Yeah, now who's laughing: Biden - againts Roberts, Feingold voted FOR HIM

[LynneSin]

So you know, for all you people who think Feingold's crap doesn't stink and Biden is some sort of horrible person you can kiss my you know what!!

Feingold is 0-2 in my book, get him off the fricking judiciary committee if he's just going to greenlight Bush nominees. He did it for Ashcroft and now he did it for Roberts. Joe Biden may suck up to the credit card companies (which btw, is the heart of our economy here in Delaware) but damnit, when it counts he votes against these idiotic judicial nominees. He has been our strongest ally (along with many others like Kennedy & Kerry) voting against these wack jobs who will take more of my rights away

Ok end :rant:

[still_one]

1. What this shows is that the DEMOCRATS STAND FOR NOTHING

[sasha031]

2. not all

please don't put everyone in the same boat, follow the voting records.

maybe someday we will be able to do what the repukes do, run Dem's against lousy Dem's.

[LynneSin]

3. That the democrats should have been united on that committee

You know the repukes would never have crossed even if this guy came in there frothing at the mouth screaming like a banshee. And even if all the democrats voted together this still would have went to the floor but at least we would have all been united and not fucking divided again.

But as a Delawarean, I get so fed up at how Biden gets trashed all the time and Feingold is like a demigod in here. Feingold had let me down not once - but twice. There is just no excuse!

[Zuni]

4. Feingold has let YOU down?

I am sure that was his intent

[still_one]

14. no offense but Biden did it to himself

the bankrupcy bill

for the iraq war

wanting more troops in iraq

but the thing that gets me most angry about Biden is his implication that we MIGHT have to consider a draft. Sorry, but not for a war based on a lie!!!

In my view Feingold has been pretty much right on:

Against the Iraq war, for the 87 billion in support for the troops there, Against the patriot act, etc.

What I think happened with this vote is that the democrats got together and played a game. They got the most liberal to vote for it, and the most conservative to vote against it. In fact I am almost sure that is how it went down. Feinstein is my senator, and she voted against it while leahy and feingold voted for it. We are being taken for a ride

[AllyCat]

5. This should have been a non-partisan issue!

I'm astonished that any ONE of the Senators would vote for a many with two years of judicial experience, who won't answer questions about his positions, and won't release documents that might shed some light on those positions and his past experience.

I half expected this from Kohl, but Feingold? What is he doing on that committee?

Just yesterday, I had yet another Madisonian tell me how she thought Feingold would be a great president. I laid his latest example of "non-leadership" at her feet. She was appalled.

He's not presidential material folks. Anyone who will rubberstamp a greenthumb "judge" into CJ position is not a leader.

[Demit]

6. I admit I don't know what to think. Interesting Kos diary on the subject--

There are a number of diaries recently expressing shock at various Democrats announced votes on the Roberts confirmation (Feingold "Yes", Hillary "No", for instance). So far, I haven't seen any that are particularly surprising.

To figure out how people are going to come down, you simply need to look at several factors. . .

Any Democrat considering a run for President in 2008 is going to vote "No". No one wants the next Howard Dean nipping at their heels.

Any Democrat seriously considering leading a filibuster of the next nominee and planning to keep the gang of fourteen on board is going to vote "Yes". Voting "No" on Roberts would allow, in fact almost require, the Republican G14 members to break ranks under pressure ("Come on, de Wine, this guy even voted "No" on Roberts!"). Conversely, voting "Yes" on Roberts strengthens the Democrat's argument with the seven Republicans who will matter ("Listen guys, I'm reasonable, I even voted for Roberts. But Judge Hitler really is an exceptional circumstance!").

That accounts for Clinton and Biden voting "No", and for Byrd and possibly Leahy voting "Yes" (Byrd being one of the G14, and Leahy the ranking member on the Judiciary committee, both well positioned to lead a filibuster)...."

There's more at http://www.dailykos.com/

[karynnj]

12. Feingold breaks your pattern

which is an interesting one. Kennedy should probably have voted yes under this rule too.

It might be that the precedent of withholding so much of Roberts' government decisions was very important to very many of them. That does seem to be a theme in some of their explanations of their decisions.

[Hippo_Tron]

36. Nobody expected Kennedy to vote yes, although maybe he should have

The right wing machine has made Ted Kennedy out to be a left wing loon. It would really be something for Kennedy to vote for Roberts, it would basically make the Democrats look EXTREMELY reasonable for the next nominee.

But neither Kennedy nor Feingold are part of the gang of 14 and thus they don't really break his pattern.

[Hippo_Tron]

37. LMAO Judge Hitler

[Zuni]

7. Face it---Roberts is more moderate than Rehnquist

he is not going to change the court greatly and is not likely to turn far to the right like a Bork or a Scalia.

Roberts is far better than some of the wingnuts that Bush might have nominated. We should save our strength for a Bork or a Clarence thomas

[nickinSTL]

13. really? where's the evidence for his being moderate?

or conservative, for that matter...

Fact is, we don't know a damn thing about him...and that's the problem.

[tigereye]

19. there has been ample info on Roberts

letter, policies, opinions, endless articles... how could you say we don't know anything about him? :shrug:

He's clearly a Reagan- style conservative ( hard to believe now that that might not seem as extreme as later Rep appointees), and actually some of them named to the court have not been as bad as expected. I don't think he is a Bork, or a Scalia, or even a Thomas. He seems "moderate" by comparison to them, based on what I have read. And I am kind of a SCOTUS junkie. I don't like that is wife is an anti- choicer, yes, but he does seem intelligent, capable of complex thought, and a respector of precedent, and that is pretty good, comparatively.

We knew that * would not appoint someone that all Dems would be thrilled about. Roberts is the leading edge and heaven knows what weird rightwinger will follow next.

[karynnj]

15. Actually, as several Senators said

he deflected so many questions, the work done for the government was withheld and he had such a short public life, that his real orientation is very hard to know. (Kerry in his statement referred back to voting on Souter and Thomas, where there was the same problem in terms of getting answers. He then says he voted no in both cases for that reason - and was pleasantly surprised by Souter and his vote was not a mistake on Thomas.)

So, Roberts could be a Thomas or he could be a Souter. We don't know - which is sad as the Senators have to vote blind.

[AllyCat]

18. It doesn't matter if he is mod, lib, or cons...he's unqualified

Two years as a judge does not a CJ make. And we don't know anything about him either. What's the point of a job interview if you don't answer any questions?

[tigereye]

20. actually there were a number of past justices

who were not lawyers or even judges...

[Czolgosz]

22. Roberts is LESS moderate than Rehnquist. Read his opinions and his

memos. Roberts is very activist.

[safi0]

26. The Rehnquist Court

Was the most activist court in American history.

[Czolgosz]

27. Just wait 'til you see how bad the Roberts court is. It is a pity that

some right thinking people from both parties will not hold firm against him so that the voters will be able to tell those who sold them out apart from those stood up for them.

[safi0]

31. That's your predicition

What I said was an undisputable fact

[Czolgosz]

32. Yes, it's only my opinion, but it's an opinion based on the fact that I'm

an appellate attorney, and I have been asked to assist various nationwide advocacy organizations in their assessments of the various potential nominees, and I have actually read tons of judicial opinions and other legal writings of Roberts and several of the other potential nominees who were discussed. We happen to agree that the Rehnquist court is the most activist in memory, so we needn't debate that issue, but you should know that very few legal scholars would agree that the question is so far beyond the scope of debate as to qualify as an indisputable fact (and, yes, I have read professor Keck's excellent book and I agree with his analysis).

[safi0]

34. I've also heard lots of

Other attorney's, including many democrats, say that Roberts will display judicial restraint.

As for the Rehnquist court being the most activist, the only arguement against it would be based on what one's definition of judicial activism is. Judicial Activism is generally regarded as voting against and overturning precedent. Is that's the criteria the Rehnquist court is the most activist in history and Clarence Thomas is the most activist judge in history.

[Czolgosz]

40. We agree activism is ignoring or overruling precedent without sufficient

reticence, but it's also ignoring or overturning legislation without sufficient reticence. The Rehnquist court (and Thomas and Scalia in particular) are especially activist in this regard (mostly with respect to the lack of deference to the people's will as expressed by their legislature).

I, too, have heard attorneys, including Democrats, who predict that Roberts will display restraint. The only bases for this view are Roberts's comments to the senate in the run up to his confirmation; there is no question that he promises moderation in his confirmation interviews with the senate. Yet Roberts's judicial record (scant as it is) is absolutely not a record of restraint. His work for the Reagan administration reflects no hint of restraint. From what we can gather of his work with Ken Starr for the first Bush administration reflects no hint of restraint. The fact that Roberts lied when denying membership in the far right Federalist Society offers no promise of restraint.

