From the Los Angeles Times:
WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats, after months of preparing for a full-scale fight with President Bush over a Supreme Court nominee, found themselves Wednesday instead weighing whether or how to battle his choice of John G. Roberts Jr.
The problem Democrats face is that Roberts, a well-known Washington lawyer before becoming a federal appellate court judge in 2003, appears to be more conservative than they would like but less ideological than they had feared.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) set the tone the day after Bush selected Roberts, taking pains to describe the nominee as an accomplished lawyer and a "very nice man," but withholding judgment on whether he deserved to serve as one of the country's nine most powerful judges.
"Ever since Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor announced her retirement [July 1], I have called on the president to choose a nominee who can unite the country, not divide it," Reid said. "It remains to be seen whether John Roberts fits that description. I hope that he does, and I look forward to giving him the opportunity to make his case to the American people."
Several Democrats complained that Roberts had served as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for only two years, and therefore had a limited judicial record. As a result, they were considering requesting copies of material he wrote when he served as deputy solicitor general in the Justice Department under President George H.W. Bush.
"Given that his record of his own views is rather sparse … those kinds of documents should be available to us," Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said.
The White House has resisted requests for internal executive branch documents in other matters, and senators from both parties said access to such documents could become a point of contention.
"That's what's called hitting below the belt, because they know that no self-respecting administration would give away confidential materials," Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said. "I hope they won't play the same cheap old tricks on this."
For the most part, Democrats adopted a carefully calibrated wait-and-see approach toward Roberts.
Then I found this also on the Los Angeles Times:
WASHINGTON -- The group of maverick Democrats and Republicans who reached a truce in partisan warfare over judicial nominations this year decided Thursday that President Bush's nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. to the Supreme Court was not "extraordinary" enough to break that peace.
At their first meeting since Bush picked the appellate court judge to succeed retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the so-called Gang of 14 decided that the nomination did not warrant a filibuster — at least, based on what is known about Roberts so far.
"There's no indications so far that there will be a filibuster, and I think that was the consensus in the meeting," Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) said. "But I think people are reserving the right to see what comes out of the [Judiciary Committee] hearings."
The seven Democrats and seven Republicans in the group represent enough votes to prevent Democrats from mustering the 41 votes they would need to sustain a filibuster. As a group, they also could thwart Republican efforts to change the rules for filibusters.
At the time of the judicial showdown in May, the 14 decided that their agreement on filibusters could be broken only by "extraordinary circumstances" — a term they deliberately did not define.
At least at first glance, they said, it did not mean Roberts.
"This is a credible nominee, and not one that, as far as we know now, has a record that in any sense could be described as extremist," Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) said.
For the most part, the group's Democrats were more circumspect than the Republicans, emphasizing that they could not make a final judgment about Roberts until he had been vetted more thoroughly.
"I'll know what extraordinary circumstances are in this case if and when I see them," Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) said. "It's a little early to make any comments beyond that."
Senate Democrats--You are shooting yourselves in the arse! First you claim you can't decide whether Roberts is qualified to sit on the court since you don't have all the documents you need, and then you claim that a filibuster against Roberts is unlikely--Roberts is not "extraordinary" enough to break the peace. This is a prime example of Democratic flip-flopping and infighting over an indecision. And all the while, the White House and Republican PR machine is pushing their talking points on how Roberts is a qualified individual who should be confirmed quickly. Democrats, you are losing the war in this confirmation process, and the confirmation process hasn't even started!
There is a way to fight back against the White House PR machine. What the Senate Democrats should do is unite together and demand that the Bush White House release copies of material Roberts wrote when he served as deputy solicitor general in the Justice Department under Bush Senior. The Democrats should also demand that the Bush White House also release documents on Robert's writings considering the war on terrorism, and the Endangered Species Act. And if the Bush refuses, citing national security, then the Democrats should filibuster Roberts.
Of course, the Democrats will not force a showdown. Roberts will be confirmed, and this country will be in worst shape.
No comments:
Post a Comment