NO vs. YES vote on Roberts: Strategy, Election minded, or Conscience?

[FrenchieCat]

I've been thinking about why the roles seem to have been reversed as to which Democratic Senators are gonna vote YEAH vs. NAY on confirming Judge Roberts.

From where I sit, it appears that more principled minded Dems who voted against the IRW are voting FOR Roberts, and the ones that Could be principled but aren't always are voting NO on Roberts.

So my question is this? Is it possible that Feingold and Leahy are saving their "NAY" votes for the next justice that we will all be facing very, very shortly?...at which time they may encourage a fillibuster?

Could it be that their strategy is to have this vote to point to in comparing and contrasting when they vote NO on the next nightmare....to illustrate concretely that their votes are not strictly partisanship ones...., but rather that they will be voting NO at that time because of justifiable objections?

While on the other hand, the Dems who are voting NO, like Biden, Feinstein, Clinton and even Reid, who normally would be regarded as the least likely to "Buck" what appears to be a "fait Accompli", are possibly doing so because they have future elections in mind?

Could they be catering to the Democratic base to portray themselves as having the "Balls" to do what's "right" considering the life that they have had to lead since their IRW vote? So does anyone think that theirs is a rehabilitation vote for their elective future.....or do you think that they are honestly voting based on their deep convictions all of the sudden?

After all we all know at this point that Roberts is a "Shoe-in".

Just asking.

PS. I agree that not all Senators fit in either shoes.....

[Der Blaue Engel]

1. Perhaps those voting No have listened to their constituents

There has been a massive effort here and elsewhere to get people to contact their senators and reps and tell them to vote No, and it needs to continue.

E-mail, snail mail, telephone, whatever it takes, but let them know how you feel. It does make a difference. I never thought I'd see the day Feinstein did the right thing. I truly believe she was conflicted based on the reasons you mention, but that the number of people contacting her with their opinion convinced her it was the right move.

[applegrove]

2. I think there is some sort of plan in place. All they had to do was vote

up or down. And yes - I would assume Roberts - is the only "moderate" candidate Bush will put on the court. So the next candidate will be worse. Plus - those two are not running for President. You protect your own if you can.

[FreedomAngel82]

13. I thought Feingold had a PAC set up?

:shrug:

[applegrove]

14. Didn't know that. But Roberts was always meant to be milky white.

And easily "crowned".

[In Truth We Trust]

3. Anything other than a no vote on roberts is plain and simply a sellout.

[choie]

4. Is Kennedy the only real democrat???

I really don't see it that way - I mean, Ted Kennedy votes his conscience all the time, and he's voting against Roberts. Once again, Dems are not united. I am so damn sick and tired about hearing this bullshit about how the next appointment might be worse, so they need to save their nay votes for then. Why the hell can't they vote NO on all these putrid nominations????? That's what the repugs did with Clinton. This is the most criminal, immoral, unethical administration ever, and the Dems should do everything they can to stop them in their tracks. Obstruction is sometimes a beautiful thing...

[In Truth We Trust]

8. I couldn't agree more! Welcome to DU btw.

[sipnsail]

5. The reason they are voting 'yes' is because they have no spine!

A vote for Roberts is a vote to protect large corporations from any wrong doing!

[LittleClarkie]

10. The arguement above seems to argue that Nay votes could be spineless too

Kind of a damned if you don't, damned if you do scenario.

[category5]

16. Roberts is no worse than Rhenquist, changes nothing on SCOTUS balance

What DOES matter is who will replace Sandra Day O'Connor, the more
moderate justice. If a right winger gets her job, then we are in
trouble.

[eggman67]

6. I can't understand

Why it can't just be that maybe, just maybe, Feingold and Leahy are sincere principled men who are doing what they genuinely believe to be the right thing to do. God forbid they should have their own opinion that doesn't march lock step with DU.

[In Truth We Trust]

7. Never mind what they think, let me ask YOU; Is roberts good for America?

[eggman67]

11. Probably not

But that's not my point. I'm tired of hearing these men painted as cowards and sellouts because they have a differing opinion. Finegold was a hero when he called for a timetable on troop withdrawal, now he's a coward? This lockstep, agree with me 100% of the time or you're worthless attitude is what's destroying the Democratic party.

Does it occur to anyone that maybe he meant what he said in his statement? That it might actually take more courage for him to take what he knows will be an unpopular position with his base because doing what he thinks is right may be more important to him.

There's also the possibility that he may turn out to be right.

[Pepperbelly]

9. I am extremely disappointed in my Senator's announced intention.

Mark Pryor should be more like his Daddy and less like John fucking Breaux.

[FreedomAngel82]

12. Only thing I can think of

Feingold I think is pretty safe in his area. :shrug: I was surprised at Biden. I'll wait to see how he actually votes though. Same with the rest of them.

[category5]

15. Roberts is NOT moderate, however he is replacing another right winger

Mr. Rhenquist. That changes nothing. The balance remains same. One
right winger for another. Has zero effect on future rulings.

What will really matter is who replaces Sandra Day O"Connor. She has
a more moderate record on rulings, and we better fight for another
moderate to replace her.