Feingold Supporting Roberts

by yitbos96bb, Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 08:34:19 AM EDT

Well, I WAS a big Feingold supporter for President in 2008. However, given that he is now going to support Roberts, I no longer feel I can support the man. Joseph Biden had enough sense to vote No. Even Feinstein voted no. However, the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act is giving in and voting for Roberts. I read his statement, and even though he says it was a tough decision... he still made the wrong one. Senator Feingold respects Roberts legal background but apparently is ok with the fact that Roberts has little experience on the bench. Senator Feingold feels that Roberts will not bring an ideological agenda to the Supreme Court... even though the man was combative and evasive in his answers and we have no evidence he won't bring an ideological agenda to the court.

I had a lot of respect for Senator Feingold, but that respect was washed away in an instant. I will no longer support him for President or support the Draft Russ movements. I urge others to do the same to any Democrat who will vote to confirm John Roberts.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statement/05/09/2005922608.html

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

43 Comments

Sort by

permalink

He may not run for President

But if he does and wins he may well have to deal with a Republican Senate, that may explain his vote.

by THE MODERATE 2005-09-22 08:38AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: He may not run for President

and YOU really think Feingold has a chance of winning the Presidency

by Parker 2005-09-22 08:55AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: He may not run for President

No I do not, but he himself might.

by THE MODERATE 2005-09-22 08:59AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: He may not run for President

I think he had a chance. I am done with him though. Not liking the possible noms at this point. Bayh disgusts me. Hillary worries me. I like Clark but if he doesn't learn how to Stump, he has no shot. I guess I will be supporting Clark or Warner in 2008.

by yitbos96bb 2005-09-22 09:05AM | 0 recs

permalink

i would vote yes for roberts

I know it's not a popular thing to say here, but I would. He is adequately qualified, seems to have a great understanding of the law. He doesn't seem to be particulary dogmatic in his ideology a la Scalia. And I believe that the President should have reasonable authority to have leniency in who he nominates.

by ben114 2005-09-22 08:39AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: i would vote yes for roberts

How in the hell do you know that...are you some mystic that can read the thousands of pages of missing case notes... please do tell us your secret.

by Parker 2005-09-22 08:52AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: i would vote yes for roberts

Roberts has a great background in the log. He does not have the experience on the bench. Being a great lawyer does not mean you are a great judge. If he had 10 years of rulings, I would be more apt to agree. But I would error on the side of caution and vote no because he and the Bushies are hiding information. Better to keep him out than let in another incompetent like Clarence Thomas.

by yitbos96bb 2005-09-22 09:02AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: i would vote yes for roberts

Did Earl Warren have any experience on the bench?

by dmccarthy 2005-09-22 11:56AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: i would vote yes for roberts

Warren was never a judge prior to being appointed to the Court; however, he possessed an extensive record of public service including being both a prosecutor and governor. As has been pointed out by other posters, Roberts is clearly an aberation in this regard.

At this point, with the confirmation being a fiat accompli, I think the real focus should be redirected at his earlier appointment to the highly influencial D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Robert's meager record of prior public service and complete lack of experience as a judge should have drawn red flags for this position. Had Roberts, a quintessential pro-establishment stealth nominee, not been so easily confirmed to this position, it's highly unlikely we would be having this discussion today.

by Seldom Seen Smith 2005-09-22 02:26PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: i would vote yes for roberts

If I were a senator and did not have any insight into Warren's future effect on the court, I would have voted to not confirm. Hindsight is 20/20. All we have now is gut feeling and mine is that Roberts is Bush in a smarter package.

by yitbos96bb 2005-09-23 06:59AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: i would vote yes for roberts

everything you said is absolutely correct. roberts is qualified. there are too many who simply want to oppose him because they see what they believe and not the other way around. he's not my ideal justice, but to say he should be opposed is nothing more than reducing the judiciary to a political pawn yet again. and that's something that both parties have done way, way too much already. no, he doesn't have a great deal of judiciary experience, but that doesn't make him any different than many previous justices. yes, he could've been a little more open in his answers to the judiciary committee, but he wasn't "evasive" as some dems complain. given that he doesn't want to turn his confirmation into a political sideshow, which is appreciated because to many pols are more than willing to do so, and that he really shouldn't go into a great amount of detail on certain things, he gave answers that were detailed enough to be considered acceptable. yes, he's conservative....get over it. being conservative isn't a disqualifying factor. not to mention that it's politically beneficial for the dems to have been more accepting of roerts than they were. not that that is really relevant though, or rather, it shouldn't be.

by aliasjl79 2005-09-22 09:44AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: i would vote yes for roberts

Should I automatically support Condi Rice or Madeline Albright for President because Historically that and not the VP was viewed as the Heir apparent position? This is 2005 and a much different enviroment. Let the GOP complain about activist judges... their conservative judges are JUST as activist. Funny how it isn't activism when they take your side. In the past some had little bench experience. We need different standards now.

