Decision ‘08

The Wall of Hacks

Akaka, Daniel Kahikina D HI
Bayh, Evan D IN
Biden, Joseph R. D DE
Boxer, Barbara D CA
Cantwell, Maria D WA
Clinton, Hillary Rodham D NY
Corzine, Jon S. D NJ
Dayton, Mark D MN
Durbin, Dick D IL
Feinstein, Dianne D CA
Harkin, Tom D IA
Inouye, Daniel K. D HI
Kennedy, Edward M. D MA
Kerry, John D MA
Lautenberg, Frank R. D NJ
Mikulski, Barbara D MD
Obama, Barrack D IL
Reed, Jack D RI
Reid, Harry D NV
Sarbanes, Paul S. D MD
Schumer, Charles E. D NY
Stabenow, Debbie D MI

The above 22 Democrats voted against John Roberts. Let us remember when they come to us later under the guise of moderation.

26 Responses to “The Wall of Hacks”

1 Ryan Bonneville Says:
September 29th, 2005 at 11:37 am
I’m actually tempted to excuse Obama, whose remarks (like everything else he says) were remarkably well-considered. To hell with the rest of them though.
2 Jim Voigt Says:
September 29th, 2005 at 12:54 pm
How about this… let us remember this when the Dems are in the White House and nominate a judicial Al Franken-equivalent for Chief Justice and expect everyone to vote “purely based on qualifications” and act all horrified when we ask questions about ideology.

I am ashamed to be from Illinois.
3 Chris J. Breisch Says:
September 29th, 2005 at 1:11 pm
Evan Bayh is my senator. I wrote him the following letter:

RE: John Roberts.

I don’t care that you decided not to vote for him. What I’m upset about is the pathetic excuse you used to not vote for him.

Your words about John Roberts:

“We simply do not know enough about his views on critical issues to make a considered judgment.”

This is a sad statement. Views on critical issues has NEVER been a valid criteria for selecting a Supreme Court Justice. If it had been, Ruth Bader Ginsberg would never have been confirmed. If you’re ever President and get to nominate a Justice, I know you’ll be hoping your Republican colleagues don’t use such a criteria for your nominee as well.

What is valid? Experience. Knowledge of the Court and its role. Knowledge of the role of the Chief Justice. Understanding of the Constitution. Ability to form and to understand and respond to an argument.

Now, it’s conceivable to ask a prospective Justice about his opinions on various decisions and court cases and his writings to help you gather an opinion on the above items. However, it must also be accepted that the nominee does not have to and should not be expected to discuss specific details about any case, either pending or already decided. Such a discussion would hamper his/her ability to be an effective Justice in the future. I believe that has been the stated opinion of Edward Kennedy in the past.

So, if you’re not satisfied with Roberts’ experience, for example, or how he views the role of the Court, it would be reasonable to vote against his confirmation. But saying that you “simply do not know enough about his views on critical issues to make a considered judgment” is a pathetic attempt to pander to the extremists in the Democratic party and has caused me to lose all respect for you. I have voted for you in the past, but no longer. Never again will I waste a vote for someone who puts politics above the Constitution of the United States.

This is a sad day for the U.S. Senate and for yourself.
4 AcademicElephant Says:
September 29th, 2005 at 1:46 pm
Look, if they insist, let’s just keep handing them rope.
5 peter Says:
September 29th, 2005 at 2:03 pm
Now, now: don’t you think there is a hint of over-reaction here? I think Roberts will be an excellent jurist –if I were a Senator, he would have my vote — however:

1) He spent very little time on the bench – he is being promoted to Chief Justice – you could make the case that his experience is not commensurate with the position.
2) He said very little of substance in his confirmation hearings. I understand the reasons for this: the goal is to be nominated, not to give ammunition to potential opponents or to box yourself in once you have the job. However, a yes vote indicates acceptance of a blank slate – I don’t think that it is an a priori case that he deserves nomination based solely on his resume (which, of course, is stellar). If you have specific concerns (e.g., Roe v. Wade) and he doesn’t address them, then I don’t think that you are duty-bound to vote yes regardless. Hey, this could backfire: he could be the next Earl Warren.
3) I don’t really have a problem with kowtowing to your base when the vote is inconsequential because the outcome is a foregone conclusion. If the Democrats nominated a candidate with a presumably liberal record who pulls a Marcel Marceau act in the confirmation hearings, I would expect to get some no votes.

