Samuel Alito was confirmed 58-42, Roberts 78-22 but we can't nominate a liberal with 59 votes

[usregimechange]

because?

[usregimechange]

1. And why shouldn't we demand it?

[Puzzler]

2. Because the "rules" are different for Dems...

... and to make matters worse, many Dems seem to go along with it.

[treestar]

3. Because the Dems aren't assholes

Who vote against an nominee just to say no and just to oppose.

[sabrina 1]

20. Voting for Alito and Roberts could be considered

being an asshole. Voting against them would not have been voting 'just to say no'. I can think of some very good reasons why someone might not have voted for either of them.

[robinlynne]

28. aboslutely!

[D23MIURG23]

31. Right. The dems are the assholes who allow the country to be buggered by fascist blowhards. n/t

[Marr]

37. Oh sure-- that's it.

They're devoted, sincere people who believe that right-wing policy is bad for the country-- and they're determined to stop it... so long as it doesn't make them look like assholes.

The notion that such a petty concern would fuel positions like these is absurd.

[KingFlorez]

4. Republicans aren't going to sway like Democrats did for Bush nominees

That aside, Obama was able to get Sotomayor on the court, I think he can find another satisfactory candidate that the GOP isn't going to be able to rationally block.

[Unvanguard]

5. The cloture vote on Alito was actually 72-25.

And in that context, the actual confirmation vote was merely symbolic.

[ncteechur]

6. because democrats believe in actually working together rather than holding their breath and throwing

temper tantrums

[Fumesucker]

7. Alito and Roberts aren't ideologues?

:sarcasm:

[usregimechange]

8. They are, that's my point, Republicans have fewer votes and they got them through

[Sebastian Doyle]

9. Because some "Democrats" refuse to vote as Democrats?

And if they want to prevent a worthy candidate from taking Justice Stevens' place on the bench, then they should resign themselves and let someone capable do THEIR jobs.

[mmonk]

36. +1

[UTUSN]

10. K&R #2 is ONLY number TWO?!1 n/t

[DefenseLawyer]

11. We didn't nominate a liberal when we had 60 votes

unless one is delusional enough to call Justice Sotomayor a liberal.

[usregimechange]

12. Sotomayor may turn out well but your right, that could have went very badly

still may be somewhat bad.

[DefenseLawyer]

16. I'm not saying she's bad, just not what I'm looking for

The Bush appointees are so far right we need true liberals on the court in order to have any balance at all. We don't need another center right, pro-corporate, pro-authority Justice whose only liberal bona fides are that he or she likely won't vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. There's a helluva lot more to being a liberal than that case.

[Robeson]

13. What does Lieberman think?....

...we'll have to check with him first.

[Canuckistanian]

15. No kidding

No Democratic decision can be made without consulting a disgraced former Democrat who is officially an Independent.

Ironic, isn't it?

[Coyote_Bandit]

14. Because the bastards in office don't want to

Same reason we couldn't have real meaningful healthcare reform.

[Egnever]

17. Of Course we can

But if you think the republicans would allow a vote on them you are in fantasy land.

[cali]

18. bwahahahahahah. so you couldn't even wait to see who he nominates

before venting your outrage.

pathetic.

[DefenseLawyer]

22. Care to wager?

I'll bet you a jelly doughnut he doesn't nominate a liberal. And no, I don't mean someone that Republicans will call a liberal, I mean an actual liberal.

[Robeson]

23. I wouldn't touch that wager come hell or high water.

[rucky]

32. I want in.

[NYC Liberal]

39. Well I'll bet that whoever he names, you won't call them a liberal

whether they are or not. You've already made up your mind.

[DefenseLawyer]

44. Why would you think that?

There are scores of well qualified progressive thinkers that the President could nominate. I would be thrilled if he did so. Now if you want me to say that Sotomayor and Ginsburg and Breyer are liberals, I won't. Because they're not, or if they are personally, they have never consistently and reliably voted that way. Marshall and Brennan were the last true liberals on the Court.

[BrklynLiberal]

24. Does the name Dawn Johnson ring a bell??

Even a lower level nominee cannot get a vote....much less a Supreme!! And the administration is STILL trying to placate the repukes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/09/AR2010040905041.html

Obama nominee withdraws amid Republican opposition

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's nominee to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel withdrew her name from consideration on Friday after Republicans strongly opposed her nomination.

The White House said Obama accepted Dawn Johnsen's request to withdraw her bid for confirmation after it became clear that Republicans in the Senate would not allow her to be confirmed.

"After years of politicization of the office during the previous administration, the president believes it is time for the Senate to move beyond politics and allow the Office of Legal Counsel to serve the role it was intended to -- to provide impartial legal advice and constitutional analysis to the executive branch," said White House spokesman Ben LaBolt.

[alarimer]

41. Obama simply lacks the guts to fight for what is right.

He could have fought for Johnsen but he didn't. Again. He caves to the right every single time. Change, my ass.

[BrklynLiberal]

45. That is such a sad, sad truth.

[ruggerson]

25. Did you like how they used Kathleen Sullivan last time?

The WH MO was: Let's float her name so we can pretend we'd actually have the guts to nominate her and then we'll go with a far more cautious choice.

And I like Sotomayor. I'm just not of a fan of not even TRYING to get a rock ribbed academic liberal seated. The OP is correct. Republican Presidents have the guts to nominate far right conservatives a la Scalia and Thomas and Alito. Why can't a Democratic President do the same?

[harun]

19. Because the Dem's are afraid the Corporate Media will call them names.

[BrklynLiberal]

21. Pretty damn disgusting!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[Historic NY]

26. It time now to go deep and pull the plug on the GOP.

[troubledamerican]

27. Because Schumer, Feinstein, Harman, et al won't vote for a liberal.

$$$$$ DLC $$$$$

[WilliamPitt]

29. Because the Senate is not DU

"We?" Ya got a mouse in your pocket or something?

;) (my mom used to say that to me)

[progressoid]

30. It's not that we can't, It's that we don't want to.

Democrat does not necessarily equal liberal.

DC is chock full of DLCers and centrists.

[Pushed To The Left]

33. Because the Republicans stick together and won't compromise. Democrats need to remember the behavior

of the Republicans now should we ever become a minority party again. If Democrats had been willing to stick together back in 2005, we wouldn't have Alito or Roberts on the bench right now.

[caraher]

34. Obama should really nominate a true lefty...

How did Alito and Roberts get through? In part because Bush led off with Harriet Myers. Even if Obama really wants a centrist judge (I realize I'm painting with a broad brush here, but I think the point is clear enough) recent history suggests it's better to start with someone who is clearly unacceptable and then walk it back...

[WeDidIt]

35. Liberals make up 20% of the populace

Conservatives are 40%.

Moderates are 36%.

Source: Gallup, October 26, 2009

That's why.

[pleah]

38. The dems are the new rethugs?

:shrug:

[Writer]

40. Democrats have a majority in the Senate, but liberals do not. n/t

[BzaDem]

42. I think it has to do with the distributions of the two parties more than their total counts.

We currently would probably have at least 38 Republicans who would vote to filibuster someone they consider to be very liberal. There are 3 Republicans who would be in the "maybe" column in terms of a filibuster. There are also probably 2 Democrats who would be salivating to join the Republicans in such a filibuster for their own political aims. That means you would most likely have the 41 needed to kill the nomination.

For Roberts, it was obvious that all 55 Republicans at the time plus at least 5 moderate Democrats would vote to confirm him. Once the 60 was obvious, many other Democrats jumped on (who might not have jumped on had it not been obvious he would get confirmed). So the 78-22, while correct, doesn't tell the whole story. In addition, Roberts (while obviously a right-winger) didn't have a huge paper trail to prove it, like some of the current more liberal candidates do.

In general, the elected Republican party trends more right than the Democratic party trends left (at least as far as judicial nominations go).

[yodoobo]

43. "we" don't nominate anyone.

That is the privilege of our fine President.

Don't worry. He has this under control.