Okay, explain to me again why Feingold sez he'll vote 'yes' on Roberts

[Stinky The Clown]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1799182

This helps our side ..... how?

[Totally Committed]

1. Russ Feingold is voting YES on Roberts??????

You're joking. I thought the Leahy vote was bizarre (and infuriating), but this is just plain TROUBLING. W T F ?????????

If we are going to be seen as the "Opposition Party", we must befgin to actually OPPOSE these monsters, and we count on guys like Russ Feingold to lead that opposition. I guess no longer, eh?

Wow... that's a shocker.

TC

[11cents]

6. Not a shocker

Keeping in mind that his was the key vote that got John Ashcroft's nomination for Attorney General out of committee. He gave a totally quixotic explanation -- something to do with allowing a GOP president to have his out-of-the-mainstream nominations approved in the prayerful hope that a Republican congress would do the same for a Democratic president. As. If.

He strongly believes in giving deference to the president in cabinet nominations, but this is a Supreme Court nomination, of course, so who knows what his goofy reasoning is. He's a man of integrity, but that doesn't mean that his honest motivations are also sensible and correct.

[nyhuskyfan]

2. It's tough to get on Feingold...

He was the only anti-Patriot Act vote in the entire Senate, so he isn't afraid to vote his conscience.

What the people voting have to consider is how Roberts could potentially compare to the other choices * could bring before us. Some Dems may decide that the alternatives are worse and vote yes, even though Roberts is less than ideal.

I truthfully wish politics in this country would evolve to the point that the two sides don't vote as blocks and each individual can freely vote on every issue the way he/she feels is right. That's a pipe dream, though.

[jobycom]

4. That's a pleasant dream

but as you say, it will never happen. I'm sure cavemen at their tribal councils were expressing the same wish.

[Stinky The Clown]

26. " .... evolve to the point that the two sides don't vote as blocks ....."

I remember when it actually *wa* that way.

Now politics is a team sport ... like football or Roller Derby. The analogy is true, right down the cheerleaders and mindless fans.

[Czolgosz]

50. Roberts was among the biggest right-wing activists among those Bush

interviewed. We hardly couldn't have done any worse because the few equally bad potential nominees had longer records that would have subjected them to scrutiny from move-to-the-center-in-preparation-for-2008 types like Feingold.

[jobycom]

3. The only thing I can figure for any Dem voting for Roberts is

that they actually believe Roberts when he says he will stick to precedent, and that he will make judicial rulings instead of political ones. That's exactly what I want to hear from a Justice, and Roberts said it.

I don't believe for a second he means it. Maybe Feingold believes him, and therefore figures Roberts is the best we can hope for from Bush. If so, I hope he's right, but I don't believe it.

More likely, though, is Feingold is positioning for a run in 2008, and doesn't want to look partisan.

[bluedeminredstate]

8. But they have a perfect reason

to withhold their consent: the WH WILL NOT release documents these Senators need to make an educated decision. Put it on the WH that the Dems can't approve of someone the WH withholds information on. They deserve to know so they can best serve the people they represent. It's that clear and I'm ashamed of the Dems that let the WH f**k them over again. Is it any wonder people don't see Dems as tough? They don't act as a party that's unified and hardball seems foreign to them when the repugs have mastered it and made it an art form.

:banghead:

[jobycom]

12. That good reason and $5 will get them a gallon of gas

I agree they have good reason to reject Roberts. They should. I would. I'll be angry at any Dem who votes yes. (I'm already beyond anger on any Repub).

As for the Dems letting the WH F**k them over, they've already lost that battle. Their options are a symbolic filibuster, a lot of screaming, a no vote, or a yes vote. All will result in exactly the same thing. Their only concern right now is how the people they perceive of as their constituency will react to their reaction. Feingold for some reason thinks his would want a non-partisan vote.

It's "every candidate for himself/herself" mentality. They could unite, oppose Roberts purely on the grounds that Bush won't turn over all the documents and they are tired of the secrecy, and make a stand. It would be good television, they'd probably be painted as the bad guys, and they'd loose, but at least they'd be seen as making a moral stand, and they'd highlight Bush's secrecy and lack or respect for Congress.

That's what I'd like to see, but they won't do it. The bottom line is, it all comes out the same. Bush wins. Until we take back Congress, Bush wins. And rejecting Roberts would just get us another candidate we'd hate as badly.

