Here are the Democrats on Judiciary:

-Leahy (ranking Democratic member)

-Ted Kennedy

-Joe Biden

-Herb Kohl

-Dianne Feinstein

-Russ Feingold

-Chuck Schumer

-Dick Durbin

It's a pretty blue bunch, overall.  It's not like any of these guys is in a Ben Nelson position where they have to look conservative for the home folks.  

I understand the appeal of the view that Leahy's high Judiciary Committee position should position him as "bad cop", rather than "good cop."  But Harry Reid -- who would be in charge of a filibuster -- has already bought the "bad cop" hat.  I'm surprised that Reid and Leahy chose the roles they did, rather than the other way around, but maybe that's just the way that Reid's feisty little heart beats.  So I think this puts us in something roughly resembling the position we want.

The best outcome on this isn't a 55-45 vote, and it isn't a 100-0 vote, it's a 77-23 vote. Let each Democrat vote his or her own way. 55-45 leaves the appeasers unsatisfied and sends a bad message to Middle America, as the Bull Moose keeps pointing out. A 100-0 pleases the appeasers and shuns the obstructionists, and sends the message the Republicans can do whatever they want.

Think Scylla and Charybdis -- there is truth on both sides here, Roberts probably isn't as bad  as we might have gotten,  we can't control it either way, a future Democratic president will want to pass his or her nominees too,  Roberts was too secretive, we started that by punishing Bork's frankness.

 A 77-23 vote sends the message that Roberts isn't as bad as it could get but still far from the ideal to Democrats. Which is actually the case too.  

Am I the only only one that thinks everybody is getting too worked up about vote counts? Most people don't really care whether he gets 90 or 60 to confirm, it's just the obsessive political wonks with too much time on their hands (like me). If there's no drama over whether or not he will be confirmed, the average/persuadable voter will not pay any attention at all. And we're not ready to stop him, because the decision was essentially made beforehand to not really fight the confirmation.

The thing I'm really angry about is that the Dems on the judiciary committee resigned themselves to speechifying that was more about themselves than Roberts. It was just a checklist of interest groups to appease, and gave no chance to win spin points. And it's the PR and soundbites that win votes, not 60 vs 95 votes to confirm. It's stupid that people (particularly Kossacks) are so damn concerned about this shit. 

I agree with Matt that Leahy is making a mistake.  Who will he appear reasonable to?  Republicans?  What will that get him?  Probably nothing but their scorn.

The withholding of documents and Robert's evasiveness give any Democratic senator cover, but Leahy doesn't even need cover.  I don't get it.

Mass abstenation, dammit!



Hear, hear! Even if you did spell it wrong ;-) I've been arguing the same myself, all over the board. (Well, in a couple of threads, anyway.)



My reasoning is this: Roberts is going to be confirmed anyway. What's the best way to use this fact? I would argue that getting the press to pay attention to Democrats' specific complaints about the process is the best "lemonade" we can make out of this lemon. To wit (and I'm mostly quoting my post here with a few new additions - sorry, but it's easier than typing the whole thing again), the coverage of, and explaining of, a mass abstention would do more to highlight the secrecy and stonewalling of this mal-administration than a no vote would, and I think that's the real story Democrats have to take to the people in 2006.



One of the more egregious assaults on democracy by this administration has been its secrecy and stonewalling of legitimate questions. I take heart at the fact that, during the Bolton filibuster, some of the MSM actually reported that the issue was, in fact, the administration's stonewalling. More recently, when Dems refused to provide cover for the Republican attempt to establish a partisan committee to conduct an "investigation" the administration's response to Katrina, at least some in the MSM correctly noted that the Dems refusal was based on the fact that the committee was not, in fact, "bi-partisan" because Dems would not have equal representation or equal investigatory tools.



I believe a mass abstention by Democratic Senators would have the same salutory effect on coverage - it would be unusual enough that the MSM would be asking (and reporting on) "why," rather than simply reporting the confirmation vote numbers - or worse yet, simply reporting the Republicans' "talking point" on the confirmation, whether it be "bi-partisan 'proof' of Bush's 'moderate' choice" or "Democratic Obstructionism of Bush's 'moderate' choice."



And it has the benefit of continuing a "theme" we've already gotten some coverage of. We all know how the press loves to stick to a "narrative." Well, here's one they've already shown an interest in pursuing. Democrats are standing up for the rights of half the country to have their voice heard and their questions answered.