You are naive if you think that Roberts words weren't worded to evade detection of his philosophies. NO ONE has any idea how he will rule, because of his lack of experience. If he fails to provide insight, then he should not be supported. It is not the same as Ginsburg, who had case history for Senators to draw conclusions on. Conservative is not the issue. Changing case precedent to serve an ideological agenda is. Thomas and Scalia are as much Activists as any other Judge, they just happen to be activists for the Wingnuts so they don't complain and the media whores don't say anything. They wrap themselves in literal interpretations of a document not meant to be interpreted word for word literal. They ignore that the consitution is supposed to adapt to the times... that is why it was written as broadly as it was. The wingnuts do it with the bible, (despite the fact early christians viewed it allegorically) to justify the atrocities they commit and now they are doing it with the constitution to justify even more. While I am confident there is a special place in hell for these people, I want the world we live in and our kids live in to be free from the tryanny of the Rich aristocracy that is springing up in this country.

by yitbos96bb 2005-09-22 09:55AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: i would vote yes for roberts

Should I automatically support Condi Rice or Madeline Albright for President because Historically that and not the VP was viewed as the Heir apparent position?

By this I mean that they were Sec of state. This was viewed as the heir (the next to run) to the president in the early history of the country.

by yitbos96bb 2005-09-22 09:57AM | 0 recs

permalink

Wha?

"to say he should be opposed is nothing more than reducing the judiciary to a political pawn yet again."

No.

To support the elevation of a career partisan Reep operative to the position of Chief Justice is reducing the judiciary to a political pawn.

by catastrophile 2005-09-22 10:28AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Wha?

Reps on the Court already made it political by appointing Bush-man President and shredding Florida law in the process. Course they did it way before in the Abe Fortas rejection.

by David Kowalski 2005-09-22 11:07AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: i would vote yes for roberts

It shouldn't be all that difficult for Democrats to concede that Roberts is well-qualified & within the mainstream of conservative judicial thought, and thereby deserving confirmation based on historical standards, while maintaining the position that a Democratic President would have chosen a much different (better) candidate. It's the only realistic position for a party that doesn't control the Presidency or the Senate. By taking that position, Dems avoid the label of obstructionists, position themselves to benefit from any public dissatisfactions with decisions of the Roberts Court, & strengthen the case for future Democratic Presidents to appoint Justices more to our liking.

BTW, what's with the folks handing out the low rating to those that disagree with their position on Roberts? Seems like a clear case of ratings abuse.

by SLinVA 2005-09-22 11:04AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: i would vote yes for roberts

Even if they get labeled Obstructionists... WHO THE HELL CARES? Every poll coming out lately shows people are unhappy the Dems AREN'T being a party of Opposition. This from Dems and Indpendents. The Obstructionist argument is no longer a valid excuse.

by yitbos96bb 2005-09-22 11:27AM | 0 recs

permalink

Besides,

chaining the Senate doors shut would be obstructionism.

Voting yes would be complicity.

Voting no would be doing their job.

by catastrophile 2005-09-22 11:47AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: i would vote yes for roberts

What in the world makes him "well qualified?" His many years as a Republican hack lawyer or his repeated refusals to answer basic questions during the confirmation hearings?

He made a charade of the hearings and, for that alone, he deserves no votes from ALL Democrats.

And, who the hell cares about being labelled an "obtructionist" anyway? Bush has never been less popular which means the public wants opposition now. The only people who find that particular term objectionable are Republicans and weak-kneed Dems. To hell with both of them.

by bellarose 2005-09-22 03:09PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: i would vote yes for roberts