And there is the outside chance that Roberts is sincere. Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren--a hard-line conservative politician with no judicial experience--specifically to oppose civil rights legislation. Once on the court, Warren decided his new job required him to hear the legal case, and he voted for desegregation. I'm sure a lot of Dem senators figure their's a chance for Roberts to be responsible, and figure their chances are better than if Bush nominates another Clarence Thomas.

My thoughts, anyway.

[LSK]

27. if they beleive that, they dont understand SCOTUS

SCOTUS has the role of determining whether existing laws are constitutional. They are not there to follow the law. That is for lower courts.

Roberts did not give any indications of how he act in this role.

[jobycom]

39. That's not what I meant

A Justice still has to rule based on judicial reasoning. He can't just say "I overthrow Roe v Wade cause I want to," he has to explain why, in legal terms, using specific arguments from the Constitution, and taking into account what other judges have ruled on the matter. He can overturn the rulings of lower court judges, but only on some legal ground--usually because a law contradicts a right gauranteed in the Constitution.

A judge who rules for political reasons makes his decision first, and then crafts a legal argument around it. That's what Scalia does, and it's why he's a bad justice. In Bush v Gore he ignored his own legal precedence, his own past rulings, and the rulings of many courts to argue that the "equal protection" of the voters would be violated by counting all the votes (I understand the argument, but I don't feel like rehashing it). That was a non-judicial decision, for that and other reasons. It was clearly the political wish of the justices, and they invented legal reasons to do it.

They can do that. It's just not good when they do. That's why you want a Justice who says he will follow precedent and rule judicially, rather than letting his or her ideology come first. Often a judge might believe one thing, but not be able to justify it legally. Roe is a good example of a case that causes that problem for some.

Roberts said he would rule judicially, putting his own ideology behind the legal precedents and the Constitution on an issue. That's about the best we can hope for from a Republican appointed Justice: that he will be fair. I just don't believe Roberts meant it. I hope he does. But I don't believe he will.

Maybe Feingold does, for some reason. But Roberts lied about belonging to the Federalist Society and hid documents from Congress. I don't know why Feingold or the others believe him. Maybe they don't, but they figure he's smart enough to change, and the next Bush appointee won't be. I don't know.

[ewagner]

5. Here's what bugs me

The Repubs had more than enough votes to get Roberts confirmed. (If, of course, there was no filabuster) So why couldn't Democrats vote NO on principle and to maintain some form of solidarity within the party....??????

Feingold should have voted no on the principle of being "stonewalled" by Roberts and for his equivocation.

[MaineDem]

7. Here's what he said...

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statement/05/09/2005922608.html

Part of it:
One important question I had was about Judge Roberts's views on the role of precedent and stare decisis in our legal system. A lot of the concern about this nomination stems from the fact that many important precedents seem to be hanging by a thread. In both our private meeting and in his hearing, Judge Roberts demonstrated a great respect for precedent, and for the importance of stability and settled expectations. His themes of modesty and humility showed appropriate respect for the work of the Justices who have come before him. He convinced me that he will take these issues very seriously, with respect to both the constitutional right to privacy and many other issues of settled law.

As I'm sure every single one of us on this Committee noticed and expected, Judge Roberts did not expressly say how he would rule if asked to overturn Roe v. Wade. But if Judge Roberts abides by what he said about how he would approach the question of stare decisis, I think he should vote to uphold Roe. He certainly left some wiggle room, and he said he would approach the possibility of overturning a case differently if the underlying precedents themselves came into question. But it will be difficult to overrule Roe or other important precedents while remaining true to his testimony about stability and settled law, including his statement that he agrees with the outcome in Griswold v. Connecticut. I know the American people will be watching him very closely on that question, and I personally will consider it a reversal of huge proportions, and a grave disappointment, if he ultimately does attempt to go down that road.

[Cocoa]

11. more...

http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/index.php?ntid=55118&ntpid=0

<snip>

Feingold acknowledged that Roberts never said exactly whether he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, which established a woman's right to an abortion.

"He certainly left some wiggle room," Feingold said. "But it would be difficult to overrule Roe or other important precedents while remaining true to his testimony about stability and settled law."

Feingold added that he was impressed by Roberts' stance on the need to protect individual rights during a time of war, especially the new Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

"His answers showed a gut-level understanding of the potential dangers of a court that operates entirely in secret, with no adversary process. ... He seemed genuinely disturbed by the idea of a court without the usual protections of an open, adversary process."

