Comments on: Novak Skewers Schumer

By: peter

peter — Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:46:18 +0000

Well, at least we have come a long way from when Nixon nominated G. Harrold Carswell — a notably mediocre judge — and then-Senator Roman Hruska defended the nomination, because “even mediocre people deserve to be represented on the Supreme Court” –

By: Clint

Clint — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:25:33 +0000

One question I don’t have an answer to yet — what difference does it make, in terms of Bush’s next nominee, whether Roberts is confirmed 63-35 or 83-12? Does it make any difference? If it does — in which direction? I’ve heard arguments both ways — but no one seems to be suggesting that perhaps the Democrats are in fact completely irrelevant.

By: Clint

Clint — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:22:07 +0000

ERA-

Like the media is backing up the image of John Roberts as a heartless automaton or idealogue? Even the text of the NYT editorial calling for a vote against him reads like a litany of praise.

Sadly, the era of Big Government is not yet over, but the era of Big Media is. Their power is dramatically different than it was in the ’80′s.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:08:02 +0000

utron, that’s quite a, umm, subtle argument your friend made…

By: utron

utron — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:55:27 +0000

Over the weekend I went to a party where pretty much everyone but me could have been described as hailing from the MoveOn.org faction of the left. I had a chat with another guest who was very worked up about the prospect of Roberts as Chief Justice. I pointed out that Roberts had gone to some lengths to deny that he was an ideologue, and had taken a distinctly non-conservative position on a constitutional right to privacy and other issues.

“Well, he’s very subtle,” the other guy said. “But that just makes him all the more dangerous.” I just nodded politely and made some vague, noncommittal noises.

In other words, these people aren’t picking their enemies based on what they say, or even what they do. Any nominee, policy, or proposal from the Republican side is ipso facto evil. If the Senate Democrats uniformly reject Roberts, they’ll just be reflecting the views of the wing of the party that increasingly seems to be setting the Democratic agenda. Yes, the MSM will support them on this and no, Bush won’t retaliate. But it doesn’t sound like a strategy for winning over independent voters.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:08:54 +0000

The lesser of two evils, eh?…I got you…

By: Ryan Bonneville

Ryan Bonneville — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 15:58:53 +0000

I voted for Kerry; I didn’t support him. I’d just like to clarify that there is a difference there. All I am committed to is wanting him to be president MORE than I wanted Bush to be president. It doesn’t follow that I actually wanted either of them in the first place. Just to clarify.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 15:55:49 +0000

Just to be clear, I don’t WANT the Republicans to retaliate, and yes, you’re correct about how the media will treat it…

By: ERA

ERA — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 15:48:10 +0000

Retaliation? Like how Republicans retaliated for Bork? Dems have no fear of anything like that because the media will back them up as they are doing now and attack Republicans as obstructionist.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 15:26:46 +0000

Oh, Ryan, you John Kerry supporter, you…actually, it’s very shortsighted of the Democrats if they do withhold a large number of votes from Roberts…it’s practically begging for retaliation when the shoe is on the other foot…