In sum, I am inclined to believe it is more likely Roberts will act as he has acted throughout his whole legal career and not as he promises to act in his statements to the senate. This belief is supported by the fact that Roberts also promised moderation in his prior confirmation hearings before the senate and his subsequent judicial views reflect no evidence that he moderated from the radical views he expressed in the work he did as a lawyer for the Reagan and first Bush administrations.

If, on the other hand, you are inclined to believe Roberts's statements over his actions, then you may very well predict that he's going to turn over a new leaf and judge as a moderate for the next four decades or so. To me, that's too much trust to place in a man who lied about his membership in the Federalist Society and who failed to disclose the obviously disqualifying fact that he was interviewing for this job while presiding over a critical appeal brought by the people he was interviewing with (and whom he promptly ruled in favor of).

[StopTheMorans]

8. hello, i support anything and everything that comes out of my state

VEHEMENTLY, irrespective of any facts that may, upon introspection, lead me to feel differently. that is all.

[WI_DEM]

9. Now if Joe would only break with Bush on Iraq

Yeah I'm disappointed that Feingold voted for Roberts. He must be a loser just like Robert Byrd who also is voting for Roberts--but at least they are against the war.

[Zuni]

10. even if we defeated Roberts, who would Bush throw up next?

I say we take Roberts, because he is likely to be as moderate as any Bush SCOTUS nominee

[Czolgosz]

23. If you can believe what the press reported about who Bush was considering,

the only nominees as far right as Roberts were doomed to filibuster because they had longer records.

[TheDonkey]

33. Biden has spoken out against Bush's handling of the war

in harsh terms. I know it isn't the same as Fiengold but he's very against how this war turned out and I'm sure wants us out of there.

[gumby]

11. I am Definitely Not laughing.

Can't the Dems unite on Anything?

Guessing about 'strategy' doesn't work for me. Not one Dem should have supported Roberts for any reason. Period.

[still_one]

16. I think this was intentional

the liberals voting for roberts, and the middle to conservative democrats voting against roberts???

This had to be a setup.

[Totally Committed]

17. Just a couple of responses to the Feingold Vote on Democrats.com

Senator Russ Feingold made headlines in August when he became
the first 2008 hopeful to call for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from
Iraq by the end of 2006. This won raves from progressive pundits
like my friend John Nichols and even a highly-coveted appearance
on Meet the Press. And it generated enough buzz in the progressive
blogosphere to move Feingold into 2nd place in the dKos Straw Poll
(behind Wes Clark and ahead of John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and
No Freakin' Clue).

But today, Feingold threw it all away.

*************

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On the Nomination of Judge
John G. Roberts To be Chief Justice of the United States
September 22, 2005

Mr. Chairman, I will vote in favor of the nomination of Judge John
Roberts to be the Chief Justice of the United States. This has not
been an easy decision, but I believe it is the correct one. Judge
Roberts's impeccable legal credentials, his reputation and record
as a fair-minded person, and his commitment to modesty and
respect for precedent have persuaded me that he will not bring an
ideological agenda to the position of Chief Justice of the United
States and that he should be confirmed.


Impeccable legal credentials - like being a leader of the Federalist
Society - and lying about it?

Reputation and record as a fair-minded person - like helping
George Bush steal the 2000 election in Florida?

In early 2001, Russ Feingold provided the deciding vote on the
Senate Judiciary Committee to confirm John Ashcroft as Attorney
General, despite massive opposition from netroots Democrats.
Why did Feingold support Ashcroft? Because Ashcroft gave him
a ride home from the Capitol one day, and because he promised
to nominate Ronnie White for the next Federal judgeship - a
promise Ashcroft broke immediately.

I blasted Feingold relentlessly at the time for his vote. Perhaps out
of remorse, Feingold was the only Senator to vote against the USA
Patriot Act immediately after 9/11. Five years later, I was prepared
to give him a second look because of his Patriot Act vote and his
semi-courageous stance on Iraq. But not now.

When he cast his deciding vote for Ashcroft, Feingold said "maybe
I'm naive." Five years later, nothing has changed. Feingold's vote for
Roberts proves his naivete is his fatal incurable character flaw - just
like Bush's greed, cowardice, and stupidity.

