home

Obama Initially Considered Voting to Confirm Chief Justice Roberts

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 12:02:39 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Interesting note on Barack Obama in a Washington Post article on his Chief of Staff Pete Rouse today:

It was the fall of 2005, and the celebrated young senator -- still new to Capitol Hill but aware of his prospects for higher office -- was thinking about voting to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice. Talking with his aides, the Illinois Democrat expressed admiration for Roberts's intellect. Besides, Obama said, if he were president he wouldn't want his judicial nominees opposed simply on ideological grounds.

And then Rouse, his chief of staff, spoke up. This was no Harvard moot-court exercise, he said. If Obama voted for Roberts, Rouse told him, people would remind him of that every time the Supreme Court issued another conservative ruling, something that could cripple a future presidential run. Obama took it in. And when the roll was called, he voted no.

Of course, other Democrats actually voted for Roberts, including Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold.

< Keeping Some Perspective on Gonzales' Resignation | A Recess Appointment to Replace Gonzales? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Initially Considered Voting to Confirm Chief Justice Roberts | 67 comments (67 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Which explains (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 12:18:02 PM EST
    his attack on those of us in the Left Blogs who criticized for voting yes on Roberts.

    See here.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by taylormattd on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 12:37:40 PM EST
    shouldn't you be happy he was defending Chris Dodd?  J.K.  ;)

    Parent
    Absolutely not (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 01:50:33 PM EST
    Dodd deserved to be ripped for it.

    Parent
    I was (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by taylormattd on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 02:19:42 PM EST
    just teasing.

    Parent
    Characterizing that diary as an 'attack' (none / 0) (#3)
    by Geekesque on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 12:29:36 PM EST
    is hyperbolic at best.

    Parent
    Not characterizing it as an attack (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 01:49:48 PM EST
    is foolish.

    Parent
    Here is how one person described it (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Geekesque on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 03:02:35 PM EST
    civil substantive dialogue with us

    Link.

    Parent

    That person (none / 0) (#39)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 03:11:52 PM EST
    Also wrote this.

    Parent
    I was wrong (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 04:59:49 PM EST
    as I conceded recently.

    Parent
    And people who advocated (none / 0) (#5)
    by Geekesque on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 12:36:03 PM EST
    giving Pat Leahy the Cheney treatment deserved some criticism.

    Parent
    He was way wrong (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:20:27 PM EST
    I said so at the time.

    What is with it with you folks? Your hero pols can not be criticized?

    Sheesh.

    Parent

    Lawyers and stuff (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by joejoejoe on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 03:28:20 PM EST
    Aren't lawyers (and people judging anything fairly) supposed to familiarize themselves with both sides of an argument as part of their decision making process? I'm not seeing how 'considering' voting one way isn't entirely consistent with being a good lawyer.

    As a non-lawyer I changed my mind on two issues (hate crimes legislation, and the Kelo seizure case) because people I respect (Dave Neiwert, Big Tent Democrat) explained BOTH sides and then proceeded to take every argument apart like a lawnmower in shop class and let the reader come to a conclusion that allowed their own knowledge to inform their decision.

    Obama's floor speech on voting against Roberts:

    As some of you know, I have not only argued cases before appellate courts but for 10 years was a member of the University of Chicago Law School faculty and taught courses in constitutional law. Part of the culture of the University of Chicago Law School faculty is to maintain a sense of collegiality between those people who hold different views. What engenders respect is not the particular outcome that a legal scholar arrives at but, rather, the intellectual rigor and honesty with which he or she arrives at a decision.

    Read the whole thing. There is a lot more in the speech as to why Obama came down against the nomination and a few paragraphs that sound very much like his Daily Kos diary defending the PROCESS that people like Leahy and Feingold and Dodd used to come to their decision.

    I'm glad Obama takes the time to examine all the varying arguments for and against something before making a decision. Shouldn't I expect that from all reasonable people?

