Will the Dems attempt to block the Roberts nomination?

[LionPride]

Yes, the Dems can filibuster, but I doubt they do. They will just drag Roberts through the mud like they did with Thomas prior to his confirmation.

A deal was struck between the Repubs and the Dems regarding their filibusters of judges for the federal benches. That deal took the "nuclear option" off the table - as long as the Dems don't break the deal. If they do, changing the Senate rules on filibustering becomes an option again.

I may be wrong on this, and if someone can find something to say I'm wrong I'd be willing to look at it, but I don't think Repubs put a Democratic administration through this many filibusters of judges. Part of winning elections is the ability to nominate (different from appoint) a judge for a bench. Those nominations should then receive an up or down vote in the Senate. If the majority of the Senate believes a judge is qualified, that judge is in. If the majority says no, then the President needs to nominate someone else. Simple as that. But give them all an up or down vote.

[flybynight]

you hear about how republicans are against something roberts did, it was on CNN, some republican group was speaking out against him

[fleaflicker]

I'd almost love to see the Republicans try another nuclear option thing. That nuclear option shoots BOTH parties in the foot sooner or later, though it would only effect the Dems right now. Hasn't anybody mentioned that the reason there is so much discussion of a filibuster is because the parties can no longer turn in a certain card to reject a judicial nominee? It used to be that a Congressman (or woman) or Senate member could turn in a card to reject a nominee to a court (esp. Supreme Court) and that is how the Republican party stopped several nominees. Since that has been rejected, the only way to stop the majority party from electing a far right (or left, depending) person to the Supreme Court is to filibuster. If they use the nuclear option, which would effectively stop a minority party from doing that, then when the Dems come back into power, they will put the most far left judges that anybody has ever seen on the bench, because the conservatives would be powerless to stop them. It would also be fitting revenge for the Democrats as well.

[El-Moldo]

So the Democrats would appoint judges for spite?

[fleaflicker]

Nah, though it would be fitting revenge. When the Democrats got back into power, they, like the Republicans, would appoint judges largely because of their political leanings. And while if the nuclear option was used, right now it would give the power to the Republicans to put whoever they wanted on the Supreme Court no matter how extreme they were. However, when the American people tire of hearing all the conservative propaganda, they'll put more Democrats in the House and Senate, along with a Democratic Senate. Then when they need to replace a Supreme Court judge, they'll appoint somebody that falls left of Hillary Clinton, because the Republicans would be powerless to stop them.

In other words, filibustering and the right to stop a nomination is what keeps the majority party from doing whatever they want, and running all over the minority. It also keeps appointed judges a bit closer to the middle of the political spectrum, which is much better than judges of both extremes being on the court.

[El-Moldo]

So revenge or spite is the new way to govern?

[fleaflicker]

Nah, but following party lines is. Like I said, if the nuclear option goes through, then both parties, when they are in power, will effectively be able to appoint the most right or left leaning judge without the other party stopping them.

[Pale Rider]

It's all but over on this one. Latest polling data has it 70-30 in favor of Roberts. That means, like 15 Dems have come over! The handwriting really IS on the wall.

[LionPride]

Ok, all you libs out there have been waiting for this day. The day I say, BUSH SCREWED UP!

That's right, you heard it straight from LP's typing.

How on earth can he nominated Roberts for chief justice after Rhenquist's death? He has two PROVEN conservatives sitting on the bench now. How Roberts will rule on the bench is not known. But we know how Thomas and Scalia rule - as strict constitionalists. If Roberts turns into another Souter, you now have a left leaning chief justice, not a true conservative like Thomas or Scalia.

Roberts may very well end up being a great chief justice, but that's a risky chance to take. I won't profess to know all the politics involved with a nominating a justice or a chief justice, but this just boggles my mind. If anyone can shed any light on why in the world he would do this, I'd appreciate the insight.

[once a runner]

LP, I was a little baffled by that myself. Of course I'm used to shaking my head at GW's decisions ;-) I guess it's not uncommon for a chief justice to have never served as an associate judge. That in itself is a little confusing. For a position of that magnitude, you would think you would want someone with experience. Of course, when the cases are heard, the chief justice gets the same number of votes as the others.