« 7/19: George W.J.C. Bush? | Main | 7/21: Supreme Snoozer? »

July 20, 2005

7/20: Okay, But For The Next Pick We Want Harry T. Stone

Note for web readers: For publication on the web, we've been appending our special SCOTUS edition to the end of the regular Blogometer (in The Hotline document where it is principally published, the 2 run in separate sections). Today for the 1st time since Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement announcement, the SCOTUS section is where all the action is at. For as long as that is the case, we'll reverse the order.

Conservative reaction to Pres. Bush's nomination of Judge John Roberts for the SCOTUS ranges from content to enthusiastic, and share what anecdotes and background info they have on him. All know this is a big event, and several assemble substantial round-ups of links to other blogs. Otherwise, many turn their attention to what they see as too-eager Dem opposition.

Meanwhile, an early split emerges between bloggers at 2 of the largest liberal sites: As quoted below, Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas takes a wait-and-see approach, whereas MyDD's prolific Chris Bowers immediately deems him unacceptable. Moulitsas is not alone: many are resigned to the inevitability of Justice Roberts -- but they don't like it. Several admit that Roberts doesn't strike them as an extremist (although "partisan hack" quickly emerges as an epithet of choice) while others state the obvious explanation for their SCOTUS passivity: they want the focus to stay on WH dep. CoS Karl Rove (about which plenty more in the other Blogometer section).

SUMMARY JUDGMENT: What Could Be More Meta Than A Round-Up Of Blogs Rounding-Up Blogs Rounding-Up Other Blogs?

RIGHT ROBERTS REAX: Vote Him Up Or ... Up!

It should come as no surprise that conservatives largely support Roberts for SCOTUS. A few concede they don't know much about him, but aren't much worried:

  • Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds: "Just watched Bush's intro, followed by the [VT Sen. Pat] Leahy / [NY Sen. Chuck] Schumer response. Bush was smirking; he thinks he's got it in the bag. More significantly, perhaps, Leahy and Schumer looked pretty flat; they seemed to be going through the motions; I don't think they believe they can stop him. That could change of course, but it's certainly how it looks now." More: "What do I think of him? Beats me. Just searched his hearing transcripts on the right to bear arms and found nothing. How is he on federalism and other limits on government power? Beats me again."
  • Confirm Them: "Judge Roberts is a solid nominee who should be easily confirmed, and without need of any help from the blogosphere!"
  • Stuart Buck: "For what it's worth: A few years ago, Justice Scalia said to a friend of mine that he and other Justices thought of John Roberts as far and away the best Supreme Court litigator in the country. I asked the friend why Justice Scalia said that, and (paraphrasing from my memory) the answer was something like this: 'No matter how intense the questioning, Roberts is never flustered, and is always able to calmly answer any question whatsoever, while skillfully weaving in the substantive points that he wanted to make in the first place.'"
  • RedState, referring to the wording of the Gang of 14 compromise: "It must be said: There is nothing extraordinary about John Roberts, Jr."
  • Ryne McClaren: "If I may use a baseball reference here, it looks like Roberts is something of a five-tool player: he's decent, he's made few enemies (that we know of yet), he's a great lawyer, he's been a great judge, and he conforms to what "conservatives" have in mind when it comes to what a Justice ought to be. How 'bout that?"

Not a few check out what the left is saying:

  • Patrick Ruffini live-blogs the reax since the Roberts pick was known around 7:30pm monitors reax at "SICKO WATCH 8:03 p.m.: Daily Kos Comment: 'Kill Him.'" The comment is later removed; Ruffini adds: "Down the memory hole."
  • Weekly Standard's Jon Last at Galley Slaves: "Let the record show that at 11:58 p.m. I clicked over to Kausfiles and found this ad already running. It's NARAL, helping you stop 'right-wing judicial activist' John Roberts from rushing into your doctor's office with his Mighty Gavel of Truth!"
  • PoliPundit's Alexander McClure: "How can Senate Democrat filibuster Roberts when so many members of the caucus supported Roberts for the DC Court? If Democrats have the temerity to filibuster, then Bill Frist will easily assemble enough Senators to invoke cloture or to change the rules."
  • Power Line's John Hinderaker calls PFAW's brief on Roberts "a feeble attempt at opposition research": "The Democrats simply don't have anything to work with. And, thankfully, they are a minority in the Senate."
  • RedState, on Schumer's assertion that Roberts needs to answer all questions: "It's convenient ... that Schumer has forgotten the confirmation of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose confirmation hearings were the gold-standard for question refusal in confirmation hearings..." (PDF)

Others sound off on a variety of related subjects:

