Outrage and defense (Obama and Feingold) and keeping an eye on the prize

ProSense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jun-21-08 05:43 PM
Original message

Outrage and defense (Obama and Feingold) and keeping an eye on the prize

The outrage that erupted when Feingold voted for John Roberts wasn't pretty.

In early 2001, Russ Feingold provided the deciding vote on the Senate Judiciary Committee to confirm John Ashcroft as Attorney General, despite massive opposition from netroots Democrats. Why did Feingold support Ashcroft? Because Ashcroft gave him a ride home from the Capitol one day, and because he promised to nominate Ronnie White for the next Federal judgeship - a promise Ashcroft broke immediately.

I blasted Feingold relentlessly at the time for his vote. Perhaps out of remorse, Feingold was the only Senator to vote against the USA Patriot Act immediately after 9/11. Five years later, I was prepared to give him a second look because of his Patriot Act vote and his semi-courageous stance on Iraq. But not now.

When he cast his deciding vote for Ashcroft, Feingold said "maybe I'm naive." Five years later, nothing has changed. Feingold's vote for Roberts proves his naivete is his fatal incurable character flaw - just like Bush's greed, cowardice, and stupidity.

Senator Feingold, you worse than naive - you are a suicidal idiot. Right in front of your eyes the Federalist Society - led by John Aschroft, John Roberts, and their "modest" cronies - is turning the American judicial system into an instrument of Republican Fascism. Don't you remember how they conspired to appoint Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor for Clinton, and then set a perjury trap for him? Didn't you read Bush v. Gore, which legalized the theft of the Presidency? Haven't you read the Torture Memos? Didn't you read the 4th Circuit's latest ruling in Padilla v. Rumsfeld, which gave the President the unlimited powers of a dictator? These are all the products of the Federalist Society, and they are systematic steps towards fascism.

link

From the Nation, Most Disappointing Vote for John Roberts:

Of all the votes by Democratic senators in favor of the nomination of John Roberts to serve as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, none is likely to be more disappointing to progressives than that of Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold.

Feingold, a maverick Democrat whose increasingly outspoken criticism of the war in Iraq has earned him frequent mentions as a potential candidate for his party's 2008 presidential nomination, was one of three Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to support the Roberts nomination on Thursday.

Along with Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the committee, and fellow Wisconsinite Herb Kohl, Feingold joined all of the committee's Republicans in backing the Bush administration nominee. The three Democratic votes on the committee are likely to ease the way for as many as two dozen Senate Democrats to vote to confirm Roberts when the nomination goes to the full Senate.

Feingold's stance is especially significant, as his lonely opposition to the Patriot Act in 2001 and other bold challenges to the administration have marked him as one of the chamber's more courageous defenders of civil rights and civil liberties. As such, his support of Roberts provides other Democrats and moderate Republicans who choose to back the nominee with a measure of cover.

Barack Obama came to Feingold's defense:

It's this non-ideological lens through which much of the country viewed Judge Roberts' confirmation hearings. A majority of folks, including a number of Democrats and Independents, don't think that John Roberts is an ideologue bent on overturning every vestige of civil rights and civil liberties protections in our possession. Instead, they have good reason to believe he is a conservative judge who is (like it or not) within the mainstream of American jurisprudence, a judge appointed by a conservative president who could have done much worse (and probably, I fear, may do worse with the next nominee). While they hope Roberts doesn't swing the court too sharply to the right, a majority of Americans think that the President should probably get the benefit of the doubt on a clearly qualified nominee.

A plausible argument can be made that too much is at stake here and now, in terms of privacy issues, civil rights, and civil liberties, to give John Roberts the benefit of the doubt. That certainly was the operating assumption of the advocacy groups involved in the nomination battle.

I shared enough of these concerns that I voted against Roberts on the floor this morning. But short of mounting an all-out filibuster -- a quixotic fight I would not have supported; a fight I believe Democrats would have lost both in the Senate and in the court of public opinion; a fight that would have been difficult for Democratic senators defending seats in states like North Dakota and Nebraska that are essential for Democrats to hold if we hope to recapture the majority; and a fight that would have effectively signaled an unwillingness on the part of Democrats to confirm any Bush nominee, an unwillingness which I believe would have set a dangerous precedent for future administrations -- blocking Roberts was not a realistic option.

In such circumstances, attacks on Pat Leahy, Russ Feingold and the other Democrats who, after careful consideration, voted for Roberts make no sense. Russ Feingold, the only Democrat to vote not only against war in Iraq but also against the Patriot Act, doesn't become complicit in the erosion of civil liberties simply because he chooses to abide by a deeply held and legitimate view that a President, having won a popular election, is entitled to some benefit of the doubt when it comes to judicial appointments. Like it or not, that view has pretty strong support in the Constitution's design.

The outrage over Obama's statement on the current FISA bill is just as harsh as the criticism leveled at Feingold for his vote to confirm Roberts.

The difference is that people are denouncing Obama for a vote he hasn't cast for a measure he says he's opposed to:

It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.

Think about Leahy's statement on the current FISA bill. I don't think he believes that the bill is the best bill they could get. The worst part of the bill is retroactive immunity, and the Senators who have issued statements have all opposed it.

With only 49 Democrats in the Senate and only 29 voting for against closure during the last round, the reality is that this bill will survive a cloture vote.

It'll be a miracle if they stop it, but I also doubt the measure will be stripped from the bill.

It's frustrating. There are Democrats who consistently vote against our interest. I remember slamming Chuck Schumer for his comments and subsequent vote in support of Michael Mukasey.

The other point Leahy makes that must be taken into consideration is this: "If the bill passes, I will work with the next administration to make additional improvements."

This bill is going to end up like the torture bill, which was ruled unconstitutional. The difference is that this time, Bush's term is almost over and a Democratic President and Congress (we need to pick up at least 6 seats) will be able to fix, reverse these flawed bills.

Eye on the prize, from Obama FISA critic Glenn Greenwald:

Having said all of that, the other extreme -- declaring that Obama is now Evil Incarnate, no better than John McCain, etc. etc. -- is no better. Obama is a politician running for political office, driven by all the standard, pedestrian impulses of most other people who seek and crave political power. It's nothing more or less than that, and it is just as imperative today as it was yesterday that the sickly right-wing faction be permanently removed from power and that there is never any such thing as the John McCain Administration (as one commenter ironically noted yesterday, at the very least, Obama is far more likely to appoint Supreme Court Justices who will rule that the bill Obama supports is patently unconstitutional)...