Hey, I like the guy and think he will be a great jurist – but I don’t think that a no vote is an automatic ticket to a Hall of Shame.
6 louielouie Says:
September 29th, 2005 at 2:17 pm
just watched the ceremony at the W/H.
short sweet.
he comes across as rehnquist(sp)II.
does not take himself serious, as indicated by his remarks to his sons behaviour, and goes on to discuss the constitution in a constructionist manner, quoting mark twain’s reference as the miracle that IT is.
i say he should keep the gold braids.
7 Mark Says:
September 29th, 2005 at 2:22 pm
No, no, not a Hall of Shame - a Wall of Hacks!…
8 peter Says:
September 29th, 2005 at 3:13 pm
a distinction without a difference?
9 louielouie Says:
September 29th, 2005 at 3:19 pm
2) He said very little of substance in his confirmation hearings.

peter,
you clearly have mistaken the questions asked, with the reponses.
the agenda driven speechifying, er ah, yammering chowderheads excercising the advise and consent clause were not what our founding fathers had in mind.
10 Mark Says:
September 29th, 2005 at 3:53 pm
Well, you can be a hack without shame…in all seriousness, yes, there might be a vote or two against such an eminently qualified pick out of principle…but 22? It’s beyond belief…and how curious that so many of these 22 harbor 2008 Presidential hopes!…
11 bebere Says:
September 29th, 2005 at 4:03 pm
One would argue that one of the two senators from my fair state doesn’t harbor 2008 presidential hopes. The other, well, I guess he’s just not learned his lesson yet.
12 Jim Voigt Says:
September 29th, 2005 at 5:12 pm
“you could make the case that his experience is not commensurate with the position.”

Of course, of all the people that voted against him, not a single one cited this as a reason for the no vote. I think serving as a clerk under a Chief Justice and having argued in front of that court repeatedly is a fine substitution, if not a preferred one.

“…his resume (which, of course, is stellar)…”

But not stellar enough, apparently, to make your aforequoted comment unnecessary.

The issue is not that these people voted no. The issue is that they voted against a judicial candidate because his political ideology was not aligned with their own. That is an improper basis.

I would argue that, yes, it is most certainly an a priori case that a stellar resume is enough. It is the reason I supported Justice Ginsberg’s nomination while simultaneously gagging on her ideology.

I would also argue that it is always wrong to kowtow to your base against what you believe to be right no matter what the circumstances. I would further argue that no vote is inconsequential. It is that attitude that motivates so few to go to the polls during elections. I am sure that John Kerry had wished he had participated in a few more “inconsequential” votes when his absentee record was used against him during the election. Americans like to see politicians take every last vote on every last issue as seriously as the vote they cast for the candidate when they elected him or her.
13 Clint Says:
September 29th, 2005 at 5:42 pm
Peter-

“you could make the case that his experience is not commensurate with the position.”

You could indeed. Any Senator who voted against him on this basis, saying he’d make an excellent Associate Justice, but lacked the experience to be Chief, would not belong on the List of Hacks. Did any of them actually do that?
14 Clint Says:
September 29th, 2005 at 5:48 pm
Mark-

Re: Presidential Hopes…

That’s why I was fascinated to see Feingold voting to confirm. It stands out, and it’s exactly the opposite of what the other “hopefuls” did. It’ll be very interesting to see how he’ll respond, next week, to the new nominee.
15 peter Says:
September 29th, 2005 at 6:05 pm
To louielouie: I agree. It is hardly shocking that there is plenty of grand-standing in the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body, and “self-serving” is equivalent to “politician.” This is endemic to both houses of Congress: the Republican congressmen grilling Micheal Brown the other day were also playing to the crowd. Hey, Alan Greenspan has to listen to lots of pontification every time he testifies – and he is about as close to saintly as you get in Washington. That’s the way it is, and it’s the way it’s always been. However, that’s not the issue – rather, the question is whether a Senator is obligated to vote for a candidate who evades answering the questions (even when the questioners get inebriated by their own verbosity). I would argue no.