    Obama ended up making the right decision (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Maryb2004 on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 05:43:34 PM EST
    but that quote of his points to exactly his biggest problem.  We aren't living in the utopian rarified atmosphere of law school faculty collegiality.  We're living in the real world.  And problems in the real world aren't hypotheticals designed to meaasure intellectual rigor and honesty, they are real life messy problems where sometimes there is no solution that is a good solution and often you can only get to a decent solution by fighting in a less than collegial way.

    If he wants collegial he should have stayed in a college.

    Parent

    The Bottom Line (none / 0) (#58)
    by joejoejoe on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 05:50:19 PM EST
    How about this quote from the same speech:
    I was impressed with that statement because I view the law in much the same way. The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.

    I want to take Judge Roberts at his word that he doesn't like bullies and he sees the law and the Court as a means of evening the playing field between the strong and the weak. But given the gravity of the position to which he will undoubtedly ascend and the gravity of the decisions in which he will undoubtedly participate during his tenure on the Court, I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power than to the assuring words that he provided me in our meeting.

    The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts' nomination.

    Obama seems to be seeing things with clear eyes in those two statements that I highlighted. Contrary to his academic training Obama realized that the where the rubber meets the road, not in some debating salon at U of C, Roberts would not be a good Supreme Court Justice.

    And he voted accordingly.

    Parent

    Which is why it is hypocritical for him (none / 0) (#60)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 06:14:40 PM EST
    to hector us for being partisan.

    Parent
    Yes, as I said he made the right decision (none / 0) (#61)
    by Maryb2004 on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 06:51:46 PM EST
    when, as you say, the rubber hit the road.  

    But since he's been on the road for such a short time, there aren't many tire tracks to follow to see what kind of driver he really will prove to be in the long run.  Did he vote to throw Roberts off the bus because he truly felt that way; or did he come up with that statement because his people told him it was politically inexpedient to vote for Roberts and THEN he needed to figure out why.  And if he he HAD voted for Roberts would we only have gotten the collegiality part of the speech.

    There is no answer to those questions because we aren't in his mind.  And we can't extrapolate from all of his actions because there aren't enough actions to extrapolate an answer from.

    Parent

    "there aren't enough actions" (none / 0) (#63)
    by joejoejoe on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 07:30:39 PM EST
    Barack Obama has a longer legislative record than either Hillary Clinton or John Edwards. He was a State Senator for 7 1/2 years and then elected to the U.S. Senate. You can say that doesn't count but other prominent figures have had very similar career tracks. Former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor cites her time in the AZ State Senate all the time as one of the formative experiences of her life. Why can't Obama do the same?

    Here's a link to all of the legislation that Obama sponsored during his time in the IL State Legislature if you are interested in reading about his record.

    Parent

    I'm aware of all that (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Maryb2004 on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 07:37:42 PM EST
    If I moved 10 miles east he would be my senator. Lots of Obama coverage in the local media.

    And despite what Clinton and Edwards may say about experience, I agree with you.  Neither of them has much of a track record.

    This is why I'm still undecided.

    Parent

    I think the "opposing view" (none / 0) (#45)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 04:00:00 PM EST
     that you should consider is that Obama's speeches are crafted and calculated blather and that his REAL motivation is belied by the basis for the vote suggested in the article-- that he was told it would be better for him politically. It simulataneously allows the argument that he is craven and manipulative and easily manipulated.

    Parent
    Or... (none / 0) (#46)
    by joejoejoe on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 04:25:28 PM EST
    ...Obama concluded that for all of the process and qualification arguments that voting for Supreme Court  justices was a simple matter -- will the new Justice's rulings improve or diminish the law as a tool of justice for all Americans.

    Obama said plainly he thought Roberts would make new law that favored the powerful and disfavored the weak in America and would therefore vote against him.

    How that is a cynical reason for voting against Roberts I'm not really sure.

