What I'd say to Teddy
A group of "blue" Oregon bloggers is reportedly getting ready for a conference call tonight with Sen. Ted Kennedy on the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be chief justice of the United States Supreme Court. I'm afraid I'm not "blue" enough to want to be in on that call, but if I were, I'd say two things:
1. Please give Roberts a relatively easy ride. Compared to the next nominee you're going to see, and the one after that, he's moderate. If you give Roberts a hard time, you will just be crying wolf. There is no way that his nomination won't be confirmed, so what are you gaining by grilling him? Then, when Karl Rove sends you the next Scalia or Thomas in a few weeks, with another one likely before the Dems are back in the White House, you will have already lost face with your moderate colleagues and the American public. Compared to Rehnquist, Roberts is a wash. You really need to save the ammunition for the more alarming cases that are likely to be coming down the road soon.
2. What is keeping you from retiring? You are a net liability to the party. If you really want to help your constituents, you should handpick a successor and get out of the way.
| Posted at 10:53 AM | Permalink |
|
Comments (14)
I agree on both counts.
Posted by Gordie | September 12, 2005 12:14 PM
Now you're starting to make sense again Jack.
Posted by BobW | September 12, 2005 12:45 PM
Jack--Roberts may be "more moderate" than the next jackbooted thug coming down the pike, but that doesn't make him "moderate."
Posted by Dave J. | September 12, 2005 1:26 PM
Better get used to it, Dave. He's what passes for "moderate" these days. Line 'em up -- he's third from the right out of the eight, next to Kennedy. And he'll be fifth from the right out of nine before long.
Posted by Jack Bog | September 12, 2005 1:36 PM
At worst, Roberts is a wash now that he will fill Rehnquist's position. Rehnquist was a political creature disguised as a jurist, who had no quams about bending his judicial "philosophy" to reach a conservative end. If Roberts follows this path, which I suspect he will, then we have a status quo.
If, on the other hand, he follows a Scalia path then he will still reach those same conservative ends 95% of the time, but adherence to a genuine philosphy of jurispridence will lead him to surprising results such as Blakely, and Crawford. I hope he takes this path, for though I disagree with it, I can at least accord it respect.
But in any case, yes, now that he fills the Rhenquist position, his is not the nomination to fight. That is coming. Where, oh where, are you William Brennan when we need you the most?
Posted by Bronson James | September 12, 2005 2:19 PM
I completely agree. There's no point in pressing Senators for "No" votes on this nominee who has no clear record to attack, and clearly is a qualified jurist. I don't think I'm going to agree with much that Roberts does as a Justice, but Bush was shrewd in his choice.
Roberts is probably a wolf in sheep's clothing, but he still has the clothing on. Until we get a nominee (ever again?) whose clothing is off, it just hurts the credibility of the left to cry wolf. (Bush, of course, has no clothes.)
And, as Bronson notes, in this case it's a wash. If Democratic Senator's are going to go to the mat (test the nuclear button), they should wait for the nomination to replace a liberal, such as Stevens.
Posted by Joel Shapiro | September 12, 2005 3:07 PM
I can't shake the feeling that this guy has David Souter written all over him! I don't understand why the righties are so sure of him.
Posted by Chris Len | September 12, 2005 4:31 PM
I totally agree (though I am holding my nose) on the first count. But as far as Ted goes..I'm not sure. Let me just say that since I am from Massachusetts I am biased.. I can't help myself...we are raised believing in the Kennedys and the Red Sox...it's in our blood. But seriously too many times Ted Kennedy is the lone voice for civil rights for all. He has figured (in many ways..some a little dicey)how his faith and his commitment to everyones rights can co-exist. I'm not ready for his voice to be absent.
Posted by jack danger | September 12, 2005 5:39 PM
"Roberts may be "more moderate" than the next jackbooted thug coming down the pike, but that doesn't make him 'moderate.'"
That's the spirit!! -- that keeps the republic writ large these days Red.
Maybe that will all change next year, but I've heard that before too.
Posted by Sally | September 12, 2005 7:01 PM
As someone else said, John Ashcroft to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, will be the nomination to fight. Just kidding… I hope.
Posted by Nate | September 13, 2005 7:57 AM
More likely the next nominee will be Alberto Gonzalez.
Posted by Dave J. | September 13, 2005 8:58 AM
I have to 2nd Danger's comment; when the other side has 7-8 guys defining the extreme rightward edge, it's important to have someone out there for "far left" opinions like basic civil rights. Without that balance, they'll simply pick new Senators to be the face of the "extreme left," and the "middle" shifts to the right. Teddy's the anchor in this epic tug-of-war.
Posted by NLP2P | September 13, 2005 11:00 AM
"When I returned, MaryJo and the car were gone"
"Hey Nephew Willy... Wake up, let's go to Au Bar"
Independant voters are happy that fat Teddy is the poster child for Democrats. He may have been outdone in lunacy yesterday by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D.Cal) who launched into a bizarre tirade while addressing Judge Roberts, talking about how the Nazi soldiers took the Jewish people's shoes. Say what ???
Having Ted Kennedy address Judge Roberts about integrity is like Dennis Rodman addressing Bill Bradley on the tax code.
Posted by brother gary | September 13, 2005 11:51 AM
I dunno... I saw Robert Byrd on TV last night and he's a FAR better poster boy for retirement than Ted Kennedy.
Posted by RAH | September 17, 2005 12:44 PM