Roberts is extremely well-qualified & calling him a hack only demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the subject. Roberts graduated from Harvard Law School, magna cum laude, a not inconsiderable accomplishment. He clerked for Henry Friendly & William Rehnquist, 2 of the most sought after positions for new law graduates. He had 2 years at the Justice Department & 4 years as Associate White House Counsel, a stint in private practice, and then 4 years as Deputy Solicitor General, a most prestigious position. He went back to private practice with Hogan & Hartson, a relatively bipartisan big-time Washington law firm, where he headed its appellate practice division. Democratic attorneys with knowledge of Roberts readily acknowledge that he is one of the best appellate attorneys in the country. The ABA found Roberts well-qualified, and the hearings ably confirmed his skill. It's just denying reality to suggest he is not among the best-qualified candidates nominated to the S. Ct. in recent history, and I don't think there is any political advantage that can be gained by making that argument when Roberts enjoys overwhelming public support.

by SLinVA 2005-09-22 08:55PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: i would vote yes for roberts

I will never question the man's skill as a lawyer. I do question his lack of experience as a judge. I want Experience on the SCOTUS, especially as its chief. He does not have it as a judge. Not every good lawyer makes a good judge. Based on what I have seen of Roberts, I do not see a man I am confident will at least attempt to set aside politics and make a fair decision. I can understand moral values influencing a decision, but with Roberts, I think he will practice politics worse than the 5 did in Gore v Bush.

And to the argument that the GOP has a majority so they should get their way. DO YOU HONESTLY THINK THEY WOULD NOT FIGHT US IF WE HAD CONTROL OF ALL BRANCHES AND WERE PUTTING A STAUNCH LIBERAL UP FOR NOMINATION?

by yitbos96bb 2005-09-23 07:06AM | 0 recs

permalink

Feingold and appointments

I'm pretty sure Feingold has stated that he believes that a President should be allowed to appoint who he/she wants, barring that the appointment is completely unacceptable. He tends to defer to the President's decisions on appointments. I don't agree with that, but that is probably part of the reason why he's voting for Roberts.

by Fran for Dean 2005-09-22 08:48AM | 0 recs

permalink

Per usual

the Democrats are covering the GOP asses.

They are trying to make Roberts look moderate by putting the "Librul" Democrats Leahy and Feingold out front...it also mixes up Dem votes and covers the more conservative Dems like Hilliary and Obama who will now will find it "safe" to vote for Roberts.

They can all go fcuk tmhesleves...I am sick of this sithty party.

by Parker 2005-09-22 08:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

By all means

Join the Green Party. Stay irrelevant. And watch the destruction from the sidelines.

by Populism2008 2005-09-22 09:53AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Per usual

Parker from the outset the signs were there that the Roberts nomination was a forgone conclusion. But some of you tried to fight it anway somehow believing you could make it a fight, well guess what you didn't end of story.

It is said that Sen Reid has a list of potential picks that if they were chosen he would fight to the bitter end to defeat, guess what Roberts was not one of them, so the minute he was picked the game was over.

by THE MODERATE 2005-09-22 10:07AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Per usual

You know why you can talk rubbish... because you know that when push comes to shove you will leave the party quicker than one can spell Zell Miller and take your little Redstate, white male, anti-chice, pseudo christian butt over the GOP and reap the rewards... so pardon me if all Dems do not have the luxury of your SUV to evacuate in... and must depend on the temperment of the Democratic party to survive.

by Parker 2005-09-22 10:10AM | 0 recs

permalink

As to the President appointting who he wants

Of course Bush can send up whomever he chooses. But that doesn't automatically mean he should be supported. And I don't mean he should only be rejected if he is totally out of bounds. Senators should vote for or against based on what they feel is right and how their constituents feel. The President should not simply get his man. I believe Brown was his man too. Chertoff was his man. Bush has no sense. He can nominate, but that doesn't mean he gets to be the one to have the final say. Thats up to Senators and they need to stop this notion that they are a rubber stamp. Roberts is a poor choice, a clearly partisan guy and he will carry that with him onto the bench. Just because you are not subject to the vote, subject to being removed by an election, does not mean you are suddenly immune to political leanings. He is clearly ideological, just not stupid enough to wear it on his sleeve.