  • Viking Pundit compares right and wrong predictions from NRO's The Corner.
  • Southern Appeal: "Let me illustrate how thoroughly the specter of Roe v. Wade dominates the judicial-nominations process" -- as of 12:51am "only one news outlet has mentioned ... the recent Hamdan (Gitmo) decision" which Roberts joined. And though Hamdan was "a high-impact decision of contentious issues of great import in the Global War on Terror," the article "discussed Judge Roberts's courtroom demeanor."
  • RedState's Erick Erickson -- the promoter of not a few SCOTUS rumors in recent weeks -- settled on Roberts at 6:45pm, an hour before the AP reported so. Erickson was quite prolific on 7/19, at one point cautioning readers: "What I know for sure is that I don't know who the nominee is going to be."
  • Southern Appeal: "Judge Roberts eliminates any threat that the O'Connor Seat would become the official 'Woman Seat.' The Supreme Court for too long featured its own demographic ghettos: the Catholic Seat and the Jewish Seat. (Not to mention the Massachusetts Seat.) ... Good job, President Bush."
  • At Bench Memos, Matthew Franck notes that Roberts would be the 5th Harvard grad on the court, adding that "it is not to be expected that its graduates all think alike -- as we can see they don't when we look at the justices who studied there. ... But is it the best of all possible worlds when a majority of the nine most powerful lawyers in America went to the same law school?"

LEFT ROBERTS REAX: Judge Dread?

Unsurprisingly, a fair segment of the liberal blogs fiercely resist Bush's pick:

  • At MyDD, Chris Bowers is one who leads the charge against Roberts, with plenty of links coming his way from other blogs: "This guy is totally unacceptable, and probably was chosen in order to start a fight. ... If Republicans are forced to use the nuclear option to confirm Roberts, then so be it. As far as I am concerned, that is the only way he should be confirmed."
  • Pandagon's Amanda Marcotte agrees: "Dictionary definition of an activist judge. He will have to go."
  • At MyDD, Jerome Armstrong compares statements by the "1990 Roberts" to the "2003 Roberts." The former: "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled." The latter: "Roe vs. Wade is the settled law of the land." Armstrong: "Well, at least he's on record as being a flip-flopper. He'll say whatever he needs to be nominated."
  • Seeing The Forest calls Roberts "a Ken Starr clone, one of those partisan insiders who can be counted on to do the bidding of the 'conservative movement.'"
  • CAP's Clerks blog points out that Roberts once co-authored a brief in favor of an anti-flag burning amendment and recommends that he be pressed on whether he "still believes the Flag Act to be constitutional, in light of his views on the commerce clause."

However, given the months of preparation by liberal activist groups to oppose Bush's nominee, it's notable how many are keeping their powder dry:

  • Best-read of all is Markos Moulitsas: "As Roberts answers all questions posed, we can then decide whether it's worth opposing or not. And as that process plays out, we can make sure that Rove isn't forgotten in all the Supreme Court hoopla. Unlike some, us progressive bloggers can walk and chew gum at the same time."
  • Atty Jeralyn Merritt: "I think it's too soon to start opposing ... Roberts. Most of us knew nothing about him before tonight. ... I'd like to know more about him before I make up my mind. I don't think it helps that liberal groups are coming out swinging so soon. It has the appearance that they would oppose anyone Bush would nominate."
  • Mark Schmitt, at TPM Cafe: "Why does everyone seem to think that they have to decide tonight, whether John Roberts is an outrageous ideologue, or a pretty mainstream, incrementalist conservative of the type that you have the right to expect [from a GOP WH and Senate]? ... In Supreme Court nominations, it's almost always the hearings that define the nominee, and the effort to get ahead of the hearings can be futile or counterproductive."

No one seems to believe strongly that Roberts' nod can be derailed, and many try to make peace with their expectations:

  • Steve Soto advises his fellow progressives to "put up a good fight, make him explain his views and get him on record, aim to keep as many Democrats in the "oppose" column as possible knowing that there aren't the votes to block him, and move the agenda back to where it was before tonight at 9 PM EDT."
  • Rising Hegemon: "Not that I am suggesting giving Judge Roberts a free pass, but lets admit it, bland is bland. The time for getting worked up about this guy is as things emerge."
  • UPenn prof Kim Schepelle points out that Roberts wrote the opinion in the case dismissing a complaint about the arrest of a 12-year-old girl at a DC Metro stop for eating a single french fry. (Note: The case is pretty well-known around DC, although Roberts' involvement is news to most.) She comments at Balkinization: "As a doctrinal matter, the Hedgepeth case might be of little interest. But it is one of the few decisions we have to go on to see how a future Justice Roberts would differ from the departing Justice O'Connor. ... Though many of us have railed against Justice O'Connor's fact specificity and her predilection to decide cases on the narrowest possible grounds, I suspect that we are going to very much miss her humanity."
  • Progressive Values is skeptical of Roberts, but concedes: "Roberts will no doubt be confirmed. He is not as self-sinking figure as Robert Bork was ... Roberts is unlikely to behave as silly and self righteous as Bork, and sink his hopes. Roberts is a far more serious legal mind and judge."
  • Yale prof Robert Gordon, at TPM Cafe: "With Roberts Bush is obviously playing it safe -- maybe because he's tanking in the polls, or suffering from the Rove scandal and bad Iraq news, or just because he doesn't want another battle to distract from his faltering domestic agenda. ... [His positive] qualities are going to make Roberts's confirmation easier. They are also what make him dangerous."
  • UT-Austin law prof Brian Leiter: "The best hope -- and this tells us a lot about the condition of America today -- may be that he will be a Justice Scalia and not a Justice Thomas."

