Yet despite the fact that Roberts has shown no signs of "extremism", nor do the democrats have enough votes to stop the confirmation--barring the use of the filibuster--a certain democratic senator is going to vote against Mr. Roberts. As a side note, this puts the number of opposing votes at half of the number Ruth Bader-Ginsberg got.
The Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said Tuesday that he would oppose the confirmation of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice, surprising both the White House and fellow Democrats still conflicted about how to vote.
In becoming the first Democrat to declare formally how he intended to vote, Mr. Reid may have made it more difficult for fellow Democrats to support Judge Roberts. Many Senate observers expected Mr. Reid, who comes from a Republican-leaning state and is opposed to abortion, to support Judge Roberts.
To be honest, this just surprises me. The democrats have to know that they got lucky on Roberts. Bush could have appointed a Scalia clone, but he didn't. Further, if the Dems play hardball now, not only will this play out poorly in the press--just a hunch--but Bush can pick a Scalia clone next time around for O'Connor's seat.And O'Connor's seat is what really matters. Put a conservative in the place of Rehnquist and nothing changes. Place a conservative in O'Connor's chair and the court becomes more right-leaning.
A lot could still happen, and the story will play itself out. There is a lesson in all of this, as always. Bush appointed a moderate to placate the more moderate members of his party as well as the democrats. As Bush is not a student of history, this is no surprise. Still, he should note that this time, as in times past, it did not work.
As Joseph Gannon once observed, "It's a damned good thing to remember in politics to stick to your party and never attempt to buy favor of your enemies at the expense of your friends."
Bush has sold his party out again and again. Will the Republicans finally get it?
If the conservatives in this country possess a lick of good sense, they will make "Won't Get Fooled Again" the party song in '08 and try to stage a real revolution where Reagan left off.
I am getting tired of saying it.
4 comments:
Of course Roberts is cake walking in and Reid and Feinstien and a few others have a perfect right to voice opposition. To describe this guy as moderate is to show just how far to the right the whole spectrum has shifted. Reid is firing a few warning shots over the bow of the next nominee. And now Bush is not conservative enough for you Eric? He and Mussolini will play golf together in Hell.Steel, Roberts is incredibly conservative, judicial temperment notwithstanding.Suppose we had a democrat controlled Senate, House and Executive branch, you think the Righteous Right wouldnt go nuts over a pick as far to the left as Roberts is to the right?
The fact that you agree with me distrubs me a bit magnolia. I would of course go with a Scalia/Thomas type. Alas, that will not happen so we'll just have to let state's rights and property rights slide. Unfortunate.
Troutsky, time will tell how moderate Roberts actually is. You view the government shifted to the right, I would say it's to the left. Again, perhaps history will tell who is right.
As for the religious right. They complain loudly, but seldom mobilize to get anything done. Did they moan when Ginsberg got the nod from Clinton? I am too young to know.
We can agree that Bush tends toward totalitarianism. That much is certain, so maybe he will burn in Hell with Mussolini--though I think that's God's call. I still can't figure out how people peg the man--Bush--as a conservative. He increases the size of government at every turn. Coolidge was a conservative, Bush is not.
I suppose Bush is a "social conservative" and a fiscal idiot.I think it a myth that conservatives have ever stood for "sound" spending policy, if you understand that to mean investment in physical and social infrastructure.They have just been the ones against taxing the rich and in favor of exploiting the poor and the working class but where that might result in a balanced budget, it also results in a fractured society.
Not so fast good sir. All fiscal conservatism means is you spend as much or less money than you have. In this regard, Clinton was more fiscally conservative than Mr. Bush, hence my disdain for the latter.
Post a Comment