    Parent

    He SAID that (none / 0) (#47)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 04:28:22 PM EST
     We are not all required to believe everything politicians say. (In fact, it's probably a really bad idea.)

    Parent
    Fine (none / 0) (#49)
    by joejoejoe on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 04:37:20 PM EST
    But it's a bit rich to see Obama slammed for his decision making process on the Roberts vote by people  supporting candidates who voted to CONFIRM Roberts. In hindsight Obama's process looks pretty damn good to me.

    Parent
    Fine (none / 0) (#50)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 04:50:30 PM EST
      I'm not telling you not to favor him. I was just making fun of you for lecturing other people to look at both sides when you were not doing so.

    Parent
    He considered all sides (none / 0) (#51)
    by Pancho on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 04:51:17 PM EST
    and the chose the politically safe one.

    Parent
    Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Pancho on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 12:22:32 PM EST
    was confirmed 96-3, and she was an ACLU attorney. Were Republican Senators warned about voting to confirm her? Extreme partisanship over judicial confirmations began with the Democrats.

    History Lesson: See AbeFortas (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 12:43:50 PM EST
    Sorry. The modern politization begins at least with then Presidential Nominee Richard M. Nixon's call to senators asking them to block Abe Fortas nomination for CJ.  Arguably it goes back to the wacko right's billboard's calling for the impeachment of Earl Warren.



    Parent

    Then how do you explain (none / 0) (#34)
    by Pancho on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 02:44:21 PM EST
    Ginsburg's confirmation? Were the Republicans thrilled to get an ACLU attorney on the Supreme Court? That wasn't long after the Dems went after Thomas.

    Parent
    Your shifting ground. Not a good sign. (none / 0) (#55)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 05:33:01 PM EST
    You stated:
    Extreme partisanship over judicial confirmations began with the Democrats.

    I correctly pointed out that was historically inaccurate. Keep in mind, It was conservative reaction to the Warren Court that made conservatives target the court and attempt to fill it with ideologues such as Robert H. Bork, Douglas "one toke over the line" Ginsberg, Scalia and Thomas. By definition, filling the court with extreme ideologues is politization. Furthermore, there is little evidence that the public wanted an extreme shift on the Court.

    By historical standards, Ginsberg is a moderate justice. Examples of liberal justices would include: Douglas, Black, Warren, Fortas, Brennan, Marshall.  Moderates would include Stephens, Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter, O'Connor, and Blackman.

    Next I would point out that Orin recommended Ginsberg  to President Clinton. Presumably she was not "too liberal" for Hatch.

    Your retort is not indicative of when "extreme partisanship" over judicial began, In fact, I'd argue its not even on topic.



    Parent

    Kind of OT: (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 02:51:57 PM EST
    (One of the more memorable moments from O'Connor's nomination process came when conservative televangelist Jerry Falwell said, "Every good Christian should oppose the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court;" O'Connor's fellow Arizona Republican, Barry Goldwater, retorted, "Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass.")
    Courtesy of Wiki re Sandra Day O'Connor

    Parent
    Sometimes, some things just need to be said (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 04:52:07 PM EST
    by certain people and put out there into the universe or life doesn't flow very well.

    Parent
    Jeralyn, 'thinking about' doing something (none / 0) (#4)
    by Geekesque on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 12:30:09 PM EST
    is not the same thing as 'planning' to do it.

    I don't (none / 0) (#7)
    by taylormattd on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 12:38:36 PM EST
    think she meant this as an attack Geekesque. I actually think it is an interesting insight.

    Parent
    I didn't mean it as an attack (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 12:43:03 PM EST
    and I think the post is close enough.

    Parent
    I certainly (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by taylormattd on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 12:47:21 PM EST
    didn't take your post to be an attack. It is a fair and interesting description of what happened.

    And while not everyone would agree with me on this, I actually think it reflects well on Obama that he listened to differing points of view and reached the right conclusion.

