So are Feingold and Leahy DINO's?

[WI_DEM]

Yes they are voting for Roberts. Yet they have a history of opposing Bush on most issues including the war in Iraq. Leahy is #1 on Dick Cheney's shit list, but considering some of the over-reactions here to the Roberts vote they might as well be card carrying members of the DLC. Sorry folks, in politics you probably aren't going to get somebody who believes 100% the way you do and will vote 100% the way we would like. But that doesn't make them DINOs

But it will be interesting to see how many disagree with me.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Yeah, but Kucinich wouldn't have voted for Roberts!!!!!!!!

:sarcasm:

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. Perhaps he would have when he was pro-life

;)

[samplebytes]

2. Remember..

If the Dems in the Senate put up a fight over Roberts, he will get confirmed anyway, and Bush will put up a more conservative person to replace O'Connor. Choose battles wisely, and make sure he rides his approval rating at or below 40% til 2006 and we get a chance in the mid-terms.

[WI_DEM]

3. don't get me wrong

I wish that they had presented a united democratic front in opposing Roberts, but I just can't stand the usual absurdity of some people calling these two guys Dinos.

[tx_dem41]

9. I think you should change your name to...

WI_DINO. Just funnin' with ya'. I voted NO.

[Mr_Spock]

5. I wish people would be less reactionary and more pragmatic

Some people have no idea what they are fighting for. There was little to be accomplished by exercising a futile battle over this nominee. I think they actually went into a room and decided who would vote for and against him to show "just enough" resistance and to protect each other as much as possible. JMHO but I think they are being smartly pragmatic - unlike the hot-heads here...

[mmonk]

10. My son has

a disability. The Rhenquist court weakened substantially ADA. These new clowns being voted in will effectively vote ADA unconstitutional along with Scalia and Thomas. Sorry I'm a hot head but most likely, I will remain one.

[Mr_Spock]

17. They couldn't possibly have stopped him no matter what.

Roberts is likely no more conservative than Rhenquist. If you think Bush would somehow pull his nominee if three more Dems voted against him, then you are not in touch with reality.

If by some miracle Bush nominates a less conservative judge than O'Connor when she leaves (whenever that is), it's actually possible that the court could actually become less conservative. This is why Bush and Repukes should not be voted for in the first place - don't blame the Dem's for being the minority, blame the dumb repukes.

[mmonk]

21. So I'm still listening

as to why vote for him. A straight vote out of committee along party lines to nominate him to the floor would not prevent his nomination being voted on by the full Senate. I didn't realize someone is to vote on a nominee for purposes of the next nominee.

[Zen]

28. Because it's a bargaining point for the next nominee

They have signed an agreement WRT filibustering - they are trying to preserve their image with the Republicans out here in the country so they will be able to justify a filibuster on the next nominee...

[Mr_Spock]

32. As it noted above, it is a bargaining point.

Also, a lot of Dems who are neutral that I talked to said that they thought Roberts was a very thoughtful, reasonable person. I don't necessarily agree with that, but there is a point where one has to be pragmatic. This is why we need to elect Dems!

[greekspeak]

53. Bargaining point. Like those pukes are going to bargain with dems?

God there are some naive people on here. I swear. If every member of that court suddenly dropped dead, we would have nine flaming, foaming fascists on that court. And at confirmation #9 we would still have people like you "picking our battles."

[Tomee450]

41. Whatever happened to

being a principled human being. How about doing something just because it is the right thing to do. The fact that many of Roberts records were not produced, the fact that he was severly evasive, should have been enough for every democrat to vote NO. It is evident from the little we do know that Roberts is not a strong supporter of civil rights. Women and minorities support the democratic party yet on something as important as a Supreme court nominee, certain democrats have ignored the feelings of loyal constituencies. People are going to start asking why they should remain democrats.

Republicans have deceived many times. Why do democrats keep believing them? I just cannot understand why they continue to give Repubs the benefit of the doubt.

[Armstead]

18. There is much to be accomplished by opposing

Sure, with the present math the democrats can;t actually block anything the GOP wants to do.

But at least the Democrats should be standing ground on principle to establish what they believe in, and to show the public there is an opposition.

[never_get_over_it]

11. I have to say

I am so FREAKING sick of hearing that the Dems have to choose their battles wisely - my question is when the hell are they going to pick a battle. The Chief Justise of the SC is not an important enough battle especially when * poll numbers are in the toilet.

