http://mydd.com/story/2005/9/22/123419/148

I gotta give it you them liberal interest groups, had they been around during Jesus' ministry..we' never have needed Judas !!

While I'm sure me and Judge Roberts agree on absolutedly nothing judicially speaking I would vote to confirm him. He is adequately qualified, seems to have an in-depth excellent understanding of the law and the Constitution, he doesn't seem to be a dogmatic ideologue and could perhaps be a pragmatic reassuring Chief Justice.

We may not like it but George W. Bush is the President and he should have reasonable wiggle room in his appointments. I, in no way, shape, or form, view the Senate as a rubber stamp for the President, but I see no coherent reason to vote no on Judge Roberts.

I admire Senator Feingold for his independence and this is no exception. Knowing he may anger liberals and hurt himself politically, he still went with his gut instinct, when the cards were down he chose to stick to priniciple unlike people like John Kerry (who voted for Scalia) and Joe Biden.

Thanks Russ.

i dig feingold for not playing that game.

The 08 contenders seem to be voting based on who they need to shore up support with.

Biden has never been popular with the progressive wing, so he needs the support if he intends to have a chance in the primaries.

Conversely, Feingold has credibility with the base and can use this vote to burnish his centrist/moderate credentials.

Kerry knows that his (hard) road to another nomination would go through us and he can't afford to disappoint us again.

Bayh is a smart guy and knows that if he's going to have any traction in the primary at all, he's going to have to cozy up to the roots. He's been moving in that direction.

So, for whatever reasons, we've actually been able to rely more on people we don't see as allies - Biden - than we have on solid progressives - Feingold.

The real question here is: what will Hillary do? It's a tough call for her, I imagine.

The dems needed to use this opportunity to paint a contrast. Roughly half of the country view the dems through some type of "obstructionist" lens. You and I know that's not how things really are, but we need to make a case for that other half of the country. Had the dems played nice beyond belief they could have set themselves up for an extremely appealing position, regardless of who Bush appoints for O'Conner's seat. For Roberts the public would have had the perception of the democratic party willing to work to no ends to get this man on the bench at any cost. Then, for Bush's next nomination we could have declared outright war. We would have been in a position to fillibuster until 2006 (which of course is completely infeasible, but you get the point). And if the Republicans would have invoked the Nuclear Option they would have been viewed as sore losers by a large portion of their base.

We'll see how things go with the course we've charted.

When my party retakes the White House, there may very well be a Democratic John Roberts nominated to the Court, a man or woman with outstanding qualifications, highly respected by virtually everyone in the legal community, and perhaps with a paper trail of political experience or service on the progressive side of the ideological spectrum.

If Feingold submitted such a nominee to the Senate, I'm sure that the Republicans would be as willing to vote for them as you were to vote for Roberts.  Right?

And why does it even matter? Roberts isn't a criminal, he's not an extremist, and he's not a blithering idiot. Can you give me one good reason why Feingold, who voted for Rice and Ashcroft and Whitman and Snow and all of Bush's other appointees, shouldn't vote for Roberts?

And how does this one vote erase his entire history? His votes against NAFTA, against the war, and against the PATRIOT Act? His support for labor, women's rights, gay rights, campaign finance reform, and welfare? His budget-cutting and his defense of the Bill of Rights? Does one meaningless vote make it all go away?

After all that Russ Feingold has done for this country, you would just toss him because he voted to confirm a man when there is no real evidence that he should not be and when, in fact, he would be confirmed anyway? After everything he's done for us, you'd disown him over a vote that doesn't matter?

If so, then shame on you.

Reason?  Pragmatism?  Call it what it is:  a load of crap.

To quote this site's staunchest opponent of Roberts:

You would think that after the war vote democrats would have learned something, but apparently not. Perhaps I am expecting too much, but it seems obvious to me that it is impossible to be complicit with governing Republicans when something passes into law, and then try to gain political traction by "opposing" that something later on. If Democrats are unhappy with, but vote for, a stealth nominee with a miniscule record of actual rulings, who refused to answer any questions during his hearings, and who claims that everything he wrote and did in the past reflected the views of his clients and bosses rather than his own views, then how are they ever going to oppose these characteristics in any nominee in the future?

The irony is too much to bear:  we have just seen one of the only credible anti-war progressives capitulate to the Republican agenda.  

I had hoped that his courageous vote on the Iraq War would influence other Democrats to take strong stands against the administration; unfortunately, it seems that the influence went in the other direction.

Compromise is fine when both parties are willing to give ground.

But it's time for the Democrats to stand for something.  I mean, Jesus -- Bush is at 40% approval, and this is the kind of unified opposition we mount?!