...it's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...

July 19, 2005

Democrat Strategy Telegraphed Already

Hey the announcement is only a half hour old and Schumer and Durbin have already told me everything i need to know about the Democrats' obstruction strategy!

On CNN, Durbin told Larry King that they intend to be deliberate and they need to ask a bunch of questions, and that they're entitled to ask Roberts' opinion on past cases like Roe. At an earlier press conference Schumer said that he voted against Roberts before* because Roberts would not answer certain questions.

So the strategy is to ask questions that the Democrats know a judicial nominee cannot answer according to the rules of judicial ethics, then claim that he's hiding something. They also plan to drag out the hearings, to enable their operatives to manufacture a "scandal," their allies in the media to publicize the "scandal," and the lefty blogs to whip up outrage over the "scandal."

Just watch.

* Which is misleading, since Roberts was confirmed unanimously. Shumer voted no in committee.

Posted by annika, Jul. 19, 2005 | TrackBack (3)
Rubric: annikapunditry


I know absolutely zero about this guy but if the press and the Democrats hate him I will probably love him. I wonder what Scalia thiks of him? Because if Scalia likes him then he's good in my book.

Posted by: Andy on Jul. 19, 2005

It's OK. We've found out one thing, which I knew already. If you're doubting dubyah, you're misunderestimating him. These mutherfuggahs are the first team. Nothing is done without reason.

The libs will blow their load on Roberts, and he'll beat them. Forty-two cases argued before the Supremes? I think he's seen all the tricks, and has three plays in the book for each one. We're going to watch Peyton Manning pick apart a weak secondary.

Stage deux is Rehnquist's replacement, and the thirty potentates whom dubyah didn't consult will be standing there as Sonny said, with their dick in their hand.

Posted by: Casca on Jul. 19, 2005

i agree with andy.

i hope this gets boxer to soak her depends on the senate chamber floor.

Posted by: louielouie on Jul. 19, 2005

For the Circuit Court, I read that Roverts was approved by the full Senate 99 to 0.

Does that mean Shumer sat it out or did he actually vote for him on the floor?

This is so Karl Rove that it must be pissing the libs off still.

This will take the headlines for the next forseeable future until he is confirmed; then we get Rhenquist and/or Stevens.

The Special Prosecutor will decline charges against Rove and that will die a natural death.

If the Chief can hold out loing enough, say a year or so, maybe we get Janice Rogers Brown again for the Bigs and Scalia moves up.

When Stevens passes on, W can then get his butt boy Gonzales and the diehards will have to let it go, since he has clearly proven his loyalty to the right.

Can't wait to hear the "Conscience of the Senate" bloviate, you know, Mark Spitz Kennedy...

It just don't get no better than this...

Posted by: shelly on Jul. 20, 2005

Oh, by the way Senator Shumer, I'll take Political Calculus for Double Jeapordy.

Ans: "What is a one legged man at an asskicking?"

Posted by: shelly on Jul. 20, 2005

The only thing you need to know about the guy is that Mark Levin, author of Men in Black, thinks he is first rate.

Posted by: Kyle on Jul. 20, 2005

Leahy is also telegraphing a strategy of delay, saying(I'm paraphrasing): I will go back home, pull on a pair of jeans, sit under my apple tree, and read everything I need to read about Judge Roberts; and it will take the entire month of August for me to accomplish this.

Since a legitimate Roberts' scandal looks unlikely, I don't see how he can fail to be confirmed. Circuit Court and Appellate Court judges could be filibustered b/c the nation wasn't paying close attention, and Senator Whoever could get away with bullshit justification for opposing cloture. But the eyes of the nation are fixed on this nomination, and Senator Whoever cannot get away with his bullshit justification so easily.

Therefore, despite the upcoming weeks of howls, a filibuster will go nowhere on Roberts. The Dems have a problem: they need to mollify the money-raising interest groups. The only way to do that is to delay a Roberts vote as long as possible - to show that their hearts were in the right place, and to try to embarrass/weaken Bush as much as possible - even in a losing cause.

Posted by: gcotharn on Jul. 20, 2005

Bush will have proved himself to social conservatives when Roe v. Wade is overturned. Roberts plus Renquhist's replacement will not do that. Appointing Gonzales would keep Roe protected.

Posted by: RA on Jul. 20, 2005

"For the Circuit Court, I read that Roverts was approved by the full Senate 99 to 0. Does that mean Shumer sat it out or did he actually vote for him on the floor?"

Shelly, I'd think you of all people know the Senate does so many things by unanimous consent in part so that nobody has to be publicly accountable about what they're really for or against. For a nomination to go through that way, you're not going to have a neat lineup of names in the Congressional Record with Y's and N's next to them, just the indication that no one objected and therefore unanimous consent was granted.

Posted by: Dave J on Jul. 20, 2005

I have a question for the pro-choice conservative lawyers/students who inhabit this blog:

Even though you're pro-choice, don't some (most?) of you think Roe v Wade is bad law? Wouldn't you be, at some level, happy to see it overturned on that basis? Couldn't you support a justice who supported overturning Roe v Wade on the basis that it is bad law?


Posted by: gcotharn on Jul. 20, 2005

For my part, gcotharn, I've become less and less pro-choice over time, am torn both ways on the issue and I guess would define myself as "reluctantly pro-choice with significant restrictions." I certaily believe Roe is bad law and that the matter should properly be returned to the states (not necessarily just the state legislatures, BTW, either, as this would immediately become a subject of litigation under STATE constitutional law).

Part of the genius of federalism is that far more than a simple majority get what they want locally, and in principle I see nothing wrong with, for example, Alabama banning abortion while Massachusetts not only allows it but expends state funds on it (though as a Massachusetts Republican, I would fight that within the confines of my own state political process...er, until whenever I leave again, of course).

Posted by: Dave J on Jul. 20, 2005

I am a pro-choice conservative Republican lawyer and I think that Roe v. Wade is bad law. I much prefer the state's rights approach.

The problem is, I question my own validity, as I vacillate about the pro-choice thing.

I have a grandson who is 11 years old; he was often discussed while in his mother's womb about abortion. I could not support him being aborted.

On the other hand, crack babies have nothing to live for but pain and addiction, sometimes horrible disfigurement, so I certainly support aborting them all.

I guess it is an economic/family situation thing for me. If you can afford it and would love and raise it properly, I say no abortion, but otherwise, call in the long knives.

Posted by: shelly on Jul. 20, 2005

I'm happy to hear this, which is what I expected would be the case.

I think there is no reason for someone like Shelley to fear a pro-life SC Justice, as Shelly believes the issue should properly be decided by the states anyway, and I do not anticipate conservative justices ever supporting a federal ban on abortion. If anyone is still reading this thread: Does anyone fear a conservative SC would ever find in favor of a federal ban on abortion?

Posted by: gcotharn on Jul. 21, 2005