    Parent

    He did this at a time (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 01:08:59 PM EST
    when nobody else (D) seemed to give a rats booty about what the people wanted and what American women needed.  I too feel that it reflects very well on him.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Maryb2004 on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 01:13:21 PM EST


    Parent
    The wingnuts are claiming that this shows (none / 0) (#14)
    by Geekesque on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 12:51:24 PM EST
    he's an unprincipled panderer.

    Parent
    If Pandering (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 12:55:16 PM EST
    Means respecting your constituency, I am all for it.

    Parent
    To a degree, every politician is (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 12:55:45 PM EST
    Obama's error is to pretend that he isn't and hector others for doing it.

    Parent
    'Strong' vs 'weak' pandering. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Geekesque on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 01:03:46 PM EST
    Strong pandering--actually doing things and voting in a certain way to remain responsive to the base --is a lot more valuable than saying things that the base likes but that don't have any meaningful consequences.

    I would argue that 'weak' pandering is bad, because it just reinforces an echo chamber effect while allowing politicians to score points for meaningless 'actions' like issuing a press release or going on Hardball before a handful of viewers to display some kind of outrage.

    Parent

    So when Obama panders it's "strong" (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 01:06:07 PM EST
    but when others do it's "weak?" pfffft

    Parent
    Not what I'm saying. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Geekesque on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 03:14:43 PM EST
    What I'm saying is that there is a big difference between rhetoric and action.   Action pandering is the fruit of holding a politician accountable, whereas mere rhetorical pandering is often deployed to obscure shortcomings in action.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#17)
    by taylormattd on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 12:56:40 PM EST
    I'm sure TomP or Berkeley Vox will make that argument later, but Jeralyn wasn't doing that.

    Parent
    Maybe. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Geekesque on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 01:05:01 PM EST
    Jeralyn's been taking whacks at Obama and his wife with some regularity of late.

    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by taylormattd on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 01:47:29 PM EST
    your spidey sense is a little overactive on this one Geekesque.

    Parent
    That's only true (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 01:07:52 PM EST
    if you take as a premise that Obama's decision was actually bad.

    Parent
    Action vs. motivation. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Geekesque on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 01:14:32 PM EST
    The action was the right one.  However, the rub from the original story is that his motives were crass--to further his own personal agenda.

    There have been attempts to do this over his public opposition to the Iraq war as well--claims that he was speaking out in order to suck up to leftwing power brokers in Chicago.

    Parent

    The only thing I get out of this story (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 01:23:32 PM EST
    is a sketch of Obama's political judgement. Maybe this is just the way he makes decisions.

    As to the vote on the supplemental: why did it take him so long to make up his mind. Nothing changed between the time when Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold decided to vote no and when Hillary and Obama did.

    Parent

    Obama is not prone to snap judgments (none / 0) (#38)
    by Geekesque on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 03:04:43 PM EST
    on things--he thinks things through from the various angles before reaching a decision.

    Which is why he has struggled in 60-second debate formats.

    Parent

    Trying to figure out his decision to (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 03:39:52 PM EST
    talk about his exchange w/Rouse though. The linked article includes a statement by Obama that he told Rouse he was looking for a "partner." Yikes. Who did the Illini elect anyhow.

    Parent
    He went against his (none / 0) (#35)
    by Pancho on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 02:45:44 PM EST
    principles for political gain; what do you call it?

    Parent
    The implication is that the only reason (none / 0) (#10)
    by Geekesque on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 12:46:23 PM EST
    he voted against Roberts was presidential ambition.

    That's the way the article slants its discussion, anyways.

    Parent

    I changed the title (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 12:47:05 PM EST
    from "initially planned" to "initially considered."

    Parent
    Obviously she (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 12:48:31 PM EST
    hates Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd!

    Parent
    If only. Then maybe they would get (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 02:37:37 PM EST
    more attention.

    Parent
    Feingold winds up pissing everyone off at one time (none / 0) (#27)
    by Geekesque on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 01:15:26 PM EST
    or another.

