Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Democrats unlikely to block Bush nominee-analysts
Reuters ^ | 7/20/05 | Alan Elsner

Posted on 07/20/2005 6:13:19 PM PDT by wagglebee

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Barring unforeseen revelations, President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court John Roberts is highly likely to be confirmed, political analysts said on Wednesday.

Roberts, a conservative appeals court judge, could only be blocked from taking his lifetime seat if the Democratic minority in the Senate decided to filibuster the nomination, endlessly extending debate to prevent it coming to a vote.

Under Senate rules, it takes 60 votes to cut off debate.

Several Democratic consultants and independent academics cited three reasons it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for Democrats to filibuster Roberts.

They said it was uncertain enough Democrats would vote against Roberts to effect the filibuster, public opinion was likely to be hostile and Senate Republicans might revive their efforts to change the rules so filibusters could not apply to judicial nominations.

"He'll face tough questions but it's hard to imagine he can be filibustered. I have to think at least five or six Democrats would be inclined to vote for him," said Mike McCurry, who served as press secretary to former President Bill Clinton and now runs a political consultancy.

"The Republicans start with 55 votes in the Senate and Democrats need to remind themselves of that. Plus, he sounds at least from what we know right now like a decent, thoughtful, reflective guy," McCurry said.

Several analysts praised the way the White House managed the introduction of Roberts. All day Tuesday, the media was full of speculation that appeals court judge Edith Clement was the nominee.

By springing Roberts on the public in the evening, the White House was able to control the crucial first impression the nominee left with the public as a highly qualified, intellectually brilliant jurist who was no extremist.

"The White House managed to find a nominee who will move the court to the right without having the kind of provocative characteristics that could cause problems during confirmation," said Dean Spiliotes, a political scientist at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm's College.

Roberts has a relatively thin record on the appeals court, having only served on the bench for two years. He was confirmed by the Senate to that post by a unanimous voice vote.

FORTY OPINIONS

Women's groups, environmentalists and liberal activist organizations, who had geared up for a do-or-die fight against Bush's nominee, all called on the Senate to reject Roberts.

"George Bush could have chosen a moderate conservative ... Instead he chose, characteristically, to pick a fight. We intend to give him one," said National Organization for Women president Kim Gandy.

But even if they all stick together, Democrats are likely to find their hands tied in the Senate.

"Roberts can't be blocked. This is a mainstream, pro-business conservative, not a social jihad warrior. A filibuster just wouldn't resonate with the public," said Cal Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

Democratic political consultant Douglas Hattaway, who worked on then vice president Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, agreed. "The Senate has a strong tradition of letting the President have his pick. The odds are against a successful filibuster unless there's some extreme, egregious things that come out that we don't know about yet." he said.

Republicans almost ended the Democratic minority's ability to use the filibuster to block judicial nominees earlier this year by threatening to change Senate rules of procedure.

They were blocked when seven Democrat and seven Republican senators came together and agreed to preserve the filibuster but to use it only in "extraordinary circumstances," which they did not define, leaving it to the personal judgment of each of the 14 signatories.

If Democrats did try to filibuster Roberts, analysts said it was likely the group of 14 would break apart, paving the way for the Republican leadership to revive the effort to change Senate rules.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 109th; democrats; johnroberts; robertsconfirmation; scotus
Several Democratic consultants and independent academics cited three reasons it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for Democrats to filibuster Roberts.

They said it was uncertain enough Democrats would vote against Roberts to effect the filibuster, public opinion was likely to be hostile and Senate Republicans might revive their efforts to change the rules so filibusters could not apply to judicial nominations.

I sort of hope the 'Rats show the world just how petty and partisan they truly are, because if they do it will finish them forever.

1 posted on 07/20/2005 6:13:20 PM PDT by wagglebee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

i heard that trust fund kid, teddy kennedy, on the radio.

he was bad-mouthing u.s. corporations and john roberts for working for them.

these are the same u.s. corporations that provide the income from which the kennedys live on.


2 posted on 07/20/2005 6:16:39 PM PDT by ken21 (it takes a village to brainwash your child + to steal your property! /s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Over years, I think Americans will see the obvious: that adding conservatives to the Supreme Court doesn't erode civil rights or liberties any more than the Patriot Act does. And they will see better quality decisions.

I think this effect is not only a result of, but will help cement the Republican majority for decades.

3 posted on 07/20/2005 6:17:46 PM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I'm waiting to see how my "moderate" Senator Bayh tries to fit Roberts into his standard form letter response to filibusters.

I'm thinking Unanimous Consent vote, so the Hildabeast and Evan and all the other preeners don't have to go on record.


4 posted on 07/20/2005 6:19:46 PM PDT by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

They have a heck of a deal. They don't filibuster, so they don't get nuked.


5 posted on 07/20/2005 6:23:14 PM PDT by SmithL (There are a lot of people that hate Bush more than they hate terrorists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
We intend to give him one," said National Organization for Women president Kim Gandy.

Bring it on beeeeeeeeeyooooch!

6 posted on 07/20/2005 6:25:34 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken21

In Tubby Kennedy's defense, his father made his fortune in bootlegging and other forms of racketeering. OTOH, I haven't heard Tubby or the other 'Rats say a word about the corporate interests that were behind the destruction of property rights.


7 posted on 07/20/2005 6:25:41 PM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

not a social jihad warrior

--

this is outrageous. while i am not a "radical" social person - those people do not believe in jihad. Totally wreckless journalism.


8 posted on 07/20/2005 6:26:23 PM PDT by BoBToMatoE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

all of the kennedy loot is invested in u.s. corporations, and managed by professionals.


9 posted on 07/20/2005 6:28:48 PM PDT by ken21 (it takes a village to brainwash your child + to steal your property! /s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Barring unforeseen revelations, President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court John Roberts is highly likely to be confirmed

The Dems will make something up.

10 posted on 07/20/2005 6:34:10 PM PDT by My2Cents ("The essence of American journalism is vulgarity divested of truth." -- Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
i'm beginning to like the NRO theory that the Chief Justice told the White House- pick my clerk, get him approved and I'll retire. This means two go in during the fall. The Chief Justice sets the court agenda, so he can set a date for no cases, while the next person is approved.

Finally, even with these two well in place, that is still only four solid conservatives, we still have to hope that Stevens must retire soon...85 is old.

11 posted on 07/20/2005 7:33:04 PM PDT by q_an_a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: q_an_a
we still have to hope that Stevens must retire soon

I'm not praying for ill health for Stevens ... but I am praying he'll have a sudden craving to spend time with his great-grandchildren.

12 posted on 07/20/2005 7:39:27 PM PDT by Oliver Optic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson