Roberts confirmed

September 29, 2005

Just moments ago, in a vote that surprised absolutely no one, the Senate confirmed John Roberts to the Supreme Court. The final vote was 78 to 22.

All 55 Republicans and Independent Jim Jeffords of Vermont voted for Roberts, while the 44 Dems were split right down the middle, 22 to 22.

Update: Just to flesh this out a bit, among Dems likely to run for president, only Russ Feingold voted to confirm Roberts, while Bayh, Biden, Clinton, and Kerry voted against.

Update Two: To flesh this out a bit more, there was no significant difference among Dems up for re-election next year. Of the 14 incumbent Dems up in 2006, eight voted for Roberts (Bingaman (N.M.), Byrd (W.Va.), Carper (Del.), Conrad (N.D.), Kohl (Wis.), Lieberman (Conn.), Nelson (Fla.), Nelson (Neb.), while six voted against him (Akaka (Hawaii), Cantwell (Wash.), Clinton (N.Y.), Feinstein (Calif.), Kennedy (Mass.), and
Stabenow (Mich.).

On the other hand, the six who voted against will all run in “blue” states next year, while five of the eight who voted for Roberts will run in “red” states next year.

Fucking bloody hell.

So, in order to actually get a Democratic agenda passed in the Senate, we need to get 75% of the seats in the house!??? So that we can actually get a majority vote while being fucking split down the god-damned middle?? WHILE THE REPUGS ALL VOTE AS A BLOC!!??

I want the names of every goddamned “Democrat” who voted for Roberts, and I want those fuckers out of office, NOW! They should not get a penny of Democratic campaign funds. They have no discipline, no loyalty, no fucking sense of how to succeed.

Why do the Repugs succeed? Because they know how to! Not. One. Repug. Broke. Ranks. Not a one. Zero. Not even “NARAL-endorsed” Lincoln Chaffee. Zero. Think about that.

Meanwhile, we are “split down the middle”. Spineless peices of shit who have no goddamned clue how to win at partisan politics (OK, I’ll cut Feingold some slack, he’s a maverick. But the rest of ’em? Just spineless.)

At a time we needed to send a message that we are united in opposition to the Repug agenda, what do we do?

SPLIT DOWN THE MIDDLE!!??

Yeah, nice work.

Whig party. Useless. Disgusting. Fucked-up beyond all repair.

Excuse me while I go spit.

  • Supposedly the Dem votes for Roberts were to preserve ammo for the anticipated wing-nut nominee for O’Conner’s position, right? Okay, so when my nightmare becomes reality and 10+ Dems vote to confirm Priscella Owens or some other insane nominee what happens to them? Is there any way we can preempt that stupidity or “send a signal” that we won’t tolerate DINO-like behavior for the next nominee?

  • Personally, as liberal as I am, I feel that that the Democrats who voted ‘no’ are doing themselves a disservice. Roberts was by no mean as conservative as what we are about to get. Those who voted against him have only weakened their position when Bush nominates whatever person he does to appease the religious right next time around. That person will be a true battle and I feel now the Democrats have lost some credibility on the issue. Its not that I’m a Roberts fan, but in all honesty, it could have been, and is about to get, alot worse.

  • The Dirty 2xDozen-2

    Keep the names of the Dirty Two-Dozen Minus Two handy.

    Dust it off first thing next year when Roberts tilts the Court against well established protections of women, labor unions, and civil rights …

    Then publish the list of the Dirty 2xDozen-2: show what they have reaped with the vote sown this week. Ask them to defend their actions, in light of what has happened.

    Keep doing this for the next five or so years; maybe politicians will start to understand there are prices to pay for expendiency….

  • Katinula, your argument sounds reasonable, except it is wrong.

    What “powder” exactly? What is lost by voting “no?”

    The whole “powder” strategy was about the filibuster. Nobody was suggesting a filibuster here. Just a “NO” vote– to show unity and opposition.

    Partisan politics isn’t a game of ‘reasonableness’ anyway. It is a streetfight, a military-style battle. You don’t win by being reasonable. You win by being powerful.

    This is why Repugs wipe the floor with us: if they understand anything it is the politics and dynamics of power. It’s actually the only thing they are really, really good at: winning. Governing, as we know, they do not know how to do properly. Governing is all about compromise and comity and truces and peacemaking and draws. They suckat that. We suck at politics.

    You win by playing to win, not playing to draw. Someone else said it best: they play to win, we play to negotiate a draw. Draws might only make sense in a world of collegiate comity, not one of partisan street warfare like we are facing on the Repug side.

    Draws are impossible in a game of power politics, appeasement doesn’t work, there is only win or lose, and we lost.

    Repugs think of every policy as a campaign. We think of every campaign as a policy. Stop it. This was a partisan political drive to get a corporate-friendly shill onto the Court. They won. We lost. Some of the Judiciary Committee Democrats came to play, but the rest of the Senate Democrats didn’t hardly even show up for the game.

    Senate “Democrats” appeased an evil, revolutionary force: the wingnuts. When you’re facing a well-organised, well-disciplined, revolutionary enemy, appeasement only emboldens them.

    This was appeasement. It’s unforgivable.

  • Goatchowder, I agree with some of the things you are saying, but the idealist in me doesn’t want to become like the Republicans. I don’t want, and subsequently, don’t want my representatives looking at everything like a battle over politics and position instead of policy. Why win if we win by being just like them? You could look at it another way…appeasement is the worst thing in the world. Those 22 who voted no did so to appease as well. To appease the special interest groups on the left. I’m not saying there isn’t alot to not like about Roberts. What I’m saying is that he is a conservative, appointed by a ‘conservative’ (argument to made there) president. Who exactly were you expecting? The next one is going to be way worse.

    • Comments are closed.