However, voting for Roberts now and not simply taking a party line vote will strengthen the Dems for the next fight. This particular one was lost from the get go. If they choose to filibuster the next nominee they can point to this vote and say that clearly his nominees aren't being rejected out of partisanship.

by jrflorida 2005-09-22 08:57AM | 0 recs

permalink

You can't compromise with fascism

Roberts is a political operative, not a statesman, and he will direct the function of Court to best serve an executive branch runaway with powerlust. We should do everything we can to defeat Feingold, Clinton or whomever else agrees to help Bush take over the Court. Perhaps it means supporting Dean-led third party and so conceding the election. I don't want any more Republican Lites in office.

by JHGrimson 2005-09-22 09:21AM | 0 recs

permalink

I disagree with Feingold;s general position

on Presidential nominees, and I really don't see how it applies to the judiciary. Very, very disappointing.

by Chris Bowers 2005-09-22 09:30AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I disagree with Feingold;s general position

I expected Kohl... I wouldn't go as far to call him a DINO, but he is pretty damn close. Leahy was a bit of a surprise, but Feingold broke my heart.

by yitbos96bb 2005-09-22 09:41AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I disagree with Feingold;s general position

it's interesting to see what so many claimed they adored about feingold, his political independence and personal integrity, now being thrown aside because that independence and integrity led him to do something they didn't find liberal enough.

by aliasjl79 2005-09-22 09:46AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I disagree with Feingold;s general position

Independence and integrity are voting against the patriot act. He battled with Roberts to get questions answered and Roberts evaded the questions to Feingold's displeasure during the hearing. After doing this and still voting for the guy is not independence, it is pandering.

by yitbos96bb 2005-09-22 10:01AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I disagree with Feingold;s general position

Pandering to who?

Russ Feingold made an informed vote with his sharp legal mind and as an astute observer of the political process. I'm sure he soberly and rigorously weighed Roberts' personal credentials and reputation in the world of law, as well as his testimony, and made his decision. Maybe in Russ's mind, Roberts wasn't as evasive as in your opinion, given the tightly-defined parameters of how nominees are allowed to comment.

I just love the pre-programmed "outrage" from many on this site and others..."well, don't expect me to ever support [list politician here] after (s)he voted to [insert one of 1,867 votes done each year]. They'll never get elected now."

Not attributing all of that to you specifically, but for goodness sake, chill out everyone. Don't you think it's ridiculous to drop your support for someone based on this vote? I'm not a Feingold supporter by the way, but I do admire his approach and think he didn't do anything wrong here.

by awfernan 2005-09-22 10:40AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I disagree with Feingold;s general position

Don't you think it's ridiculous to drop your support for someone based on this vote?

NO not when we will be saddled with Roberts for the next 30 years...

by Parker 2005-09-22 10:52AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I disagree with Feingold;s general position

Its not pre-programmed outrage. A united Front was important on this. If I get mad at Lieberman and the like for doing it, I am going to get mad at Feingold. I am more pissed because of his attitudes of outrage over Robert's answers during the hearings and then his voting the other way. I thought his reasoning was horseshit truthfully

To me this vote is his way of trying to move to center. Yes, I am angry and he has lost my support. Will he get it back? Maybe... but it will take a lot. If Roberts was 70, I wouldn't have this reaction. But at his young age, Roberts will be around for a long while. We needed to show the nominees that avoiding the questions is not OK and the Bushies they CAN"T WITHHOLD THINGS FROM THE PUBLIC. I am sick of the cloak and dagger Bush Whitehouse.

by yitbos96bb 2005-09-22 11:48AM | 0 recs

permalink

You disappoint me, yitbos.

You knew going in how Feingold feels about presidential appointments. You knew that he usually only votes against them when (like Gonzalez) there is evidence that they are unfit. You knew all of that. So why does this surprise you?

And why does it even matter? Roberts isn't a criminal, he's not an extremist, and he's not a blithering idiot. Can you give me one good reason why Feingold, who voted for Rice and Ashcroft and Whitman and Snow and all of Bush's other appointees, shouldn't vote for Roberts?

And how does this one vote erase his entire history? His votes against NAFTA, against the war, and against the PATRIOT Act? His support for labor, women's rights, gay rights, campaign finance reform, and welfare? His budget-cutting and his defense of the Bill of Rights? Does one meaningless vote make it all go away?

After all that Russ Feingold has done for this country, you would just toss him because he voted to confirm a man when there is no real evidence that he should not be and when, in fact, he would be confirmed anyway? After everything he's done for us, you'd disown him over a vote that doesn't matter?

If so, then shame on you.

by craverguy 2005-09-22 02:19PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: You disappoint me, yitbos.

You bring up a valid point, and I must admit my initial diary was written in anger. I could possibly go back to supporting the man, but at this point I am not where I was. Before his vote, I was sure. Now I am not.

But in regards to his other votes, I don't hold the votes of a position that at most could last 8 years as high as a position that has a lifetime appointment.

Again, I was angry and said somethings in anger as we all do once in a while. However, he will have to earn my vote back. Hillary lost it and I guess I am willing to give her a second chance, so I am willing to give Feingold one too.

