My Final Comment on the Roberts Hearings (For Now)

I have posted around 150 updates on the hearings over the past four days, and this is the final one. As I type, the hearings are winding down, and the focus will shift away from the committee, where we should get a 10-8 vote with all eight Democrats opposed, and to the Senate at large, where the goal is to get 41 Senators to vote "no." That is a number that will make it clear we will not tolerate another stealth candidate who ducks and dodges endlessly. That is a number that will make it clear that we will not tolerate someone in the mold of Rehnquist, Thomas or Scalia in replacing O'Conner. The general right to privacy must be protected. The march of progress must not be reversed. The Congress must be allowed to engage in social investment.

Although everything I wrote during the hearings were my own views rather than those of any organization, I would like to give mad props to People for the American Way. They are fighting the good fight here, and you can continue to take part and stay updated on the fight against Roberts at Save The Court. There are, of course, many other good organizations you can work with on this, including The Alliance for Justice. A wide number of progressive groups have come out in opposition to Roberts, and whether you prefer to work with environmental, civil rights, women's rights, legal, labor, religious or other groups, you can find the campaign that is best for you. There really should be a website that lists all of the organizations that come come out in opposition to Roberts. This Google search, for Stop John Roberts, isn't a bad place to start looking for such groups.

For a complete summary of the witnesses who testified today, visit the Campaign for the Court blog at the Washington Post.

When it comes to the blogs, we did a good job with the Googlebomb, as the dkosopedia entry on John Roberts is now third in a Google search for his name, behind the wiki on John Roberts and the webpage for CBS reporter John Roberts. There was also a lot of good writing on Roberts on some progressive blogs, and I have tried to link to much of it here. Unfortunately, there were also a lot of blogs, including a lot of very highly trafficked progressive blogs, that paid little or no attention to the hearings. To them, I can simply say this: you suck. On the first Supreme Court nomination in the era of the blogs, you completely dropped the ball on the two most important roles blogger help play on a regular basis: helping to shape the national discourse any politics, and agitating the Democratic base into action. Dailykos, where Armando has done some very good work on Roberts, almost single-handedly drove national Katrina coverage. We could have made a real dent into Roberts as well. However, many still felt it wasn't worth their time to discuss, and thus the Republican Noise Machine went pretty much unchallenged on this one. Given that, it is hardly surprising that while Republicans have fallen into line behind Roberts, Democrats remain more divided and undecided than they have been on any issue since the run-up to, and early days of, the war in Iraq. What a joy it is to revisit those dark days where we failed to offer an alternative to conservatism, especially when, like in Iraq, this was one of our best opportunities to show America what progressivism really stands for. This might have been even better than Iraq, because it was a chance to lay out the general progressive philosophy before the nation, rather than just our opinion on a single issue or a set of issues. I just can't believe people decided to take a pass on an opportunity like that..

But enough self-righteous rants against some bloggers on my part. At the very least, I should have done more to try and organize a progressive judicial hearings blog ring as a counter to Confirm Them. Such a ring would be far better suited to deal with important events like these than eiehter myself or a series of disorganized bloggers could ever hope to be. That is an important project for the future.

Anyway, I am going to take a couple of days off and enjoy our nation's capitol for a while. I will be back to blogging on Sunday. Scott and others will continue their great work in the meantime. It looks like we may have suffered a blow here but, as always, we go on and our fight continues. Excelsior!



Display:


Learn from this (none / 0)

It ain't over yet, but:

The Joe Trippi conference call was a failure, IMO.

Only a select few bloggers even heard about it. If there is going to be a coalition, someone is going to have to do the research and find them all so they can be included in the conversation. There are likely thousands of blogs in the 'regional' universe.

by westsyde on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 06:17:38 PM EST

Thank you Chris (none / 0)

I have been following it daily and was upset that the Kos community's coverage was like a balloon losing it's air. I'm not a lawyer, just a progressive minister and have been hungry to understand what I was hearing and seeing with the help of you all who do know the difference between Lemon and Ginsberg--you get the idea. I've followed you, Scotusblog and the dwindling resources on Kos.

I am fatigued as well and somewhat disheartened. We have been given the manchurian stepford candidate and no one seemed able to break through the bubble. I fault the dems as much as Rove. If it hadn't been for Durbin and a couple of others, I'd be leading the throw the bums out movement myself.

