Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has announced that he’s going to vote against John Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court — and the question now becomes whether this will set the pattern for other Democrats.
And, if so, will this prove to be a line-in-the-sand that’s a wise move — or one that’ll come back to haunt the Democrats? Is it a smart bargaining-position move, or is it an early Christmas present for Karl Rove?
Reid clearly is caught in a political pincer: many of the party’s activists don’t want Roberts because some questions remain unanswered about and by him but also because Roberts is a conservative judge. Yet, polls, some Democrats and some newspapers that are normally sympathetic to the Democrats on their editorial pages now support Roberts. Even so, reports the AP:
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid has told associates he intends to oppose confirmation of John Roberts as chief justice, Senate sources said Tuesday as rank and file Democrats began staking out positions on the man named to succeed the late William H. Rehnquist.
Reid scheduled a speech on the Senate floor for mid-afternoon, at which he was expected to make his announcement public.
Roberts has strong Republican support and appears headed for easy confirmation.
As party leader, Reid had urged fellow Democrats not to announce their positions until the conclusion of last week’s confirmation hearings for Roberts.
By stating his own position first, Reid likely would set the stage for strong Democratic opposition to the 50-year-old appeals court judge and former Reagan administration lawyer.
There are pluses and minuses for Reid and the Democrats on this — although overall there seem to be more minuses than pluses.
By coming out against Roberts, Reid solidifies his links to those who oppose Roberts due to fears about what he’ll do on the right to an abortion or those who oppose Roberts’ due to positions he took as a Reagan administration lawyer on civil rights.
And although by taking this stand, Reid isn’t yet using the “silver bullet” of a filibuster, he’s drawing a clear political line the sand.
The question: is the line close to the overall center of American politics right now? Or does the line now put him (and Democrats who join him) a bit further left? If so, is that good move or one that will eventually hurt the party? Time will tell.
From the standpoint of practicality, it seems like a move that will hurt the Democrats — because Roberts nomination will pass. Note this Fox News report:
Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told FOX News that Reid’s announcement is not any intention to speak on behalf of the Democratic Party, but is rather a report of his own plans. Leahy said Reid has not applied pressure on rank and file Democrats who are starting to stake out positions on the man named to succeed the late William H. Rehnquist (search).
Reid may be laying down a strong marker, however, Leahy said. Caught in the hallway, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who also serves on the Judiciary Committee, told FOX News that he too would oppose Roberts and expected other Democrats to make their positions known soon.
Later, however, Reid said he thinks Roberts’ confirmation is not in doubt. He’s going to get “plenty of votes,” he said.
Other Democrats also gave indications that Roberts’ confirmation is almost assured. Montana Sen. Max Baucus of Montana said Tuesday he is leaning toward voting for Roberts.
“I’m inclined to vote for him unless something else comes up,” Baucus said after a meeting of his party’s senators. “It’s a close call.”
Added Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.: “I’ve not seen anything that would cause me to vote against” Roberts.
So the tantilizing question remains: is Reid’s move going to set the stage for more Democrats taking that stance — or is it his own, private bargaining position? The LA Times:
Some Democrats said the White House should see Reid’s opposition as a message that Democrats would not capitulate if they considered the president’s next pick for the court unacceptable.
“At the end of the day, the president should know if he sends someone who is an ideologue or somebody who is an extremist right winger, that person is going to have a very, very difficult time getting through the Senate,” said Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), one of the seven Democrats who joined with seven Republicans this year to preserve the minority party’s right to filibuster judicial nominees. “I think you’ll find unity among the Democratic caucus in opposing someone like that.”
The White House expressed disappointment with Reid’s decision.
“In confirming recent nominees like [Ruth Bader] Ginsberg, [Stephen] Breyer and [Antonin] Scalia, senators based their decisions on the qualifications of the nominee, not on whether or not the person doing the nominating was in their same party,” said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. “The public does not want to see the Supreme Court become an extension of partisan politics.”
Indeed, pro-choice GOPer Arlen Specter will be voting for Roberts. It raises the question: since during his 2000 and 2004 campaigns Bush made no-bones about his intention to appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court, who did some Democrats expect Bush would name? Mario Cuomo?
SOME OTHER VOICES ON THIS STORY INCLUDE:
—Daily Kos:”Thank you Senator Reid; America needs your leadership. It’s good to know that not all Dems politicos find the Stepford judge acceptable….No further analysis, other than to say that personally, Roberts has always given me the creeps. Intuitively speaking, I feel he will play to the hard right and take America back, socially at least, to the 1950’s. “
—Balloon Juice:
For months I have heard Harry Reid fashioned as a moderate or centrist Democrat, so it simply makes no sense to me why he would be opposing John Roberts. For that matter, I don’t understand why the majority of Democrats are not relieved John Roberts was the pick, and begging/hoping/praying (in a secular way, of course) that the next pick will be as thoughtful and sane as Judge Roberts.
Judge Roberts is no fire-breathing idelogue, and if the Democrats do everything they can to block his nomination, and mount a strident and contentious opposition, they are sealing their own fates. If someone like Roberts is going to get 30-40 votes against from Democrats, I see no reason why Bush doesn’t appoint a fire-breathing ideologue. Let ‘em filibuster.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.