Roberts Vote Getting Interesting

[Bruzilla]

I read that Senator Reid, the distinguished minority leader of the Senate, met with a bunch of Liberal special interest types and then made a lengthy speech on the floor about how he's going to vote against John Roberts for the Supreme Court. Apparently his comments took a lot of folks by surprise, including a lot of Democrat senators.

So, the question is does Reid vote no while most of "his" senators vote yes, making him look like he's in the pockets of the special interest and not a strong leader; or does he try to show he's his own man and a leader, and flip-flop on his earlier statements and vote yes?

Is this a lose-lose situation for Reid?

 

[Pete]

I read that Senator Reid, the distinguished minority leader of the Senate, met with a bunch of Liberal special interest types and then made a lengthy speech on the floor about how he's going to vote against John Roberts for the Supreme Court. Apparently his comments took a lot of folks by surprise, including a lot of Democrat senators.

So, the question is does Reid vote no while most of "his" senators vote yes, making him look like he's in the pockets of the special interest and not a strong leader; or does he try to show he's his own man and a leader, and flip-flop on his earlier statements and vote yes?

Is this a lose-lose situation for Reid?

Did he ever say he was going to vote "yes"? Him voting no doesn't suprise me at all. If a Republican proposed giving everyone one in the country a free candybar he would vote no because of the tooth decay it would cause in the poor neighborhoods.

 

[Bruzilla]

Did he ever say he was going to vote "yes"? Him voting no doesn't suprise me at all.

I've never heard of him saying he would vote yes, but where the "surprise" factor is coming in is that it was assumed Reid would vote yes because:

Reid submitted a list of candidates that he would not support, and Roberts wasn't on it.
Reid is from a Red state.
The feedback from most of the Democrat Senators who interviewed Roberts was very favorable, with the exception of the usual suspects - Kennedy and Schumer.

So now you have most Democrats saying that Roberts seems like a good guy and they'll vote for him, and then their leader comes out and blindsides them by saying he won't, and doesn't really offer any solid reasons. Even worse, he makes the announcement after meeting with a bunch of special interest groups. If there had been a lot of issues and concerns with Roberts during the hearings the rank and file senators would have an easy out... but that wasn't the case. Now they have to go against their leader or risk looking like they are as unprincipled as the Republicans have been saying they are.

I just picture Arte Johnson in his German uniform saying "Very interesting."

 

[vraiblonde]

I'm becoming convinced that Harry, Nancy and Howard were put in their positions to make other Democrats look sane by comparison. They more these nutballs rage and sensationalize, the more moderate a person like Hillary Clinton appears.

 

[Bruzilla]

Hillary is taking the low road and voting against Roberts. Ooooppsie!

 

[rraley]

Why wouldn't you vote Yes on Roberts for replacing Rehnquist...there will be no change to the ideological makeup of the Court seeing as Roberts, a strong conservative, will be replacing Rehnquist, another strong conservative? If this was still O'Connor's seat, I could definitely see opposition, but in this case, not so much at all.

Plus there are still 5 votes for legalized abortion even if Roberts (or another anti-right to privacy jurist) were to replace O'Connor. Why the fight?

 

[kom526]

I'm becoming convinced that Harry, Nancy and Howard were put in their positions to make other Democrats look sane by comparison. They more these nutballs rage and sensationalize, the more moderate a person like Hillary Clinton appears.

You forgot Diane Feinstein, she voted against Roberts because he did not convince her "as a woman" that he would do what she felt was prudent for the country.