Decision ‘08

Why 78 Votes Isn’t Good Enough

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.

The L.A. Times is hardly a Republican house organ, but even its liberal editorial page has this to say:

THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT 22 Democratic senators voted to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as the 17th chief justice of the United States. That’s more than anyone would have imagined just a few months ago, when the talk in Washington was all about filibusters and nuclear options [Coalition of the Chillin’, anyone?]. The bad news is that 22 Democratic senators voted against Roberts. That’s far more than the handful of Republicans who voted against Bill Clinton’s two Supreme Court appointees, Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. [Hey, I did that good news/bad news routine last night!]

Washington’s recent polarization suggests things could have been worse. But it is still alarming that 22 Democrats voted against a nominee of Roberts’ caliber. Last November, the American people granted President Bush the power to appoint Supreme Court justices, and in his first opportunity to exercise this power he has acted responsibly, choosing a mainstream conservative with unimpeachable credentials. Half the Democrats in the Senate — including such independent-minded liberals as Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont and Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, both members of the Judiciary Committee — did the right thing by supporting the president’s choice.

But too many Democrats beholden to liberal interest groups embarrassed themselves and the party by opposing Roberts. These groups wield disproportionate power in mobilizing activists and raising campaign funds, but they do not speak for the majority of Americans or even most Democrats.

Worse, in terms of the broader national interest, by appearing so obstructionist, these senators have undermined their credibility to oppose future judicial picks who may actually be outside the mainstream.

It was almost comical watching the likes of Harry Reid, the ostensibly centrist Senate minority leader from Nevada, and Charles E. Schumer of New York struggle to justify their opposition to Roberts, all the while conceding he may turn out to be a terrific justice. Closer to home, it was disappointing to see Dianne Feinstein, California’s centrist senator, on the wrong side of the issue, opposing Roberts’ confirmation.

Except for Feingold, most Democratic senators harboring presidential aspirations also voted against Roberts. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Joseph R. Biden, John Kerry and Evan Bayh all felt compelled to please organizations that have a vested interest in turning each one of these confirmation battles into Armageddon. At what cost to their future credibility with centrist voters remains to be seen.

That just about sums it up…

17 Responses to “Why 78 Votes Isn’t Good Enough”

1 Jim Voigt Says:
September 30th, 2005 at 10:22 am
“These groups wield disproportionate power in mobilizing activists and raising campaign funds, but they do not speak for the majority of Americans or even most Democrats.”

I’m not trying to beat up on Pete here, honest. But this highly accurate statement from the LA Times would indicate that the persmissive attitude he has toward kowtowing to your constituency is actually just plain old pandering to the special interest groups that filled your war chest. There is not a chred of ethical justification for such behavior, no matter how you spin it. And a vote on the basis of keeping a special interest group happy even where that group does not accurately represent the sentiment of your constituency is anything but inconsequential.
2 Jeff Says:
September 30th, 2005 at 11:49 am
And don’t forget “rising star” Barrack Obama: another nay vote.
3 utron Says:
September 30th, 2005 at 12:09 pm
That neat half-n’-half split in the Democratic ranks looks suspiciously tidy to me. My own read is that this sets the Dems up nicely:The senators who rejected Roberts on partisan grounds built up credit with the party’s base, while those who approved Roberts can cast their rejection of the next candidate as a matter of “principle.” Tactics, and votes, like this are one reason that I respectfully dissent from the Coalition of the Chillin’: Ever since Bork, the Democrats have abused the confirmation process so outrageously that they deserve some punitive retribution, to teach them that extremist tactics carry a heavy cost.

I’m not optimistic about the hearings for the next nominee, whoever s/he might be. But maybe the deal will hold, and the confirmation will move forward as smoothly as Roberts’ (the best we can hope for, I think). Believe me, I’ll be perfectly happy if you’re right and I’m wrong on this one.
4 peter Says:
September 30th, 2005 at 12:12 pm
Well, I don’t want to be in a position where I have to praise kowtowing and pandering – my point only was that in the catalogue of political sins, this kind of vote is a venal sin but not a mortal sin. It’s a misdemeanor but not a felony. However, it is so commonly done that to me it is the political equivalent of jaywalking or driving 65 in a 55 zone.