To Jim:

1) Honestly I don’t know how the Senators who voted no explained their vote – so I’ll concede the first point. Also, I agree that Roberts’s background is sufficient for a yes vote – but I would respect a no vote along the lines of “maybe I would vote yes for an Associate Justice position, but not for Chief Justice.”
2) It depends how you define “political ideology.” I would substitute the word “philosophy.” I think the difference is important because the first phrase implies partisanship and the second implies Roberts’s views on things like the commerce clause, the imputed right to privacy, rights of Guantanamo prisoners, etc. I think it’s reasonable to ask, for example, how Roberts feels about the recent court ruling where a Connecticut city seized private property using eminent domain. (I don’t know if this actually came up in the hearings – but it’s a good example). If Roberts evades the question, I would consider it to be a doubt-creator. If a Senator votes no because Roberts feels differently about the Social Security issue (i.e., “political ideology”), then he belongs in the Hall of Shame. If a Senator votes no because of doubts that Roberts is in the broad mainstream – or if the Senator doesn’t know whether or not he is because of evasive answers – then I think that is a justifiable vote.
3) If you supported Ginsburg because of her background and not her ideology: fine. That is certainly consistent with opposing the Democrats who did the opposite. However, I would ask how you might vote if, for example, Alan Dershowitz were nominated. Stellar background – but his ideology may be repugnant to you. Or Lawrence Tribe, David Boies, or a reincarnated William O. Douglas. If you would still vote yes, then you are admirably consistent and have every right to denounce the Democrats for their votes.
4) Well, yes, in a perfect world it is wrong to kowtow to your base, but, as they say, politics ain’t beanbag. Imagine yourself facing a tough re-election campaign next year, combined with the certainty of a primary challenge if you vote yes. You know that Roberts will be nominated regardless of your vote. Do you vote yes on principle and risk your job? If the answer is yes, then you belong in the pantheon of saints. However (Alan Greenspan aside) politics and saintliness are, regrettably, mutually exclusive.
16 peter Says:
September 29th, 2005 at 6:06 pm
To Clint: honestly I don’t know the answer — and, since I’m at the office, regrettably I don’t have the time now to investigate –
17 Jim Voigt Says:
September 29th, 2005 at 6:21 pm
Pete, eminent domain is a perfect example, as you noted. Emminent domain, local rule quick-take in particular, is a matter that will almost certainly be heard in the Supreme Court within Robert’s term. There are several district and appellate level cases that have the makings of being granted cert. As such, it would be entirely inappropriate for Roberts to comment on such an issue, as he would be laying down the functional equivalent of stare decisis without ever having heard the cases.

I believe where you and I differ is in the belief that Senators are entitled to a “preview” of how a judicial candidate will vote on any particular issue, no matter how vaguely framed that issue is in an attempt to avoid implicating a particular case. I say they are not. Perhaps we will simply agree to disagree on that point.
18 Mark Says:
September 29th, 2005 at 6:27 pm
Clint, good point on Feingold…and peter, I’ll say this much, you lay your case out well…though I’m afraid the commenters around here, both left and right, have a bucketload more integrity than the members of that exclusive club of 100…
19 peter Says:
September 29th, 2005 at 7:17 pm
Jim: you are indeed correct – here we will have to agree to disagree. I think it’s valid to ask how a candidate feels about, for example, the eminent domain case (which, in my opinion, is one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever, along with Dred Scott, Bush v. Gore, and Roe v. Wade. I support abortion rights, but I think Roe v. Wade is horrible case law.) However, there is a lot to be said for not confining a Supreme Court judge to specific agenda or boxing him in.

