for us. We need to act as if we are being reasonable with Roberts and then fight like a rabid mongoose against the next one if they happen to be a nutcase.

[mmonk]

5. Men of integrity

have nothing to hide.

[jackstraw45]

14. AMEN to that...Should be the MANTRA of the democratic party.

Instead, we see the crony dems on the hill lining up behind Roberts so they can make speeches about how bad he is for 30 years instead of REALLY standing up for us!

Thanks Leahy...


If only we had a few HUNDRED John Conyers...

[In Truth We Trust]

7. Another DLC type sellout! Revolution NOW!!!!!

[KittyWampus]

13. Leahy is not a "DLC Sellout" and saying that makes DU'ers appear foolish

[tx_dem41]

22. A "DLC sellout".....Pat Leahy?

Yeah, riiiiiiggghhht.

And the collective DU knee keeps jerking.

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. Leahey is a liberal, not a DLCer

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. No Shit

He has a 100% rating from the ADA...


http://www.adaction.org/ADATodayVR2004.pdf


He's holding his fire in the event Bush nominates a nutjob....

[In Truth We Trust]

45. I beg to differ. A true liberal would not vote for Roberts!

regardless of past votes or ratings from third parties I measure a man based on his principles and what he actually does when push comes to shove. This vote is NOT a LIBERAL VOTE!

All those claiming pragmatism and not the time to shoot your ward are imo falling victim to the smae groupthink that keeps fucking up the demand for a democratic backbone. Seems eerily familiar to what occurred in 04' re" pragmatic vs. principle or checkers vs chess bullshit that does not further progressive principles.

[Larkspur]

8. Looks like Leahy did not read Howard Dean's op ed on Roberts

NO wonder Dems have a perception problem. If Dems like Leahy will not stand up to Bush's cronyism, this democracy is dead.

[ozone_man]

11. Maybe he's keeping his powder dry

for when he really needs it (the candidate to replace Sandra Day O'Connor). Roberts will be confirmed regardless. Still, it's disconcerting.

[jim3775]

15. Looks like Leahy stabbed Reid in the back

Reid's official position is against roberts.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. I Think By Having A Moderate Vote Against Roberts And A Liberal Vote For

Him they are giving cover to Dems to vote any way they want...

[adigal]

10. Roberts is a done deal, lots of Freepers are very uneasy

about him. With this move, we can oppose the wingnut that Bush may put up; I have read Freepers' threads in which they say Bush should put up a nut like Owens or Janice Rogers Brown, and then go nuclear. This would be the most absolutely AWESOME thing that the republicans could do.

With the big flip in the popularity of the Dems over the repubs in Congress (50% to 38%) and with Bush's approval ratings hovering somewhere between 36% to 40%, for the Senate to go nuclear over a wingnut would be the final nail in the coffin of the republicans - which is probably not necessary at this point, anyway. They have already lost any "mandate" the wingnuts think they have. People would be openly angry if a wingnut who tries to weaken the protections the courts have given to Americans is appointed by this completely out-of-touch president.

Americans have awakened to the incompentence and uncaring attitude of this administration and the republicans in congress. I also hope the republicans keep talking about how they don't want to pay for Katrina's damage - we may finally get back to a govt that cares for all of its people - not just the top earners in income.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. Exactly

Nuclear would DEFINITELY not fly right now with the people. Let em arrange their own funeral if they so desire.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. Really -Janice Rogers Brown Has Said The New Deal Was Unconstitutional

Please nominate her......


Then we can say the Republicans want to take your social security away....

[lastliberalintexas]

29. You think Roberts disagrees with her?

LOL.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. I Do...

There is nothing in Roberts background that suggests he wants to invalidate the New Deal legislation....


There is Janice Rogers Brown's background:


After delivering the obligatory denunciation of ’s cartoon, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin (D) got down to the business at hand: "You have described the year 1937, the year in which President Roosevelt's New Deal legislation started taking effect as 'the triumph of our socialist revolution.'"


http://www.blackcommentator.com/61/61_cover_rogers.html

[lastliberalintexas]

46. You are either far too trusting or far too naive

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and merely assume that you are far too trusting.

Everyone in any position of power within the republican party thinks the New Deal was unconstitutional and have been working to eliminate it and the Great Society programs since their inception. The fact that there may not be a public record of them *admitting* this is irrelevant.

You can bet your last dollar that Roberts would not have been nominated if he disagreed with the Corporatist Grover clones who control the republican party. And I'm sorry, but to believe otherwise is simply foolish. :shrug:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. Janice Rogers Brown Has A Record Of Saying The New Deal Legislation

Was Unconstitutional....

To sustain a filibuster you need forty votes...


There is nowhere near forty votes to oppose Roberts...


He's far from my choice but I don't see any way of stopping his nomination.....


And calling a senator with a 100% ADA rating a DINO for voting for him makes us look, errrrrrrr, irrelevant...