OTHER ROBERTS REAX: Not Everyone Has A Dog In This Fight

Supreme Court Nomination Blog, on what Roberts might be like: "William Rehnquist, his former boss." Similar to Rehnquist, Roberts "is an institutionalist -- he has worked for essentially his entire professional career before the Supreme Court. I also have the sense that they have a similar ideology. For example, I get the sense that he (like the Chief) simultaneously believes in strong Executive Powers (see the D.C. Circuit's recent Hamdan decision, which he joined) but also limited federal powers (see his dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc in the Rancho Viejo case)." However, Roberts may be "more of a judicial craftsman than the Chief, who tends to write as concisely and directly as possible."

Roger L. Simon: "I gather some conservatives are upset. I have advice for them -- get over it! ... The last thing a wartime president needs at a moment like this is a divisive Supreme Court fight. And for what? I don't want George Bush spending one ounce of his credit on this and it may be that he feels the same way."

Moderate Joe Gandelman: "His every word, statement and attitude will be explored and if he's wise he'll answer." He adds, abortion "seems on life support in legal terms."

At Volokh Conspiracy, Jim Lindgren and Orin Kerr debate the usefulness of popular online betting/trading site Tradesports in predicting the pick. Lindgren post a line chart showing Roberts' value throughout the day.


°   °   °   °   °

BLOGOMETER: Divided Attention

In a jarring -- albeit predictable -- turn of events, nearly all the activity is in the SCOTUS Special half of the Blogometer today. As we mention there, liberal bloggers are loath to let Pres. Bush's pick of John Roberts for the SCOTUS drown out coverage of the Valerie Plame investigation and commentary on Karl Rove's involvement. Not to mention, there are also a few conservative bloggers who have had fun countering Dem theories, and kept at it in the past 24 hours. That said, there just isn't much news to go on.

ROVE VS. ROBERTS: The Answer Is Simple -- Everyone Just Has To Blog Twice As Much Now!

Liberal bloggers seize upon a passage from a Boston Globe story: "Sources said the timing of an announcement had been moved up in part to deflect attention away from a CIA leak controversy that has engulfed Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove. 'It helps take Rove off the front pages for a week,' one Republican strategist said."

  • MyDD's Bowers, in a post before Roberts was announced, terms the Roberts pick "Distraction-gate." He writes: "This does not necessarily hurt us. First, we can push the distraction meme. Second, a quicker nominee almost certainly means they did less background work, which will give us a chance to bring the noise on opposition research against [Edith] Clement (or whoever it might be)."
  • Under the header "Trained Monkeys," Eschaton provides a number of quotes from CNN anchors speculating that the Roberts nomination will take heat off Rove.
  • Majikthise's Lindsay Beyerstein guest-blogs at Political Animal: "Bush will have to produce something more compelling than a partisan hack like Roberts if he wants to distract us from the leaking elephant in the room and the ever-deepening puddle forming around its ankles--especially if it turns out that Rove lied to the FBI. Many commenters are skeptical that Roberts will dominate media coverage. One writes, the only way he'll "monopolize the news cycle" is if "his wife goes missing."
  • Seeing The Forest, on why now: "Was it because Bush is worried that the CIA leak case is headed to the Supreme Court? Did Bush nominate Roberts to be a vote on the Court that will protect Rove?"

ROVE: Less Than Total Recall

In The American Propect, Murray Waas reports that Rove did not disclose to FBI investigators his discussions of Plame with Time's Matt Cooper. This catches limited attention, mostly from lefty bloggers.

Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum observes, "For a guy with a reputation for having a steel trap mind, he sure does seem forgetful lately, doesn't he?" Josh Marshall: "[I]f Waas's sources are right, Rove's in a ton of trouble." Atrios agrees, expletively. Centrist Andrew Sullivan calls Waas's story a troubling assertion "if true."

"Proud" liberal Lawnorder helps keeps the Rove story alive by linking to this Jonathan AlterNewsweek piece. Art imitiates life when you play the "West Wing Game" at Swing State Project, which channels the spirit of the TV series with a clever analogy between the TV characters and real Bush West Wingers involved in the Plame investigation.