I'm very surprised at Leahy - not as surprised at Feingold because he seems to have some misguided belief that a President should be allowed to make his appointments. However that really shouldn't apply in this case since Roberts will still be around long after the freak in chief has returned to TX or CT or ME or where ever the hell the freak is from.

Every freaking repunk Senator voted against having an independent investigation on Katrina when polls showed 75% of Americans want such an investigation. The repunks had the balls to say no to that - but I'm beginning to think with their outrageous behaviors, even with the polls so bad, that they know the elections will be rigged and they won't have to worry. I still maintain our most important issue is to make sure all the votes are counted or we're done forever!

Editing to correct not every repunk voted no on the investigation - the repunk Senator from LA abstained - now there's a back bone for you....

[titoresque]

20. Well said!!

Thankyou! :applause:

[Zen]

27. I'm so glad our politicians can see farther ahead than just this nominee

They will point out that they gave Roberts a fair hearing and that some even voted for him. This is simply good politics - all decisions can't be based on "making a point". There are some who think Roberts is gay and may be a wildcard - who knows. They couldn't stop him anyway, so I'm not sure what the problem is with giving in a little on the inevitable to have a stronger hand for the next nominee. 'Course I'm just trying to use a bit of common sense here...

[Rainbowreflect]

29. Thank you! I may be naive, but I don't understand why every

single dem does not state that they will not vote on Roberts until all documents are released.

[never_get_over_it]

40. I don't think you're a bit naive

imagine if you will President Al Gore nominated a chief justice and refused to release vast numbers of the nominees writings - what would the repunks response be - they would be screaming their heads off -

All I'm saying is the Dems need to be an opposition party and stand for something and stop all the BS political posturing, biding their time, choosing their battles - win or lose stand up for something for God's sake - the current strategy hasn't been working - so hey try something new - I mean * polls are in the toilet - if now isn't the time to stand up there never will be a good time.

There are individual Dems that do stand up but they have got to start standing up as a group - maybe that way they would actually get some attention from the MSM.

[Armstead]

14. Bush will put up a conservative regardless of what Dems do

Your post makes the assumption that Bush actually gives a shit what Democrats do.

Bush wants to pack the court with right-wingers, and that's what he's gonna do, no matter how much the Democrats in the Senate roll over and expose their bellies.

[Rowdyboy]

4. Thanks for posting this....I'm interested too...Seems some people

forget Leahy's 30 year career in the senate where he has been a consistent member of the more progressive wing of the Democratic party. They forget that Russ Feingold led the fight for campaign finance reform, against the war in Iraq, against the tax cuts, and against the Patriot Act.

All of this is NOTHING compared to their evil vote for John Roberts. They must be drummed from the party for daring to think for themselves and have an opinion contrary to what is popular on DU. :sarcasm:

Hopefully, your poll will show that they're a distinct minority.

[greekspeak]

50. I say blah blah blah to what you just said

I see the rainbow flag next to your name. When you are rounded up and put on a cattle car, earmarked for death for your homosexuality, because a Roberts court has erased civil rights....then lets see you worship at the feet of these sell outs. And when a woman close to you dies after a back-alley abortion because Roe is overturned, then lets see you worship at the feet of these sell outs. And when the poor and minorities can no longer vote because of that court...I think I could go on all night.

But in the mean time, yeah Feingold! Yeah Leahy! Woo-Hoo LIEberman! Go DLC! I LOVE fascism! Rah Rah Rah! :sarcasm:

[kick-ass-bob]

6. The very good reason for this whole thing is to pick their battles.

They are just playing the political game. "Split" the dem vote on Roberts to push for a better 2nd justice nominee.

They were going to lose on Roberts anyways - get some capital by not becoming an immovable object (that they could walk around, anyways).

[Rowdyboy]

56. Thank you! Good to see when people get it.....No way to win on Roberts

Best we could hope for is to either derail the next one or force the Republicans to use the nuclear option. If they do this on an extremist nominee, and basically throw a coup d'etat to take over the final branch of government, they will pay dearly for many years.

Either Bush moderates his next choice, or we filibuster the next one, forcing Republican senators to go nuclear. Either way, they lose. Sadly, thats the very best we can get out of the deal.