Feingold said he did not want to minimize the objections of Roberts' opponents and added that he was troubled by Roberts' unwillingness to distance himself from some of the opinions he wrote as a Reagan administration lawyer.

Both Feingold and Kohl said that Roberts' appointment to succeed the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a conservative, would not tip the current balance between liberals and conservatives on the court.

Feingold added that someday, "when my party retakes the White House, there may very well be a Democratic John Roberts nominated to the court.

"When that day comes, and it will, that will be the test for this committee and for the Senate. And, in the end, it is one of the central reasons I will vote to confirm Judge Roberts to be perhaps the last Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in my lifetime."

[genius]

9. He also voted to authorize Chertoff to legally blow up schools & nurseries

Remember the Real ID Act. If laws against killing and terrorism are what Chertoff wants to waive and, even if he announces his intent in advance, no one can stop him - curtesy of section 102 of the Real ID Act.

[genius]

10. Feingold had one day of glory and I guess he feels that's enough for a

lifetime. His voting record other than on USA-PATRIOT is certainly pretty dismal.

[Zuni]

13. Yes. Russ Feingold: blowing up an elementary school near you!

:eyes:

[Zhade]

14. No, no, pay attention: CHERTOFF to blow up schools.

Not Feingold.

I know, reading comprehension goes in your hurry to make a dubious point, but please don't suggest that genius is accusing Feingold of planning on bombing schools.

[Zuni]

17. I am sure his intent was to make sure Homeland Security

could blow up all Public educational institutions across the land. That is how evil Feingold is, or irresponsible.

I cannot believe you people

[Zhade]

32. Once again, Chertoff, not Feingold.

Reading comprehension is a GOOD thing.

[Zuni]

42. and so is sarcasm

the whole idea of the post he made is utterly ridiculous

[Zhade]

49. Does the Real ID Act allow Chertoff that kind of authority?

If it doesn't, you're right about genius' point.

If it DOES, genius is right to question Feingold's vote on the act.

[RandomKoolzip]

21. No, but genius is accusing Feingold of allowing Chertoff to bomb schools.

A minor quibble but a major smear on Feingold and his supporters.

[Zhade]

33. I like Feingold, which is why that and this vote are really out there.

I don't pretend to understand Feingold's motives.

But I will say that if the Real ID Act DOES give Chertoff the authorization to do as genius has suggested, it was wrong of Feingold to vote for it - I do know that he reads the legislation he votes on.

[genius]

15. Can you read? He gave Chertoff the right to do that. His voting record

is terrible. It's something that those who put Hitler in power would have approved of.

[Zuni]

18. I think he wears jackboots into congress

:o

[RandomKoolzip]

23. Yeah, the even the NAME "Feingold" screams "UBERGRUPPENFUHRER!"

[hopein08]

38. You've all got to be kidding me! WTF is with the Nazi references?

Sarcasm, I hope. Feingold is Jewish. His grandparents were Russian Jews, I think. So the jackboot and ubergruppenfuhrer references aren't even appropriate in sarcastic jest.

[RandomKoolzip]

40. That's the point of me and Zuni's posts.

It's a little strange to see liberals accuse a Jewish Dem politician of being a "Nazi" (their words, not ours).

Strange, and muy, muy disappointing.

[hopein08]

52. Please accept my apology RandomKoolzip and Zuni...

I could not agree with the two of you more in the manner in which RandomKoolzip explained it. I read something that disturbed me and posted my first gut reaction. I should think before I type, I guess:shrug::shrug:.

Please forgive me...:pals::pals:

[dolo amber]

24. Wow. Just....wow.

That might actually be the most utterly mad thing I've ever seen typed on DU. And that's saying a LOT.

:crazy:

[Cocoa]

16. what about the children!

won't someone please think about the children! :rofl:

[Zuni]

19. don't ask feingold

he wants to blow them all up :(

[Rowdyboy]

20. Yes, we must all think about the children....

[ronnykmarshall]

35. I seen it!

[Magrittes Pipe]

28. Your sig line trumpets your pride in voting for John Kerry.

Kerry voted for the war and the USA PATRIOT Act.

Feingold voted against those measures.

So, you're anti-Roberts, but pro-war and pro-Patriot Act?

If you have to agree with EVERYTHING a politician does in order to vote for him or her, this is exactly what you're saying. Okay, then.