Let me turn around the tables. I am a strong supporter of stem cell research. I believe that the very tangible opportunities of stem cell research far outweigh any moral implications involved, as I believe the relationship between stem cells and human life is symbolic and tenuous at best. I am fortunate to have a very healthy nine year old daughter. However, in the hypothetical situation where she had a life threatening disease which had the potential of being cured by stem cell research, I think it is unforgivable to impede the development of a cure for a very arguable religious belief. Many polls have shown this to be the mainstream belief in America.

The reason for this sermon is that I believe that Bush has sharply limited federal involvement in stem cell research for no other reason than kowtowing to his base. He has taken photo ops with kids who developed from stem cells – I wouldn’t expect him to also have a photo op with kids with life-threatening diseases. It is possible that this really is a deep-seated belief on his part and he is willing to go against the grain of popular opinion in a crusade for what he feels is morally right, and he is so convinced of the absoluteness of his position that he is willing to take the moral responsibility of kids and others who end up dying because no cure was sought (at least by the Americans – looks like the South Koreans have made a lot of progress here.) However, it strikes me as nothing more than pandering to his base on the religious right.

Here is the difference: voting against a nomination which has a foregone conclusion has no tangible effect. Impeding scientific discovery which has a very real possibility to save and improve lives has a very real tangible effect. This, in my opinion, is a mortal sin.
5 Sean P Says:
September 30th, 2005 at 12:46 pm
As the LAT noted, all of their likely 08 Dem candidates that are in the Senate, Feingold excepted, opposed Roberts. Accordingly, if the Dems win in 08 with Clinton or Bayah or Kerry, the Republican base will demand payback, and those votes will provide the political cover for obstructionism of Supreme and Appelate Court nominees. And, unlike the Dems, the Reps are the majority party in the Senate, and will be for some time to come.

ps: Did anyone else note that, among serious nominees for the Presidency, that California’s own Senator Boxer was not mentioned?
6 Mark Says:
September 30th, 2005 at 1:52 pm
Sean P, I did indeed notice; peter, it may surprise you to know that I agree with you, for the most part, on the stem cell issue. I think a case can be and has been made that we could loosen the rules on stem cells and still not cause any extra loss of life or potential life in the process of potentially saving lives through research; I also know that a good chunk of my readership disagrees. That’s fine; my point is not to argue that I’m right on this issue, but to say that (though it’s a tricky business divining the intentions of others) I’ve always felt the stem cell issue does involve some kowtowing, pandering, call it what you want, on the part of Bush and many other Republicans.

Still, that’s one issue, and the judicial debate is quite another, and I think it’s a wee bit sticky to obscure the cowardice of the Roberts vote with the politics of stem cell research. I agree the judicial vote is not a mortal sin, certainly…but it certainly brings the independence of those voting no from the progressive activists who are far to the left into question, just as it could be argued that some of the opposition to stem cell research represents a capitulation to the louder voices of the activist right.
7 Clint Says:
September 30th, 2005 at 2:27 pm
Peter-

I agree wholeheartedly on stem cell research. I’ve no idea whether GWB’s position is principled or pandering, but either way it’s dead wrong.