We can't stop Roberts. That's a fact. So the next best option (IMHO) is to use the confirmation vote to make a partisan point - that the administration is once again, stonewalling half the American people in the pursuit of its ideological agenda.



I believe it's also worth noting during this fight that the Democrats in the Senate actually represent more constituents than the Republicans do*, so the administration is, in effect, stonewalling MORE than half the American people.



Yes, I know the Senate is set up to represent states interests, but, in confirmations, the Senate process is the ONLY place that the representatives of citizens not of the President's party have a voice. So, in this context, it matters that those Senators not of the President's party represent more people than those who are of the President's party. I understand that some degree of deference is due for appointments to administration posts, because those people leave with the administration. That's not the case for judges, and most especially not the case when we're talking about the final court, the court from which there is no appeal for ANY american citizen.



* If you doubt this, the Gadflyer has crunched the numbers here and here, and my own modest number-crunching effort is here. In fact, the only calculus by which the Republicans have a "majority" is by counting states - and even then, they don't have a majority, they have a plurality. Twenty-one states are represented only by Republicans, sixteen states are represented only by Democrats, with 13 states represented by one Senator from each party.

You cite this udpated article filed today:

Leahy Says He Will Vote to Confirm Chief Justice Nominee

Published: September 21, 2005

WASHINGTON, Sept. 21 - The ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee said today that he would vote to confirm Judge John G. Roberts Jr. as the 17th chief justice of the United States, having concluded that the nominee is "a man of integrity" who is not shackled to an "ideological agenda." Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont announced his intention on the Senate floor....

but I thought it might be helpful for people to know that this was the article by the same reporters on page A1 above fold in the NYT print edition today:

September 21, 2005

Top Democrat Says He'll Vote No on Roberts

'Swayed' by Rights and Women's Leaders

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 - The Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said Tuesday that he would oppose the confirmation of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice, surprising both the White House and fellow Democrats still conflicted about how to vote.

In becoming the first Democrat to declare formally how he intended to vote, Mr. Reid may have made it more difficult for fellow Democrats to support Judge Roberts. Many Senate observers expected Mr. Reid, who comes from a Republican-leaning state and is opposed to abortion, to support Judge Roberts....

My biggest frustration is that we libs seem to think that getting a few NO votes is equivalent to actually fighting the confirmation. What are we actually fighting here? The only way to stop the confirmation would have been to filibuster, and that is totally off the table. The Dems didn't go into the hearings ready to fight, so pretending that 55-45 confirmation vote constitutes a fight is really disingenious. There can't be a fight if the confirmation is a foregone conclusion. Like it or not, the meager ammo we have has been stored for the next battle.

That being said, I certainly understand Matt's point that those who complain about Roberts' lack of forthrightness in answering questions run the risk of stripping those objections of force in the future by voting to confirm. 

Leahy is giving cover to Hilary, et al.

It may be that the Dems are setting up Leahy to lead the charge against the next guy.

Many prominent Dems are voting against Roberts, who is going to be confirmed anyway.  that's good.  But assuming Bush nominates a winger for the next spot, it will be good to have some Democrat out in front who has established a role, based on the Roberts vote, as non-doctrinaire and non-partisan when it comes to judicial nominations.  This will give his opposition in the next round more credibility.

The "Yes" or "No" (or "abstain") options on Roberts each have their benefits and costs.  A 77-23 vote incurs the costs of both and reaps the benefits of neither.

Alkali: Yes, you have a point, but the counterargument is that 77-23 prevents the Dems putting all their eggs in one basket. The hardcore shrills (nothing against shrills, I get that way sometimes myself) who want a 55-45 vote are deluding themselves if they think that they're sending a message that undecideds want to hear or something. 55-45 only makes sense in the context of, Bork never happened, the Republicans started all the judge nastiness (far from clear), and all Democratic principles are sacrosanct. If that's true then 55-45 makes all the sense in the world.

The other point is that 77-23 is attractive precisely because there are different Democrats out there who face different electoral prospects in 2006. There are Dems in blue states who can afford to vote no, and there are Dems in red states who may not be able to afford a no vote. So the costs of obstructing accrue to those who can afford to absorb those costs, and the benefits of appeasing accrue to those who need it. That's politics.