Mark: totally agreed. I believe that the level of statesmanship in this Congress, on both sides, is as low as I have ever seen it.

As an aside, I would note that one of the great things about this website is that it allows me to post. A few days ago I went to another site (redstate.org) and started debating the moderator of one of the posts. I was civil and obeyed all of the posting rules. I thought I was close to proving him wrong – he was on the mat – and then I was banned from the site and could post no more. I thought: whenever you have someone who can make a reasoned argument from the left, they turn off the microphone. It was as though they wanted to pick weak opponents so they could feel vindicated in their arguments. There were a lot of chest-thumpers on that site, but also some intelligent posters. It was like Hannity-Colmes: match a bullying conservative with a wimpy liberal, and you get predictable results. If you are going to fight, at least fight fair.
20 Knemon Says:
September 29th, 2005 at 7:24 pm
78 votes is actually pretty damn good. Yes yes I know, outrage, hacks, and all that, but Roberts is probably positioned about halfway between lukewarm dead-center (sorta like Thomas Friedman in foreign policy, though I have no idea who his legal equivalent would be) and wignuttery - so by an equal and opposite reaction, the nay votes would begin about halway through (or down, depending on how you look at it) the Dem. caucus. Which is what happened.

I’d draw a little diagram with X’s and -’s but those never come out right in comment boxes.
21 Mark Says:
September 29th, 2005 at 8:13 pm
I’m not sure why people feel the need to attempt to dampen dissent on their web pages, peter; it’s never made sense to me. I have had a few posters here, but only a very few, who have felt the need to engage in ad hominem attacks on me and others, but I never banned them, I just ignored, or, yes, in some cases ridiculed them, though I don’t think unfairly, until they went away or back to silent trolling. However, my intelligent comments from the Left from folks like you or our good friend Fargus seem to make this site much more lively, and I’m sure my regulars would agree.

After all, how enlightening is it to just have me put up a post and then everyone say, Hell, yeah! Damn straight! (and I think we all visit sites that, even when quite good, are full of this sort of sycophantic cocooning). God knows many, many times the discussion in the comments is far better than the content on the front page (when you post as often as I do, you’re going to put up your fair share of clinkers, and I’m okay with that).

I will ban people for two reasons only - obscenity (hey, I’ve got family members who read this blog!) that goes overboard, and personal attacks on others (not on me - if I can’t stand attacks, I shouldn’t be blogging about politics, for heaven’s sake) that get too nasty (I had one person a while back who insisted on taking personal shots at Professor Bainbridge, not for his opinions, but for being Catholic).

All of which is to go the long way round to saying you’re always welcome here…
22 peter Says:
September 29th, 2005 at 8:24 pm
Thanks Mark — always glad to be here –

It’s interesting that you mention Bainbridge — that’s the other conservative site I go to, where I post under the name one eyed man (as in “In the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is King”) –
23 Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Why 78 Votes Isn’t Good Enough Says:
September 30th, 2005 at 7:08 am
[…] Some regulars from both the right and the left have gently chided me for putting up a Wall of Hacks and calling the no votes of 22 Democrats against John Roberts an act of craven pandering. Perhaps we simply disagree, or maybe I didn’t make my point well enough, but the fact is, regardless of how he performs on the court, as a nominee John Roberts is a once-in-a-lifetime home run. To vote against him, I maintain, is to say I will vote against anyone who is nominated by a Republican, and that shows a real ignorance of the consequences of presidential elections. […]
24 Jim Voigt Says:
September 30th, 2005 at 7:33 am
Pete,

If you think Bush v Gore was a bad decision, you should be BANISHED from ever posting here again!!!!

Just kidding. Good dialogue. I may post on the eminent domain subject on my blog one of these days. Perhaps we could spar there for a while.
25 peter Says:
September 30th, 2005 at 8:12 am
Thanks Jim, I would be happy to –
26 peter Says:
September 30th, 2005 at 12:55 pm
Jim: went to the site — looks like we won’t do much sparring, I couldn’t find anything there to disagree with — thanks –