Reid to Vote NO on Roberts - Baucus and Nelson Not as Willing to Vote No

[kerrygoddess]

Harry Reid announced a short time ago that he will vote NO on John Roberts nomination as Chief Justice,
“voicing doubts about Roberts’ commitment to civil rights and accusing the Bush administration of stonewalling requests for documents that might shed light on his views.”

Reid also said Roberts followed a “disingenuous strategy” at last week’s confirmation hearings of suggesting that the views in the memos were not his own.

Not all Senate Democrats seem as willing to vote NO on Roberts.


Within minutes, other Democrats had begun to signal their intentions.

“I’ve not seen anything that would cause me to vote against” Roberts, said Ben Nelson, who represents Republican Nebraska and often crosses party lines to support President Bush’s legislative proposals.

“I’m inclined to vote for Roberts unless something else comes up,” said Sen. Max Baucus , D-Mont. “It’s a close call.”

I urge our readers to contact Senator Baucus and Senator Nelson and ask them to VOTE NO on John Roberts.

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=617

Email Baucus - http://baucus.senate.gov/contact/emailForm.cfm?subj=issue

Email Nelson - http://bennelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

[jhawk_tim]

1. Help me understand

why we would vote no. I don't see anyway that a conservative president would nominate anyone less conservative than Roberts. He is qualified for the job and shouldn't strong arming be saved for the next pending nomination?

[Rainscents]

2. Hell, democrats should reject every one them who come up for vote.

[jhawk_tim]

3. Why?

That isn't what the system was intended to be like. Simply rejecting someone because of who nominated them doesn't make sense. You don't want treated that way in your professional career do you?

[Rainscents]

8. Anyone coming from Bush, Dem's should NOT vote the fuckers in!

Republicans deliberately held many seats open (Clinton) so, they can seat them when Bush got in, so. they can load them with right wing judges!

[Dr Fate]

11. I'm not allowed to hide my record in my professional career.

And if I gave weasel answers to direct questions instead of "yes" or "no"- I would be FIRED.

[gratuitous]

5. "Nothing disqualifying"

Strange, but I regard the Chief Justice chair on the Supreme Court as being a little bigger job than "nothing disqualifying." If I were being asked to hire John Roberts as a fry cook, and he could demonstrate he knew which end of the spatula to use, I'd say give him the job.

But Roberts wants to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a lifetime appointment. If I were interviewing him for that job, I'd need a little more from him than "trust me." The murderously disastrous nature of Bush's history of nominees (e.g., Dan Chertoff, Michael Brown, John Bolton) makes me want to see more, rather than less, from a nominee for a lifetime job.

At the very least, I would like to see the Senate require full disclosure of Roberts' record as a public sector attorney by the White House. There is no attorney-client privilege in such a position, because the client is us, We the People, and we're the ones who, through our elected Senators, are asking the questions.

[Dr Fate]

12. You forgot Bush's most infamous nominee- the resume faking "Brownie"

n/t

[gratuitous]

13. No I didn't

He's right there between Chertoff and Bolton in my gratis exempli.

I'd still like to hear from jhawk_tim why he thinks that bare minimum qualifications should entitle Roberts to be Chief Justice. We only get the government we demand. If we settle for someone as marginal as Roberts, we'll get a marginal Supreme Court.

[Dr Fate]

14. Rules be damned- that dude is no Democrat.

n/t

[Der Blaue Engel]

6. Not all conservatives are as enigmatic

Nor do they all have anti-Roe v Wade leanings. He's playing an arrogant game with the Senate committee. Why should they approve his nomination when he won't respond to basic questions? Hell, he COULD be the best we could hope for...but how would we know?

[Dr Fate]

9. Because we dont want another "Brownie" who fakes his resume.

Bush wont give us Robert's complete resume and he wont give us frank, "yes or no" answers to any of the important questions.

Is that a good enough answer for you?

Now you tell me why we should allow a vote on a LIFETIME appointment for a man who hides his resume(Just like "Brownie") & his opinions.

[Der Blaue Engel]

4. Does anyone know whether they disregard non-constituent pleas?

I know that most won't respond to you if you're not a constituent, but do they take your opinion into account?

I noticed that the NARAL e-mail (from another post) didn't give the option to include your address so that they'd know whether you were a constituent; I guess the e-mail went to everyone on the committee, and I wonder if it then went into the trash, even for my Senator, because my state was not identified in the e-mail.

Depressingly, when I posted the NARAL e-mail on a local, left-leaning list, everyone said, "Roberts seems like the best we can hope for. Why should we oppose?" :cry: I sent a bunch of other links, but I fear that the MSM has even brainwashed well-meaning liberals into complacency.

[kerrygoddess]

10. It's worth a try

I have emailed Senators from other States and gotten replies.

[papau]

7. I believe the likely yes Dem votes - per the GOP - total 8

why it is that high I do not know and I hope they are wrong.

[MN ChimpH8R]

15. What are gutless weasels like Baucus

and Nelson afraid of?? Do they think the Chimp or Darth Cheney is going to come and bite them on the neck and give them the gleep? Chimpy has forfeited any presumption in favor of the competence of his nominees for any position of power. Grow some spines, Dems.