[mmonk]

8. Since the courts are the battle of our generation,

I guess Feingold is off my presidential list.

[Walt Starr]

12. No, they're fools

This should have come down on party lines.

[Armstead]

13. I don't know

I thought they were true blue Democrats. But I'm totally baffled by their thinking on Roberts.

[blm]

15. Leahy wasn't on Cheney's shitlist, he was on Cheney's anthrax list.

Geez....get it straight, WI.... ;)

[Snotcicles]

23. Ha Ha

[warrens]

16. Roberts is no worse than his predecessor

Absent something really icky, there's no reason to vote against him. Saying you disagree with him is not enough. The senators opposing him have a point that he was less than forthcoming about Iran/Contra, and I personally would have voted against him on that ground, but it's not a compelling argument. No one is saying that he was the power behind the throne on that one, just that he might have issued some embarassing legal advice.

I prefer that the Dems just let this guy pass and save their ammo for the next guy, where they might get some GOP help if he's an extremist, which is almost certain. Bush has lost his ability to threaten people, and Rethugs facing election battles next year are not going to want to be accused of being a right-wing war-mongering budget-busting fanatic.

[Snotcicles]

24. Yet n/t

[mmonk]

26. You can vote your conscience.

I'm still waiting for a bush nominee that believes in federal enforcement of equal protection under the law. I have not seen one. Would you point out one?

[Armstead]

35. Vote Conscience....BINGO!

This "strategic" approach of Democrats has been a massive failure.

It's gotten us exactly nothing for years.

Let's try conscience for a change.

[Mr_Spock]

39. What is your alternative WRT the Roberts nominaion?

Please tell me how your alternative plan would have stopped the Roberts nomination?

Please tell me how your alternative plan would benefit us during the next MOST CRITICAL OF OUR LIFETIMES next nominee?

Emotional responses can hurt more than help.

[Armstead]

48. It would not have stopped him.

But it would have been doing what an opposition party should do, which is to oppose that which should be opposed, and let people know why.

[WilliamPitt]

19. The true test will be

how they vote on the gibbering maniac that gets put up to replace O'Connor.

[Zen]

22. Try to convince the flying off the handle hot-head reactionaries that

There is no reasoning with some people here - it makes me lose faith in DU sometimes. :(

[Armstead]

33. Is it reactionary to actually want to see some stands taken?

Roberts looks like a nice guy, but he represdents an element that is out to turn the USD back to the early 20th Century.

And Democrats are supposed to say "Sure, go ahead" just because people like you are so worried about appearances?

Hell's bells. If that kind of political squishiness is your definition of rational, I'll proudly accept the label of "Hot headed reactionary."

[Mr_Spock]

36. It's meaningless to take a stand now when the next nominee is so crucial!!

Can't you understand that this was a trade - one known RWer for another unknown RWer? They have the House, the Senate and the Presidency. What possible benefit is it to have 5 against versus 8 against? I just don't see the logic here? Why not simply appear as fair as possible now - we have signed a truce regarding filibustering - we have agreed to this as Dems. Maybe we are forgetting that we are a minority in all four houses of the government. A minority has to learn to negotiate - it's simple politics. No "taking a stand" will change that and it may just convince the public (who it is important to have on our side) that Dems are just partisan. Who cares what the repukes do - we need to be better than that or we are no better than they are...

[Armstead]

49. A trade? Hahahaha.....It takes two to trade

That great non-filibuster trade put at least one absolutely atrocious right winger on the bench, Injustice Brown. That did us a whoile lot of good.

You really think the GOP is going to hold back on nominating someone rancid for the otehr SC position because the Democrats play nice on Roberts?

C'mon, gimme a break.

Also, opposing Roberts did not necessarily mean filibustering. It simply meant going on record as being opposed to packing the SC with right wingers.

Sure, Roberts has always been a sure thing, because of the numbers. But there are ways to lose and there are ways to lose.

[greekspeak]

51. Please tell me you are not that naive. Please.

Do you really think that the Pukes are going to throw some sort of bone to the drooling lapdog Dems now? No. They are not. No bones. Another billy club. They are going to choose another rabid, foaming at the mouth fascist for the court. Then when the roll-overs cave as always, we will hear from the usual DU suspects that "we have to choose our battles." We will hear endless spiels about past voting records, and about how we aren't being all unified. Spare me.