But, as to the vote… “However, it is so commonly done…” No. It isn’t. That’s why Republicans are upset about this — the GOP has routinely supported nominees whose ideology they strongly objected to. It keeps getting mentioned, but only Jesse Helms, Don Nichols and Robert Smith voted against Justice Ginsburg, who was so far to the left that she’d toyed with the idea of a Constitutional right to prostitution. With far less reason to oppose Judge Roberts, seven times as many Democrats chose partisanship.
8 utron Says:
September 30th, 2005 at 2:57 pm
I try to avoid arguments about stem cells and abortion, so I’ll just note that since there’s no connection between that issue and the Roberts confirmation, Peter is making a rather invidious comparison. And Clint’s quite right about the past history of confirmation hearings. Purely partisan votes are anything but routine–if they were, the 22 Democrats who voted against Roberts wouldn’t have writhed so entertainingly as they tried to find a non-partisan justification for their vote when they spoke to the media. Of course, after a few more votes like this one partisan voting will be regarded as routine. That’s exactly the kind of debasement that I find so objectionable in the conduct of the Democrats since Bork.
9 peter Says:
September 30th, 2005 at 4:52 pm
1) Clint: During those Clinton years when the Republicans controlled the Judiciary Committee, over a dozen nominees were denied hearings by the GOP despite having “well qualified” ratings from the ABA. Nearly sixty other Clinton judicial nominees were denied a hearing through holds. So to be shocked – shocked! – that Democrats act politically in judicial appointments is, I think, somewhat ingenuous. There are plenty of other instances during the Clinton years, starting with (dare I say it) his impeachment.
2) Utron: I don’t think that comparing the Roberts nomination with the stem cell issue is invidious – they are similar insofar as they are both examples of political acts which are made to appease core supporters rather than to achieve a higher principle. Another example would be the intelligent design controversy – while I don’t think many would complain about discussing it in a class on religion or even philosophy, for Bush to advocate “teaching the controversy” in science classes is a transparent attempt to pander to his base for an agendum which is hollow.
10 Mark Says:
September 30th, 2005 at 5:09 pm
peter, sorry, regarding your point one, I can’t agree: there is a HUGE difference between other judgeships and a Supreme Court nomination. Your examples are not appropriate, but the Ginsburg nomination is…again, only three Republican votes against an obviously liberal nominee. The Republicans who voted for her could have easily adopted the rationale used by the 22 hacks, but chose not to…
11 peter Says:
September 30th, 2005 at 5:22 pm
Is there a difference between a Supreme Court appointment and the Circuit Courts? Of course. However, when it happens sixty times in the course of a few years, I think it is fairly well established that both sides do it, albeit with different stakes involved. You can score four runs with a grand slam, or you can do it with a bunch of singles (sorry, it’s hard to be focused when Yankees-Red Sox is in a few hours…)
12 peter Says:
September 30th, 2005 at 5:42 pm
Two other things (slow day at the office):

1) Breyer was approved with nine Republican no votes. Is there that much of a difference between 9 and 22?
2) If I bet you a milkshake two months ago that Bush’s selection would be nominated with a majority of Democrats voting yes – and with no filibuster or nuclear option – my guess is that I would be looking at a strawberry milkshake right about now. In this case the results did not match the expectations.
13 Mark Says:
September 30th, 2005 at 5:58 pm
peter, you do realize that you’re talking to the founder of the Coalition of the Chillin’, right? Dedicated to the proposition that the filibuster deal was a giant win for Republicans? Just checking…(I’m only ribbin’ you a little…you would have got that milkshake from most bloggers on the right, I’ll grant you that much)…

In all serious, I think there is a big difference in 9 and 22 (about a 140% increase in no votes from one to the next). In any event, what it shows, to me, is that the Democrats are far more indebted to the progressives on the far left (mainly because they make a lot of noise - look how far their money and publicity got Dean) than they let on…
14 peter Says:
September 30th, 2005 at 6:09 pm
I remember from my college poli sci courses that a distinction was made between passionate voters and the electorate at large. The point was that the small percentage of people who feel passionately about the issues has an influence much greater than their numbers, as they tend to lead the rest of the electorate their way. So I understand why both Democrats and Republicans assiduously court their bases – in 2006, when John Roberts, John Bolton, and Johnny Depp may be indistinguishable to the majority of voters, the people who really care about these things will be leading many others. (I used to work for Lorimar, which produced People’s Court. I remember from those days seeing a poll which said that 25% of the American people thought that Judge Wapner was on the Supreme Court. I kid you not.)

Whether the Democrats are better or worse than the Republicans: who knows. Sort of like seeing a bunch of five year old boys returning from the playground, and trying to figure out which kid has the most dirt on him.
15 Mark Says:
September 30th, 2005 at 6:28 pm
Hold on there - you mean Wapner’s NOT on the Supreme Court? This changes everything…
16 Clint Says:
September 30th, 2005 at 9:04 pm
Peter-

“ If I bet you a milkshake two months ago that Bush’s selection would be nominated with a majority of Democrats voting yes”

You sure would.

Intriguingly, that’s exactly the prediction Eleanor Clift made — “at least half”. (That, and other interesting Roberts predictions here.)
17 Unlimited Music Downloads Says:
April 19th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Unlimited Music Downloads…

Listening to music is part of my life. What about you? Came across…