Besides, I would have to vote for the nominee in the general election. I sure as hell am not voting for Bill Frist or George Allen. And since I don't really agree with most of the Greens, I think the libertarians are a bit nutty and the Reform party (if it even exists)..well, 2000 says it all... I guess I am stuck with the Dems.

by yitbos96bb 2005-09-23 07:17AM | 0 recs

permalink

he is...

He is Jewish and he is just as moderate on civil rights as Joseph Lieberman. Jewish kind of cut corners on civil rights, one minute they are very supportive of civil rights, the next minute they turn their backs on blacks. They did the same thing in the 60's, they marched with blacks and then they stopped. They are not liberal on civil rights, they are moderate. I will withdraw my support of Feingold in Presidential election 2008. It looks like Edwards, Warner, Clinton, and Biden are going to be the finalist, unless Kerry jumps in. Blacks are going to remember Feingold, and Evan Bayh's votes on Roberts and not vote for them, and in the South, blacks account for 50% of the vote, and the Roberts vote is going to make the difference.

by mleflo2 2005-09-22 05:06PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: he is...

Since Feingold is Jewish, his vote on Roberts makes him moderate on civil rights, like Lieberman?

May I remind you that Schumer and Feinstein are also Jewish?

There's a place for your kind of anti-Semitism. It's the Republican party.

by nocloset 2005-09-22 09:22PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: he is...

Feinstein and Schumer were open to the initial idea of voting for Roberts, Schumer came on O'Reiley factor and said he was open to voting for Roberts, so eventhough they voted against him, they were open to voting for him. Feinstein was open to, because some people close to her said she was also open to voting for Roberts. As far as the Republican party, why would I go to party that nominated and supported a potential Supreme Court justice that is even more racist than the Dems that is supporting Roberts?

by mleflo2 2005-09-23 02:50AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: he is...

I don't know, but your first statement makes you come off as a racist.

by yitbos96bb 2005-09-23 07:26AM | 0 recs

permalink

No Reason To Vote Against Him?

Should anyone vote for someone just because "there is no reason to vote against him," plus the "president" likes him? What about principles? If we don't care about principles, why should anyone listen to us. I know damn well if I had to go before the Senate and I was that evasive, I would go to jail for contempt of Congress! This is a perfect example of a time when strong people, like Ted Kennedy, vote their conscience, while weak people, like Feingold vote vote their expedience.

No -- not all right wing conservatives are "trolls." Some of them certainly do have conscience and conviction. Robert Chapman, for example in:

http://www.theinternationalforecaster.com/trainwreck.php?Id=92

"John Roberts nomination as Supreme Court Chief Justice tells us the elitists are totally satisfied that Roberts will do exactly as he is told and will grant the Executive Branch unlimited authority over everyone. The approval of Roberts and another replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor will solidify the elitist's control over the Supreme Court for the next 30 years. Mind you, Roberts is not conservative or right wing. He is an elitist. They have only one master the Illuminati. Each passing day more and more decisions are made to solidify the power of the insiders and that movement is perpetually to the left and into the bosom of fascism. Americans are going to pay dearly for what they have done especially the dumb conservatives and right-wingers who continue to support a fascist dictatorial government. These two Supreme Court appointments are just two more nails in the coffin."

This is not to say that principles are always more important than strategy. But if you have all strategy and no genuine principles, what are you?

by blues 2005-09-22 07:31PM | 0 recs

permalink

Maybe he is saving his energy ..

....for the second nomination?

If Roberts was up for the only vacancy, maybe Feingold would have dug in deeper. Let's face it. The other Bush nominees are only going to be worse. I think Feingold realizes this nomination is going to be a losing battle for the opposition and he wants to concentrate his energies on the other nominee who is most probably going to be worse news. Personally, I would oppose this smug guy Roberts because I believe in making things tough for the Bushies every step of the way. But I am going to give a pass to Feingold on this one. His stand on the war and the Patriot Act was more important to me because that was a more important issue that was winnable for us if the other democrats showed some spine.

I think Roberts has lied on some issues where he was being facetious(when he would deny discussing certain things). At least, the guy is highly qualified. That is an improvement over other Bush hirings such as Cheney for VP, Rumsfeld for Defense, Michael Brownie for FEMA, Ashcroft for Attorney General where they weren't even qualified for the position.

by Pravin 2005-09-23 08:01AM | 0 recs