[Susang]

37. Damn you and your blasted logic!

How....how...reasonable!

:banghead:

[EndElectoral]

22. i figure he wanted to end the Draft Feingold for President pleas

[Dr Fate]

25. Has giving Bush what he wants ever helped Democrats? EVER?

What strategic model is Russ following?

Perhaps the ones from the last 3 elections we lost?

[Stinky The Clown]

29. Okay ... as I thought ...... I'm not the only one who's more than a bit

miffed at a supposed/presumed 08 candidate voting like this.

I also have to confess that I'm nolt all that familiar with his overall record as I have never been all that attracted to him. Not a bash .... I just don't know him all that well.

And maybe now there's no need to get to know him better. :shrug:

[Cocoa]

30. posts #7 and #11 explain his vote

in case you wanted an actual answer to the question you asked.

[Stinky The Clown]

31. I read all that

.... not good enough for me.

[WildEyedLiberal]

34. It doesn't help our side

Feingold is like Biden in a lot of ways. Sometimes he votes for tremendously good things, and acts like a real liberal, and other times, well, he just makes you think WTF. People will bring up that he voted against the Patriot Act, but like Bush and 9/11, there's only so much mileage you can get for voting against something 4 years ago. It's so ridiculous how one or two old votes define a pol's popularity at DU, when in the same cases, many more recent votes are completely disregarded. Yes, Feingold voted against the Patriot Act in 2001. He also voted for its renewal this year. Personally, he doesn't light my fire; he's okay, but one vote in 2001 doesn't make me hero worship him like some do here. He's making a mistake voting for Roberts.

[ProudDad]

36. He's probably hoping that

Souter, Kennedy and Stevens will influence him more than Scalia.

The reasoning goes that since Scalia was formerly the "brain" of the court and was probably assuming that he'd be the next Chief. Scalia's his huge ego and megolomania will prevent him from being cordial to the new "brain" and usurper Roberts. This may drive Roberts into the hands of Souter, Kennedy and Stevens for rational discourse.

That's a faint hope but, damn it, it's all I've got...

[incapsulated]

41. His "reasoning" tells me...

He is either a fool to believe in Roberts bullshit or he is full of shit himself.

I have two lines I will not cross or forgive: Lifetime appointments to the SCOTUS and the enviroment. We will be living with the Roberts court the rest of our lives. I don't believe a word he says and any Dem who doesn't at least make the fucking symbolic gesture of protest by voting against is on my shit list forever.

[ladylibertee]

43. I hate him now.I hate Wisconsin now because Kohl did too.Both

of my senators voted yes.They will get NO and I mean NO support from me now.Their YES vote for Roberts is a NO vote from me!! PERIOD !!:mad:

[formernaderite]

44. There's a simple explanation: He's running

for Pres...and unlike Hillary he doesn't have to worry about his progressive base abandoning him on one issue, because unlike Hillary he HAS a progressive base.

[nickshepDEM]

45. Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a winner.

There is no reason for Feingold to waste a vote on a slam dunk like Roberts. Reid has already announced that there will be no filibuster, period. Why waste a vote on a nominee who is going to receive 70-75 votes at the bare minimum?

Hillary is doing the exact opposite to sure up her liberal credentials.

[rhett o rick]

46. Our side??? There isn't an "Our Side" any longer. What this Country

needs is a good two party political system.

[rhett o rick]

47. Question: Why did the Demo's even bother to ask questions of

Roberts? Answer: To make it look like the system works. Reid even will vote no for confirmation. I am sure his Republican friends will understand. It won't really matter and he looks good to grassroot Demo's. It is all a sham.

[leesa]

48. I wonder why it didn't bother Feingold when Roberts stated he wasn't up on

constitutional law? Why doesn't that bother them? He blatently said he didn't know the law he will be charged with upholding....yet this doesn't bother these twits. HE'S NOT QUALIFIED.

[sendero]

51. I can't decide if this is what I think..

.... or it is wishful thinking.

I think (or hope is more like it) these guys are planning ahead. They know that voting FOR Roberts will undermine arguments that their votes are strictly partisan when the next nominee comes along.

I'd just as soon most Dems vote FOR Roberts, it is a done deal no matter how you slice it. Then, when Bush nominates some total wingnut minority or woman, as he WILL do, they can say enough is enough.

We'll just have to wait and see.