Thanks again for paying attention. Some of us really do care.

by RevDeb on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 07:06:53 PM EST

Your did a great job, Chris (none / 0)

and you much deserve a couple days in DC on your own.  Thanks for great effort.
"Pay any price, bear any burden"
by JimPortlandOR on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 07:56:09 PM EST

Who is voting yes? (none / 0)

Among the Dems?
by KBowe on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 08:01:16 PM EST

Re: Who is voting yes? (3.00 / 1)

There are suggestions that the entire Gang of 14 will vote for Roberts, as will numerous Red State Democrats, especially those with tight elections. Bayh is probably extremely reluctant to vote against a fellow Hoosier, particularly with most of the media saying how well Roberts did in the hearings. Lieberman should also be comfortable with Roberts. That's 70+ votes, and it wouldn't surprise me if the total swells with Democratic Senators who conclude that they'd have more credibility for the next nominee if they aren't portrayed as reflexively opposed to any Republican.
by SLinVA on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 11:33:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bayh might vote for Roberts... (none / 0)

...If he wants to flush the slim hope that he can get nominated for president down the toilet once and for all.
by craverguy on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 11:46:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bayh might vote for Roberts... (none / 0)

I suspect Bayh figues he can redeem himself somewhat by voting against the next Bush nominee, assuming he feels the need to pander to the activists. Bayh's not going to be the 1st choice of many in the anti-Roberts faction no matter how he votes. Senators don't usually vote against a home-state nominee after introducing him at his committee hearing. Given how the hearings turned out, I doubt Bayh could come up with a reason for voting against Roberts that would play well in Indiana.
by SLinVA on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 12:03:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bayh might vote for Roberts... (none / 0)

"Given how the hearings turned out, I doubt Bayh could come up with a reason for voting against Roberts that would play well in Indiana."

I was under the impression that part of Bayh's appeal is that he walks on water in Indiana.

"assuming he feels the need to pander to the activists."

Considering that activists are the people most likely to vote in primaries, and considering that this would be the first thing he's done for us since he was elected, he might want to try it.

by craverguy on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 12:19:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Roberts (3.00 / 0)

Democrats should not vote against Roberts. He is the best nominee we can get from a conservative president. He is relatively moderate if he stays true to his word. I am judicial liberal, but honestly I would be ashamed if we got 41 votes against. Roberts is definitely the a gop version of Breyer or Ginsburg. I hope he gets 75+ votes. We should make a distinction when Bush nominates Priscilla Owen, then we filibuster her. She is a revolutionary and must be stopped. But if you cry wolf against Roberts no one will pay attention against Owen.
by optimist on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 08:42:33 PM EST

Roberts is not a moderate, (none / 0)

he's a politically savvy partisan Reep operative. He's demonstrated his loyalty to the corporatist Reep establishment, and this is his reward. I'm not sure what it is the Dems stand to gain by supporting him.
Yeah, I'm cynical.
by catastrophile on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 08:50:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Roberts (none / 0)

That is the whole key though.  No one knows if he will stay true to his word.  My guess is no.  
by yitbos96bb on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 01:31:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There Should be as Many No Votes as Possible (3.00 / 1)

It would send a clear message to the Bush administration, and it would rally the party and base.

Republicans will spin no matter what, whether the finally tally is 41 nays or 11 nays -- I can't belive people still don't get that.  Dems and Progressives have been on the defensive for so long, we've forgotten to play offense -- and an offense starts by rallying ones troops.

The fillibuster is off the table, so the only thing left is to send a strong message -- anything else will be further proof of Dem capitulation.

Please get it, understand it: Republicans will attack no matter what, and their allies will provide media support no matter what... it's about time we play offense.

Chris, thanks for a great job and thanks for your comments re: the progressive blogsphere largely ignoring the hearings... but it's not over... there's still time to rally the troops and Dean has raised the first banner:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/15/13952/8748

Vox Mia -- Adding My Voice to the Chorus
by bedobe on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 08:52:56 PM EST

i'm just depressed now (none / 0)

this whole thing has got me down.  he's going to get confirmed and most of the country has no idea what we're getting.

bye bye civil rights, hello corporate cronyism.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 08:56:06 PM EST

forgot to add (none / 0)

that you did a killer job chris.  i haven't commented on any of the threads thus far but i've been reading every one.  thanks for doing the heavy lifting.  now go try and get some rest, tomorrow is another day.
Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 09:03:08 PM EST

The Judiciary is apolitical (none / 0)

And therefore should be above partisanship.

To all of those who disagree with you, you say -
"To them, I can simply say this: you suck. "

To anyone who would politicize the supreme court,
the same sentiment could be forwarded.

by turnerbroadcasting on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 10:33:54 PM EST

Thank you! (none / 0)

You have done more than any of us has a right to ask.  I don't comment often, but I had to say I appreciate your work, I cherish your posts, I am demoralized, but I promise I won't give up the fight, and I will continue to badger and hound and bitch at my progressive friends who have crawled under the bed in depression.  This is a major battle, but the war is not lost.  Again, thank you!
Blogging for Alabama at LeftInAlabama
by Mooncat on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 11:21:27 PM EST

It's Over (none / 0)

I don't think greater organization on the left would have made much additional impact on Roberts' confirmation. While I don't claim to have made a scientific survey, my review of newspapers, TV & the blogosphere suggests Roberts was widely perceived as doing very well in the hearings. I think that is an objective analysis that wouldn't have been overcome by more adroit or voluminous spin. The only places that seem to be panning Roberts' performance are those that also did so before the hearings.