    Which reflects well on him, imo.

    Parent

    rather restrictive? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 01:00:00 PM EST
    "Obama's error is to pretend that he isn't and hector others for doing it."

      Just as almost every politician is a panderer, almost every politician is a hypocrite willing to criticize others for doing in one context what he did in another.

      I don't think there are any "mistakes" involved on any level here. I think all of them are acting as they do with purpose and intent.

    Kudos to Peter Rouse. (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 01:14:59 PM EST
    Lets nominate him for President.

    As with all BTD diaries, you need (none / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 03:52:53 PM EST
    to read the comments too. I can assure you that Obama's civility lecture was not well received.

    That doesn't mean that he was wrong. eom (none / 0) (#48)
    by Geekesque on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 04:28:57 PM EST


    Parent
    I stand by that statement today (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 04:58:26 PM EST


    Uh, (none / 0) (#59)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 06:02:14 PM EST
     unless the Post is very unfair in mischaracterizing Obama's comment as pertaining to the advice he received from Rouse on this issue, Obama's admitted he changed his mind because a political operative told him he needed to change for his political benefit and that once this was explained to him  by someonbe who grasps these "subtleties" quicker than does Obama he changed his position.

      That doesn't require any BS or armchair psychology.  If there is a problem here Obama has no one to blame but himself. Either he switched position for reasons having little to do with anything other than self-interest or he should not be allowed to speak to reporters without Rouse present to tell him when he's saying something damaging and stop him.

      Face it, there is no good way to spin this that does not involve claiming the Post took his remarks out of contect and mischaracterized them.

      I don't really fault for acting like a pandering politician because he is a pandering politician and our choices are (let's face it) limited to pandering politicians unless we want to casr a protest vote.

      So, do like everyone else and choose the one that causes the fewest shudders of revulsion when you cast the vote.

    Or, as BTD so often reminds me, they're (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 07:13:39 PM EST
    all pols.

    Parent
    Paradigm shift, winning hearts and minds (none / 0) (#67)
    by Aaron on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:10:39 PM EST
    Humm, has there been a fundamental shift in how Jeralyn and Armando view Barack Obama, or is this just an example of the change in strategy, a paradigmatic shift in their approach to criticizing the B-Man, in hopes of re-ingratiating themselves to the jury/readers of this blog?  :-)

    Not enough evidence to render a judgment at this point, but time will tell no doubt.

    (Disclaimer: This message has been brought to you by a registered affiliate of the the Barack Obama campaign for the presidency, the opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Senator Obama.)  

    Obama 08  

    I don't think there has been a fundamental shift (none / 0) (#69)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 07:20:03 AM EST
    (I'll put my disclaimer upfront: this message is from someone who is not impressed by either the political or strategic views of TL and finds them usually unpersuasive, sometimes petty and sometimes silly. I am firmly undecided at this point but keep hoping Edwards' campaign will shift out of reverse and/or -- and I can hardly believe I'm saying this after 2000-- that Gore will throw his hat in the ring.)

      I do think, however, that TL is trending toward the positions that Obama is not a strong candidate and it is highly questionable as to whether he would make a good  President. I don't see that a fundamental shift because I don't recall ever reading here anything to suggest TL ever thought those things were established.

    Given the wide disparity (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:55:07 AM EST
    in background of Jeralyn and the other FPers and the divergent opinions they express on the front page here, what, in your opinion, are the "political or strategic views of TL"?  

    Parent
    The posts here (none / 0) (#71)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 12:36:14 PM EST
    are archived and readily available for you r review, so I'll limit my response to:

     The frequently expressed views that cornerstones of the Democratic position should include abolition of international borders, demands of fealty to pro-abortion absolutists, portraying anyone opposed to gay marriageon the same terms as heterosexual marriage  as neanderthal bigots, and  date-certain withdrawl from Iraq.  

    Obama Initially Considered Voting to Confirm Chief Justice Roberts | 67 comments (67 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment