Reid Says No To Roberts
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in General Politics, Supreme CourtWell, well, well…
In announcing his decision in a lengthy speech on the Senate floor, Mr. Reid questioned Judge Roberts’s commitment to civil rights and said he was “very swayed” by the civil rights and women’s rights leaders who testified Thursday in opposition to the nomination – and with whom Mr. Reid met privately that same day. Liberal advocacy groups, who raise millions of dollars to support Democratic candidates and who have been putting intense pressure on Democrats to oppose the nomination, were elated.With the White House considering how to fill a second Supreme Court vacancy, Mr. Reid could be using his vote on Judge Roberts to send a message to President Bush to fill that position with a moderate, in the mold of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a critical swing vote, who is retiring. Along with three other senior senators, Mr. Reid is expected to meet Mr. Bush for breakfast Wednesday to discuss the vacancy.
Explaining his decision on Judge Roberts, Mr. Reid said in his Senate speech that he simply had “too many unanswered questions” about the nominee, who he complained had refused to distance himself from seemingly callous writings while a lawyer for the Reagan administration, including a memorandum in which he used the term “illegal amigos” to refer to illegal immigrants.
I agree that, upon hearing Roberts’s answers to Dems questions, I certainly was left wanting. He very skillfully avoided the queries, citing that the topics they raised “could” come up in the future. Well, of course, but I really don’t think that’s a good reason. Roberts is young and could be in his position for a very, VERY long time. Personally, I think he should have answered more questions, but his position was still defensible.
And just to be clear, something tells me he could still be a very balanced SCOTUS Chief Justice. At least I desperately hope…
So what do centrists thinks?
One centrist Democrat, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, said Tuesday that he had “not seen anything that would cause me to vote against” confirmation of Judge Roberts to be the nation’s 17th chief justice.
Interesting. So what could have swayed Reid’s decision? I mean, some say he’s a pro-life Dem, although he denies this is the case. However, he’s the only Mormon in Congress who’s a Dem, and he did vote against support of Roe v. Wade in ‘94.
A balanced voice? Quite possibly, although the Roe v. Wade vote certainly makes me nervous.
The story has more about Reid’s decision…
Last Thursday, as Mr. Reid was weighing his decision, representatives of about 40 advocacy groups met with him in the Capitol; the reason, they said, was to underscore the threat they believe Judge Roberts poses to Democrats’ core causes, racial and gender equality. Hovering in the background was a political argument, that if Democrats vote in favor of Judge Roberts, they will be held liable by voters for the decisions he makes on the court.“He got the message loud and clear, didn’t he?” Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, said of Mr. Reid on Tuesday.
Indeed. He certainly got the message, whatever that may have been.
Listen, I think Reid is positioning himself as a tough Dem critic against the next nomination. I could be dead wrong, but it certainly follows.
More from MSNBC and the LA Times
This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 21st, 2005 and is filed under General Politics, Supreme Court. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 21st, 2005 at 3:15 am
If he were going to position himself as a Democratic knight in shining armor against the next nominee, who is almost certain to be more conservative in one way or another than Roberts, why wouldn’t he make hyis case here and now for being someone who could approve a moderate-conservative? As it is if he opposes this one, and the next one, he’ll come off looking to many like a mere obstructionist.
Which is typically vague as to whether the “threat” is that he will turn them back to the 19th century, or that he won’t be sufficiently activist in changing existing laws by rulings from the bench.
I’d say it’s a simple matter of the pressure groups getting to him. In a party so lost for real leadership, forward thinking, and popular support, that’s going to happen. Isn’t it amazing how Bush’s popularity sinks and sinks and yet the polls show if you re-ran the 2004 election today, he’d still beat Kerry?
September 21st, 2005 at 10:20 am
Agreed, but on the other hand this shows that a less moderate candidate will face intense scrutiny and condemnation, so imagine what a less moderate candidate will face…
I’m not saying I agree with this, but the logic does follows.
Yes. That is amazing…and sad.
September 21st, 2005 at 11:17 am
How is it sad? Kerry was a terrible candidate plain and simple. He came off to middle America as smug and condescending and that is nobodys fault but his and his handlers. The guy has all the pressence and charisma of the common fern. And try as they might Dems can’t get over the fact that people find them weak on defense. And with the steady fusilade of misinformation from the MSM driving support for the war in Iraq and subsequently the war on terror into the crapper, it is still on everyones mind in middle America.
The 15% or so at the far right and far left will never change, this is as consistant as gravity. But the remaining 70% have serious concerns for national safety…no getting around that and had Kerry had a plan rather than simply critisim he probably would have won. But just being against something gets you no where with the middle. Sure the rabid leftys love you when you slam the right day after day, but to connect with the middle you damn well better have a plan for something different. Thats also why I feel anything short of a comparable vote to Ginsberg’s 96-4 shows the middle that objective discourse is impossible and those refusing to be reasonable are simply playing partisan politics. I think it will cost them dearly in the midterms. If at minimum, red state Dems don’t vote to confirm, they could face serious challenges at the ballot box next year.
BTW…this site is great. S&L tends to be people all coming at issues from one side….here at least Justin offers me somebody to have discourse with and I thank you for that. Guess I shoulda been a lawyer…
VoR