[lastliberalintexas]

53. I am not calling him a DINO and I agree that he is not

But he is terribly wrong on this vote. Again, even if we do not have the votes to filibuster, every single Dem should vote no so that we bear no responsibility for this man. If he'll be confirmed anyway, make darn sure that he is confirmed with republican votes so that when the tide does turn he can most properly be identified as a republican judge.

I don't understand what is so difficult about that concept. Even if we can't stop him, there is no reason for us to have some of the blood on our hands too.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. Because There's Another School Of Thought

That the Dems want to appear open minded and reasonable so they can successfully block a nutjob for O'Connor's seat if Bush* is inclined to nominate one....


Sounds reasonable to me...

[lastliberalintexas]

57. Those are not either/or actions, you know

We CAN do both. We still appear very "reasonable" by letting the republicans put this nut on the Court, just not with our votes.

And if every Dem voted no on Roberts, we'd force the NE "liberal" republican senators to go on record with a yes vote, something we most certainly could use against them next time. But if Leahy, Bayh and who knows who else votes yes, then Chafee, Snowe and the other "mavericks" can make the politically expedient vote against him as a ruse for their constituents.

There are actually more political points to be scored by turning this into a party line vote, but the appeasers will apparently never be able to see that.

[Rowdyboy]

44. I'm glad to see that at least 2 other people on DU "get" it.....

Filibustering Roberts is a waste of time and of the filibuster. We're gonna need it big time with the next justicial nominee.

[lastliberalintexas]

28. That still doesn't mean we have to vote yes

And it matters not how much the elctorate has supposedly awakened if we have a fascist Supreme Court striking down any progressive reforms passed by a future Congress/President.

Geez. You people act like we're putting in someone who can just be replaced any time we feel like it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

48. No, we're acting like a vote either way doesn't matter.

Because it doesn't. Roberts is GOING TO PASS. No amount of "yes" or "no" votes is going to change that fact. No one is even going to remember who voted which way two days after the vote takes place.

It's dumb to play the ideologue game when there is literally no benefit to doing so whatsoever.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. We Have Bush On The Ropes

I hope he nominates a nutjob like Janice Rogers Brown but me thinks the man who stuffed his flight suit with socks lacks the nads for it...

[mattclearing]

21. This seems kinda strange to me.

I'm not sure that Roberts revealed enough about himself in the hearings to be considered a man of integrity, although if you think about the literal meaning of the word, perhaps that would make sense.

After being so evasive though, and the personal opinions revealed from his Reagan days, and the refusal to admit his role in the Federalist Society, it seems difficult for me to reconcile a Democrat voting for him.

Brown or Owen have only done a less convincing job of concealing their rabid rightward extremism. I don't see Roberts ruling differently from them in any event.

I'm not sure what a more objectionable candidate than Roberts would look like. They would have to have horns, a tail, and a goatee.

:evilgrin:

[izzybeans]

24. There are all kinds of men of integrity lining up

to shag the new supreme court while it bends over for the corporate looters. Frankly, my concerns are less about Roe v Wade and more about the impact this new court has on all of our bodies, as workers, will the fruits of our labor continue to see diminished returns, will the environment continue to devolve into a world wide smoke stack? things like this. It seems these are the issues that were being hidden through the suppression of public documents and the filibustering of questions. He at least had an answer on the Roe question.

Of course the "centrist" dems will line up for the gang bang, they've been in on this whole deregulation nonsense from the gitty-up. Meanwhile we the people have no recourse to govern our own economy.

[adigal]

40. These are my fears too

I don't want to see the new Court lessen the protections for workers, allow corporations to make "worker bees" work more and more hours every week, how about the 5 to 4 decision about making the disabled man crawl up the steps to the courthouse?? Sound like an America you would want to live in? Also, the environmental regulations, should not be weakened - repubs and many corporations think there earth is there to be raped by us, and screw it. How about Title IX? Would Roberts weaken it??

So many things we take for granted - may now be in danger, ironically because of the Supreme Court decision of 2000, Bush v. Gore.

[Sgent]

26. At one time

Idealology was off limits for questioning of surpreme court justices.

How do you think Scalia, Thomas, and Renquist got through Democrat Senates? How did Ginsburg get through an R one?

Many senators believe that idealogy is off limits -- that's the president's perogative. The job of comfirmation is supposed to be a test of character, cronyism, etc.

[lastliberalintexas]

31. For Cabinet positions, yes- but not the Court

Federal courts are lifetime appointments, unlike Cabinet members who are replaced with each new administration. The founding fathers believed very strongly that court nominees' personal opinions on all subjects could and should be considered by the Senate, whose duty is to advise and consent, not listen and rubber stamp. Our official government documents and their personal writings make that very clear.

God we need another Paul Simon right now.

[StopThief]

42. That's a statement I've never heard. . .

You wouldn't have a cite for that proposition, would you?

