I just think that it's extremely shortsighted and just more of the same. If anything, one would think that Dems would be searching for a new direction on how to play politics; but, alas, their imagination seems to have run dry.
The role of the Senate isn't entirely clear on the issue. Some interpret the "advice and consent" clause to mean simply the voting. Others take it to mean the Senate gets to choose judges FOR the executive. Most likely it lies somewhere in between.
The problem I have with blocking judges on ideology alone is that it legitimizes what the Republicans did in the '90s with Clinton's nominees. Remember that they simply didn't vote on dozens of those nominees. Like we more-progressive folks say about terrorism, you can't win by adopting their tactics. I think the same is true for the battle over the courts. To win a truly moral victory, you can't stoop to the Republican level. If you do, you may win the battle, but you lose the moral ground you stand on.
No one is getting blocked by simply voting no.
I have two comments to this. First, if the President is going to use ideology as a criteria, then Senators should be able to use the same criteria. I agree that the President should get some deference when he/she choses a nominee. But if the President is going to have ideological litmus tests, then there is nothing improper about Senators having them. Second, I understand, and even appreciate, your position that Democrats should remain on a higher plane then Rs. For the most part, I disagree. I think you have to play on the field as it exists. To act too virtuously is to fight with one hand behind your back. And doing so also has the disadvantage of encouraging Rs to think they can do more and more bad stuff as they never face the Dems adopting their tactics. I am not saying I think the Dems should copy all immoral things Rs do. For example, I would leave the racist appeals to them. But on political tactics, I would fight fire with fire.
Im not saying that you are "wrong." But I do disagree.
The President gets to pick his nominees. The President stated he wanted a Justice that will respect his position and not write law. I have not heard one Senator disagree with this notion. Use what ever litmus test you want, but the only way to win this argument (without throwing out democracy) is to win at the ballot box.
You don't have to be a neocon to think Robert's is a fine pick. Anyone with that much respect for the law is not going to wildly change it to fit his personal agenda.
I respect your energy; I just think it is misplaced.
In your first paragraph your point seems to be that the voting behavior of a president's nominee tends to be unpredictable in that the judicial opinions of conservative presidents have, at times, been different then what one would expect.
I would agree to this to a certain extent. Two of the most liberal members of the Warren Court were picked by Eisenhower, who said that his pick of Earl Warrent to be Chief Justice was "the damdest fool thing I ever did" or something to that effect.
Yet, as I mentioned before, Roberts was deliberately silent on where he stood on the most basic principles of constitutional law. The most important example for me is, as you might expect, is his view of the Commerce Clause. My opinion is that this issue is so important that a nominee should not be deemed acceptable unless he or she states a position for the record. Some things are too important to left up to chance.
In the second paragraph you seem to say that essentially the nomination is the President's to make and the only recourse is to defeat the President, or his/her successor, at the ballot box. By this you seem to imply that a senator should never vote no, at least on the basis of the potential justice's ideology. I just disagree. I think some views are "beyond the pale."
In the final paragraph you refer to Roberts' respect for the law as a reason for voting for him. What is your basis for believing that he has this type of respect? Because Roberts says he does? Honestly, I would agree with your position on Roberts if he had some paper trail, or some verifiable evidence showing that he is a "Harlan" type conservative, referring to the Justice Harlan that served in the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s, that dissented from many of the Warren Court's decisions but was considered by all sides to be a very fair minded and pricipled conservative. However, there is nothing in the record to show that Roberts would be this type of justice. Certainly, many conservative Republicans in the Senate and many of their allied conservative groups are supporting him because they view him more of a Scalia or Thomas type conservative.
He should be opposed.
It's not only the "beltway politicians" who are members of the party of nothing. It seems Democrats/Progressives are interested in tearing down and criticizing, but fail to promote a coherent alternative. So I ask you this; Who would have been acceptable for Bush to nominate?
Now, you may say that Roberts "said" all the right things that would demonstrate that he has the principles I am looking for. But, he doesnt have any record at all to back it up. And just "saying" these things under oath is meaningless. The things I mentioned are the judicial equivalent of supporting apple pie and motherhood. Everyone says they are for them (what nominee is going to come out against having respect for the judiciary).
On the other hand, contrary to your assertion, if he would have said what he thought about the Commerce Clause or the right to privacy, I would have believed that because once having said it his position would have been "locked in."
One of the key things he said over and over was that there IS a right to privacy in the Constitution. That's something Rehnquist didn't believe, if I'm not mistaken.
If you are interested in Roberts View of the commerce clause he wrote a dissent from the federal bench in the RANCHO VIEJO v NORTON GALE case. He also spoke directly to it during the hearings several times.
From the answers Roberts gave at the hearings and his written dissent in RANCHO VIEJO v NORTON GALE it would seem to me that Roberts has decided to stay with the most recent years of president on the Interstate Commerce Clause. Roberts seems to want to keep the power at the Federal level with congress where Rehnquist was working to move the power to the states as with the US v. Lopez case. Being a limited power type of guy it goes against my nature to agree with the position, but that has been how the courts have treated this issue for the last 40 years.
What exactly is your concern with the Interstate Commerce Clause and Roberts?
Taking over the Senate would do the trick as well. I did not find anything Roberts has said to be beyond the pale. By overstating this with a very bland pick like Roberts you take the meat out of your argument for the next justice to be confirmed.
I watched the hearings. This guy sat in front of the committee and not once did he refer to any notes or get help from an aid. He has a huge command of US law. He could rattle off court cases like no one I have ever heard. To my understanding he has paper trail.
I haven't heard him characterized as a Scalia or Thomas type, but I could be wrong. He seems like a very straight shooter. This is how it will go: safe senators will vote no and senators in unsure states will vote yes.