Think Progress invites readers "who have tried so hard to downplay the importance of Valerie Plame's outing" to "read President Ronald Reagan's remarks at CIA headquarters upon signing the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (which the Plame leakers may have violated)."

Meanwhile, conservative Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters links to his online Weekly Standard article about parallels between Watergate and Plamegate: "Sounds just like Watergate, except in this case, the White House told the truth while low-level elements at the CIA appear to have twisted intelligence reports into lies to undermine the government -- a clear abuse of their power and position. An anonymous source had once again proven its value ... right? Not exactly."

QT Monster's Place links to a piece in the online American Thinker piece which asserts that the real story in the Rove/Plame affair is that DCI Porter Goss has begun to "clean house": "The spook bureaucracy is fighting for its perks, hand-in-hand with the Democrats and the media. This is exactly the same iron triangle that destroyed Richard Nixon."

Right-leaning Just One Minute solicits help in locating an Andrea Mitchell TV appearance, in which she reportedly admits that much of DC's journalism elite knew Plame worked for the CIA prior to Robert Novak's infamous column. JustOneMinute references a Power Line post that says Mitchell agreed Plame's identity was "generally known" during an unknown MSNBC appearance.

WHITE HOUSE '08: Does "No Freakin' Clue" Have A PAC Yet?

With a little over 8K respondents participating, Daily Kos announces the results of its latest WH '08 straw poll, as listed below. Results are also provided for the 1st go-round

     Candidate        Results    6/20
     Clark                34%     26%
     No Freakin' Clue     13%     17%
     Clinton              10%     10%
     Feingold             10%     10%
     Edwards               7%      8%

Daily Kos: "Remember, there's nothing scientific about this, and doesn't measure rank-and-file Dems. It measures us, the chosen few who think it's fun to talk about this sort of thing 3 years out from the election."

ENDTRODUCING: The End Of A Bubba

The popular long-running liberal TN blog South Knox Bubba is no more. He posts a message to readers: "It was fun, but lately it has become too much like work and not so much fun. Contrary to wild speculation around the internets, that's pretty much all there is to it. It's a personal decision, and that's all." In June, the formerly anonymous SKB was rudely identified as "bank software designer" Randy Neal by an area alt-weekly editor (see 6/20 Blogometer). Readers mourn at the Knoxville News blog. Say Uncle links to new groups for readers to continue discussions formerly held in SKB's comments. Instapundit: "It's a big bummer."

MISCELLANY: Who Are These People Who Are Writing About Non-Rove, Non-SCOTUS Issues?

  • Semi-retired humor blogger Jim Treacher is now maintaining a blog for the movie "Blowing Smoke."
  • Under the header "Comcast Conspiracy?" Gadflyer's Brian Dolber notes that After Downing Street's David Swanson "discovered that Comcast had effectively blocked anyone from receiving emails that contained his site's URL, because Symantec, the company which operates Comcast's filter, had supposedly received 46,000 complaints regarding mail from his organization."
    • At Ragged Thots, GOPer Robert George comments on the outing of Sen. Rick Santorum's (R-PA) spokesperson: "He apparently told Santorum three years ago -- when the outing on the left started up. Now, Santorum didn't tell [Robert] Traynham to hit the road -- so, is that supposed to make him some sort of hypocrite? And would the left critics be much happier if Traynham had been fired (as opposed to apparently having been promoted a couple of times since he outed himself)? The outers had a political point to be made. Just what it is, we can only imagine."
  • Longtime CA political columnist Joe Scott shoots down rumors that new L.A. mayor Antonio Villaraigosa will challenge Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) in '06. He writes, "source very close to Villaraigosa told me that talk about any gubernatorial bid is ludicrous."
  • Through ActBlue.com, Duncan Black raised $3,250 for OH 02 special election candidate Paul Hackett (D) on 83 contributions.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Power To The People

TAPPED: "Two days after [IL Dem Sen.] Barack Obama visited the United Nations -- a trip he billed as the opening of a new phase of his Senate career that will focus on shoring up his Foreign Relations Committee portfolio -- the Chicago Tribune is reporting that he's hired Samantha Power, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of "A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide," to join his staff as an adviser. ... The more power Power has, the more thoughtful America's response to genocide and man-made humanitarian disasters in Africa and beyond will be."

LEST WE FORGET: Bork Would've Been A Smarter Pick?

Mickey Kaus: "If the alternative to a divisive Supreme Court fight is returning the public's attention to a) the ongoing casualties in Iraq; b) a scandal involving the president's top aide and c) a highly unpopular Social Security plan, I'd say Bush's biggest fear is that Roberts isn't controversial or divisive enough. He might just sail through!"

NOTES AND ERRATA

Questions, comments, reservations? Drop us a line at blogometer@nationaljournal.com.

Posted by at July 20, 2005 12:33 PM



Copyright 2007 by National Journal Group Inc.
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.