There's a pretty lengthy list of potential nominees that have been rumored to be on "The List" for this vacancy or the other one. Most of those people have been previously confirmed by the Senate by wide margins. It appears that those opposing Roberts would be opposed to any of those mentioned as likely nominees. I don't think that's a politically viable position, so I'd urge folks to back off on Roberts & other nominees like him.

by SLinVA on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 11:48:17 PM EST

it is hard to explain to the publiic (none / 0)

how the personal agenda of judges affect decisions.  I see it every day, but most people don't.

In that context, where there are no concrete "future decisions" that can be identified, and no specific past transgressions to point to, it is just too nebulous to the public.  Plus, the Republicans won the elections; they have the votes.

Longterm, we need to make nominations less personal, and more political.  In recent years, the assumption has been that personal failings are the reason judges should be disqualified, and that it is somewhat undigified to look at their political views.  This is exactly opposite of what we should think and say, in my view.

We should not oppose nominees on the grounds that they are bad persons.  Many people that I disagree with strongly about politics are good people.  The point is that judges hold public positions for life; we need to examine how they will exercise their POWER.  Judges have POWER.  So their views about the proper use of power in society is important.

But anyway, Roberts will not be  a wise vote.  That's bad.  But there are other things to worry about.  Time to do so.

by jwp26 on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 12:33:31 AM EST

Get over yourself... (1.50 / 2)

weren't you the one rating and raving that the filibuster debacle was a "Victory".

Why do you guys think that people are so stupid to swallow this hogwash that there was actually a hope in hell that we could change the predetermined actions of the Democratic leadership complicity to the GOP.

I am still waiting for Harry Reid's game plan...

What you are seeing is not apathy... but a highly intelligent blogosphere unwilling to give the pathetic Democratic leadership "COVER" for their "pretense" on these hearings... we see them for who they really are... compliant cohorts of the GOP.

...so you can take your faux outrage... and place it where it belonged... months ago when Harry Reid allowed LIEberman and his embedded GOP buddies to tie the hands of Democracy.

Performing "on cue" is ridiculous... particulary when these entire hearings have been a farce.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 07:04:53 AM EST

Re: Get over yourself... (none / 0)

GET LOST
by aiko on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 10:23:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly right Parker (none / 0)

many of us said what we needed to say in the leadup to the hearings, while Reid and Lieberman and other Dems were happily burbling before the cameras about how wonderful Roberts was. I'm certainly not going to participate in a leftist version of the Republican Noise Machine to give political cover to a bunch of centrist hacks who are selling us all out.
by Madman in the Marketplace on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 11:18:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I received this web address today (none / 0)

It has a form that will send action letters to your senators and representatives as well as to your local newspapers .... however, it has a glitch (or at least my computer has a problem.)

http://www.nocrony.com/

Dare to be free.
by misscee on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 09:18:52 AM EST

Agree to disagree and thanks (none / 0)

I followed the hearings closely and frankly I got more info on CNN et al then the blogs.  Except for you and Armando for the most part my favorite list of blogs - progressive and one or two moderate - were silent.

Thanks Chris for recognizing the historical, political, and judicial importance of this event.  I was happy to have a place to blog.

Nevertheless I don't think we should oppose for the sake of opposition.  I don't think he is an ideologue and I don't think he is the devil incarnate.

Save the fight for the a realy bad guy/gal.  It just looks bad, like pandering to special interests--or else you really have to believe that he was lying in his testimony--and I don't think he is that kid of guy.  So oppose on principle??  Naa, yea he is conservative but we lost-they won -they get a conservative just not a radical fundamentalist.

by aiko on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 10:22:36 AM EST

Re: Agree to disagree and thanks (1.50 / 2)

Well it is a good thing that Chris and Armando are here protecting all of those single issue females...

Chris and Armando were blogging ONLY to give Reid and other Dems cover for their forthcoming selling out of the Democratic base. The outcome of this was decided when Reid "allowed" LIEberman to stage a bloodless coup of the Democratic Party. To which Chris and Kos heartily applauded.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 10:46:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Agree to disagree and thanks (none / 0)

why don't you take your business someplace else then.  we will get along fine.
by aiko on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 02:18:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.