Senator Feingold, you worse than naive - you are a suicidal idiot.
Right in front of your eyes the Federalist Society - led by John
Aschroft, John Roberts, and their "modest" cronies - is turning the
American judicial system into an instrument of Republican Fascism.
Don't you remember how they conspired to appoint Ken Starr as
Special Prosecutor for Clinton, and then set a perjury trap for him?
Didn't you read Bush v. Gore, which legalized the theft of the
Presidency? Haven't you read the Torture Memos? Didn't you read
the 4th Circuit's latest ruling in Padilla v. Rumsfeld, which gave the
President the unlimited powers of a dictator? These are all the
products of the Federalist Society, and they are systematic steps
towards fascism.

When the Busheviks fire up the concentration camp ovens, the
Niemoller of our time will write: "First they came for the enemy
combatants, but I was not an enemy combatant." And when they
come for the Jews - because Fascists always come for the Jews -
there will be no one left to speak up for you.

Update: John Nichols called it a most disappointing vote for progressives.
But he is at a loss to explain why Feingold cast it.

The fact is that Feingold asked some of the best questions of Roberts
on those very issues, and he got some of the worst answers.

Unfortunately, Feingold does not appear to have taken those exchanges
seriously enough to decide that Roberts failed the test.

http://www.democrats.com/feingold-supports-roberts


TC

[Hippo_Tron]

35. Feingold is a lawyer, he's read all of it and understands it

Feingold voted for Ashcroft because he believes that it is the President should be allowed to have the cabinet of his choice. Interestingly enough, a little told story is that Ashcroft returned the favor by personally calling Feingold and asking him what he felt was wrong with the Patriot Act. Ashcroft expressed these concerns in a cabinet meeting but was drowned out by the other voices.

Feingold is a man of principle and that's what I care about. Voting against the IWR and the Patriot Act are votes that could actually have cost him his political future, this is a vote of little consequence in that regard.

If you want my guess, he and Leahy are setting themselves up to oppose whatever trash Bush puts up to replace O'Conner. The whole "Democrats will not permit a conservative justice to be confirmed" myth will be dispelled and they will have good footing to hold the next nominee to a much higher standard. Maybe they are not doing this and they genuinely believe that Roberts should be confirmed. I disagree with them, but one vote doesn't make me decide whether I like someone or not. Paul Wellstone voted for DOMA. He later admitted in his book that he regrets it and perhaps he did do it just to win re-election. Either way Paul Wellstone is still my hero because I recognize that he was only human, just like Feingold and Leahy are only human.

Not only that, but Feingold votes the right way at least 90% of the time. Biden and Bayh vote the right way about 60% at best.

[Zhade]

21. I think THEY'RE laughing - at US.

Votes like this, from people as different as these two, make me wonder if they all get together to decide how to vote just to fuck with our heads.

If I can't tell why they're voting the way they are, I'm beginning to understand why so many people don't vote - it's just too damn confusing! You never know who's on your side, it seems.

[Zodiak]

38. You never know who is on your side if you are a Democrat

The Republicans do not have this problem. This fact is not lost on voters, in my opinion.

"Big tent" should not include big betryals.

[Zhade]

41. I adore your last sentence.

You nailed it.

It's like the quote (from, I believe, our own DUer 'Just Me') in bvar22's sigline. The gist is "The Democratic Party is a big tent, but it has no room for those who would advance corporate profits at the expense of the working class and the poor".

I've probably mangled the quote a bit, but you get the idea, and I think it and your own words reflect exactly how I feel.

I have no problem with moderate or conservative Dems. I have a HUGE problem with ANYONE that wants to restrict civil rights or screw the people in favor of the corporate class.

The 'D' after their name does not absolve them.

[lojasmo]

24. Biden voted for the IWR AND to remove your civil rights

with the Patriot Act.

I'm going to give Russ a little leeway here.

[Mass]

25. May be people will understand you never agree 100% with anybody

Result: you look at somebody's record and you decide where he stands in the issues that are more important to you. Feingold is still very high in my book.

But of course, some will still continue to judge somebody on his/her last vote, independently of what happened before.

[ZombieNixon]

28. What are you doing out of the Lounge? Back! Back!

:hi:

[bread_and_roses]

29. Delaware's Credit Card Companies were'nt going out of business

without the Bankruptcy Bill. That was a vote against working people all over the country, a Bill that will have lifetime consequences for many.

And voting Yes on Roberts was just as bad - again, a lifetime of consequence.

Both put power and money ahead of the interests of the people. We are not talking about minor trade-offs here. A lifetime of consequence, hardship, destroyed lives.

[Cocoa]

30. Feingold's crap smells awesome

I use it as cologne.

[rhett o rick]

39. But his vote wasn't enough. Token votes by some Demo leaders just

prolongs the pain. Drink the friggin coolaid.