[mmonk]

34. And there is no reason

that in a 21st century country, I as a citizen, should feel any need to put up with laws that will not protect my disabled son from discrimination at will. I will continue to be unreasonable and a hot-headed reactionary because in my opinion, human decency isn't unreasonable.

[wuushew]

37. Which ADA rulings do you object to most vocally?

University of Alabama v. Garrett probably has the largest negative impact.

http://www.napas.org/issues/ada/SCT.HTM

[Mr_Spock]

38. Uncontrolled emotion will not make people want to vote for Dems

I know I am wasting my breath here, but just step back and think about it for a minute...

[Tomee450]

44. But continued display of lack

of spine will make people STOP voting democrat and stay at home. As a black person, I am very concerned when I see members of my party voting for someone who has shown that he does not support civil rights. One of the reasons why African Americans have voted in huge numbers for democrats is because that party has been supportive of equal rights. If it is now going to turn its back on loyal constituencies, why should those constituencies continue to support the party. I am worried about Roberts and very disgusted with Congressional democrats. It's time that they stood up for the ideals of the party and not play games with people's lives. Over the past decades, the Republican party as tried to overturn all of the hard won gains that blacks and others of good will fought and died for. There should have been a unified NO vote from all the democrats against this nominee for the court.

[greekspeak]

52. Thank you. Some DUers clearly have more to lose with a Roberts court

than others. My own concerns pale in comparison to yours. Having a disabled son who stands to lose more ground as a citizen of this country is a tragic situation indeed. I am sure you would like to take these "lets all get a bong" folks and tell them to shove it right now. I know I would.

[wuushew]

25. Why is fighting nominees over ideology legitimate?

George Bush is a conservative. Therefore it seems to reason all candidates he nominates would be distasteful to liberals. Often extreme political ideologues are also unqualified such as Thomas, and Bush's recent picks for the Federal bench. From a technical standpoint however Roberts is qualified to be a judge in the estimation of the American Bar Association. However since the Executive Branch and Senate are controlled by Republicans we can never realistically hope to have a candidate closer to liberal views than conservative ones.

The recent importance placed on Senate confirmation battles is a relatively new one. In the long history of the Supreme Court the political spotlight has only shown on the nomination process in the last twenty years. Before that nominations were boring and uneventful save the aberration of Abe Fortas. From a what we know standpoint Roberts is no different from what the Senate knew of Earl Warren in 1953. The only difference of course is that today Eisenhower would be a moderate Democrat while Bush is perceived as right of Hitler.


Going nuclear over an affable, smiling man would be a difficult public relations matter to win. The public would probably place more importance on the normal continuation of Congressional matters and rightfully place blame with the Democrats if the result is a filibuster. Also President Bush retains the ability to recess appoint any damn one he pleases and given the GOP control of the Senate who knows what clever timing and scheduling tricks could be used against us.


If there is a math to the conservative-liberal bias where would Roberts be? Should points be placed on a variety of issues and some sort of workable political average be ironed out? How would this work on wedge issues that are essentially binary? Two points for Roe vs. negative three points for supporting corporations?


Feingold voted for Rice and against Gonzales and Bolton. He also regrets his confirmation of former AG Ashcroft, so clearly more than straight party line voting is present in his mind.

[Arkana]

30. Anyone who disagrees with me is a DINO.

:sarcasm: Why do you ask?

Of course they're not, and to say that they are is just plain absurd.

[sadiesworld]

31. My guess is that Feingold is on a mission

to prove to the powerbrokers that he will play ball.

[frictionlessO]

42. I wonder about DiFi but Leahy is no DINO...

Wish the poll would have been able to list them seperately somehow.

[Crunchy Frog]

54. DiFi voted against Roberts.

Russ Feingold voted for and is the one referred to in the poll.

[frictionlessO]

55. Ok totally confused now... n/t

[MisterP]

43. on this, yes, in general, no

[Cha]

45. Maybe they're just Lazy!

Our high court isn't worth the fight to them?

[mvd]

46. No for Feingold - wait and see with Leahy

I think Leahy might be a little intimidated. We can't cave like that. I know that Feingold likes to vote for a President's nominees in committee, but that lazy reasoning was below him. He should have voted no if that was his reasoning. I know my vote would be no.

[Zhade]

47. They're bewildering, is what they are.

I cannot fathom their "yes" vote.