[lastliberalintexas]

51. For what proposition?

Advise and consent is the language used by the Constitution, not something cooked up by me- and it also just happens to be the name of a very good book by former Senator Paul Simon. His book very succinctly shows the role the founding fathers intended for the Senate, and it wasn't one of rubber stamp. That's a good place for you to start, anyway.

[Dilligent]

34. You're right

Ideology is not supposed to enter into it. I don't care what a judges personal feelings are as long as they follow the law (set by congress). I don't want to go before a judge that I know disagrees with what I'm doing, did or want to do, that can't follow the law to make the judgment. Their job is to make sure a law is constitutional and I do have to say this Roberts seems to know the law.

[lastliberalintexas]

36. You don't understand what judges do

They do not just "follow the law"- they rule on what the law actually says in *their* opinion, what *their* interpretation of the law is. If they simply "followed the laws" enacted by Congress, we'd actually have no need for a judiciary.

[Dilligent]

37. They do interpret

but they have to have some basis in the law to do so. They can't just say " this is wrong or I don't like this" they have to back up their "opinion" in law. I agree we need to know more about this guy but unless he has written extensively on his own or made speeches I don't see how we can. The things he wrote while employed by clients aren't his personal opinions, they are things he wrote trying to prove their point. We have nothing about his personal view of the law.

[lastliberalintexas]

39. Okie dokie

You've obviously never read opinions of the current Court and its interpretation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Depsite the very clear, unambiguous language of the ADA saying X and the well recorded history demonstrating the legislative intent that the Act was to say X, this Court has ruled that it doesn't actually say X. They've emasculated the ADA and all but made it a meaningless piece of legislation.

And that's but one example.


"We have nothing about his personal view of the law."

Yes, and *that* would be the problem!

[progressivebydesign]

35. Yes, but if it's purely a hands-off ideaology scenario.. then why..

are the documents related to relevant issues being withheld and STILL the Democrats will vote for this guy? The guy has TWO years experience as a judge, and he's going to be the HIGHEST judge in the world???? That just boggles my mind.

[progressivebydesign]

32. Wish I lived in Leahy's area, I'd NEVER VOTE FOR HIM. EVER.

And, I'd make sure he knew why. So... Senator Leahy. I suppose you have staff members that had to apply for jobs in your office. Yes? Let's say I came for an interview as your #1 staff member. I had a resume that you could read.. mostly. Somethings were left out as my former employers refuse to release any details about my work with them. Then, at the interview for this very important job with you, I refuse to answer questions. Would you hire me? No?????

Then why the FUCK would you APPOINT A MAN FOR LIFE under the same scenario?????????????? Why would you allow someone who is NOT properly screened or interviewed to MAKE CHOICES ABOUT MY LIFE AND BODY???? I used to admire Leahy.

WTF is wrong with these corporate Democrats?? I actually had some hope that they had SPINE. But.. apparently too many of them plan to run for President soon. Let's keep a tally of those that voted for Roberts and whatever other trainwreck of a nominee Bush finds, and which of those Senators goes on to run for President as a RepublicanLite. I'm disgusted by Leahy right now. He had such good moments, but this is unforgivable. I rarely turn off on a Democrat because of a vote here, a decision there, but THIS IS A FUCKING 40 YEAR COMMITTMENT!!! And you're blowing it.

[Kitsune]

38. What the hell is the matter with our party?

Why can we not go two fucking minutes without one of the guys who is theoretically supposed to be on our side crossing over and voting for the fucking Republicans?!

I seriously am incapable of articulating how immensely and overwhelmingly furious I am at this whole Roberts clusterfuck. Here is a man who shouldn't be allowed within 10 miles of the Supreme Court and we're bending over backwards to fuck this country over for the next 30 years.

[mnhtnbb]

41. Start planning your exit strategy

My husband and I have bought property in Panama and contracted to build a house that should be finished by Christmas 06. We will probably retire there full-time if there isn't a SIGNIFICANT change in control of Congress in 06 election.

[Skidmore]

43. Bennet just congratulated Leahy on his "courage". I want to know

what Leahy has to gain from this vote.

[confludemocrat]

47. Changing my registration. I am THROUGH as a Democrat. Screenname next

Another party but not this one. I've had it. Through. Done. Finis Biding my time until I can change my screenname.

[Freddie Stubbs]

49. How are the Senators aligned with other parties voting?

:shrug:

[pepperlove]

56. Kerry votes

NO!

[confludemocrat]

58. maybe that will make up for his vote for Scalia n/t

[mnhtnbb]

60. Reregistered as unaffiliated

a month ago. My husband reregistered in early summer.

Hated to do it because I was a Dean supporter from early 2003.
But I think Al Gore gave Dean bad advice. I think instead of taking the chairmanship of Dems he should have started a new party.

The Dems are dead.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

54. It's so nice living in a one party state passing itself off as a democracy

One run by wealthy white males who perpetuate the corruption that would allow someone like Roberts to ascend to Chief Justice.