Centerfield

Put me down for 61-65.

Posted by: Tully at September 21, 2005 09:35 AM

62-38. I don't see any Republicans voting no.

Posted by: Todd Pearson at September 21, 2005 09:36 AM

As Oscar Wilde said, "Whenever people agree with me, I always feel I must be wrong."

Mark me up with down with the confirmation on 60-65.

I don't think any Republicans will vote against him. Yes, they might want someone more conservative, but these people also wouldn't be willing to vote against Bush.

Posted by: CleverWes at September 21, 2005 09:49 AM

Per comments here and here, I think a decent-sized contingent of Democrats will follow Reid and vote against Roberts. The problem is, they all know they can't win this one, and they all want to send a message to Bush about the next nominee - the question is, what message is being sent if they vote no. I think you'll see at least 30 votes against him, maybe 35, which is precisely the wrong strategy (from their point of view), IMHO, and will make it far easier for the GOP to nominate someone who perhaps more closely fulfill's Bush's promises.

On the GOP side I think that Chafee will vote against, but Collins has indicated her support, and I suspect Olympia will also vote yes. I don't think anyone else's vote is suspect at this point.

Posted by: Simon at September 21, 2005 10:12 AM

If it's precisely the wrong long-term strategy, that's probably what they'll do. Sigh.

Posted by: Tully at September 21, 2005 10:20 AM

Despite by best efforts, I wasn't able to find a place to quote myself from the second link. ;)

the question is, what message is being sent if they vote no

I think the message is what was said in the other discussion - these people just don't see themselves as the minority. They are the donkey party after all, and appropriately so. They'll continue to trudge on whether it makes sense to or not.

When the next Scalia comes along, which I promise you will happen with this next appointee, Democrats won't be able to do anything. They tried to crucify Roberts, but nothing was able to stick. Republicans will point out the witch-hunt that's going on with this next one and I believe that Democrats will lose more (as if it's possible) public support. The boy who cried wolf analogy fits perfectly.

As far as voting no to play to the base - clearly these people don't remember the past two elections. The democratic base will NOT win you a presidency. You MUST MUST look outside the givens. Playing to the base is the same as preaching to the choir - you don't convert anyone that way.

Posted by: CleverWes at September 21, 2005 10:50 AM

I think he will sail thought with a small minority of no votes, no more the 25 to 30. so that puts me in the 66+ camp

Posted by: Rick DeMent at September 21, 2005 10:54 AM

I also think 61-65 in favor. That includes several centrist Democrats, of course.

Posted by: Jon Kay at September 21, 2005 11:14 AM

I believe that WPRO this am reported that Chaffee has said he'll vote yes. They may have just had a pro-Roberts Chaffe quote, but I think they said he'd vote yes. I wasn't paying close attention.

CNN had a story this a.m. quoting Specter as expecting the vote for the NEXT replacement to be far more contentious. I wholeheartedly agree that democrats would place themselves in a better spot to go to the mats over the next nomination if they were to largely go along with confirming Roberts. If Roberts got confirmed 85-15, they'd have a better story with plausible proof that they're willing to approve someone reasonable, and only battle ready in cases where an ideologue has been nominated.

Notice that this is a smart strategy regardless of whether or not the next nominee actually is substantially more of an ideologue than Roberts. So this vote may be a bellweather of Reid's power and savvy. It's certainly going to be a hard sell among both the Pelosi wing and whichever moderate senators who are facing 2006 re-election with the prospect of a serious primary challenger on their left.

Posted by: bk at September 21, 2005 11:26 AM

"Chafee to back Roberts for court

The nominee for chief justice won't upset the Supreme Court's balance, the senator argues, because he will replace another conservative."

http://www.projo.com/news/content/projo_20050921_judge21.12fedaad.html

Chafee has been fairly consistent in supporting Bush's executive appointments. He supported Bolton for the U.N., for example, on the basis that Bush had the right to pick his own team.

However, his statement for Roberts makes it pretty clear how Chafee is going to vote on the next nominee.

Posted by: Henry Woodbury at September 21, 2005 03:48 PM

yeah, this sure does seem to be the theme, and the message that everyone seems to both getting AND giving, that we should stay tuned for a battle royale over the NEXT nominee.

Seems to me that it's likely the gang of 14 is going to try to flex its muscles over this next nominee, that there are some shots being fired to warn Bush not to nominate an "ideologue," and that Bush is so far not taking very kindly to such suggestions.

Posted by: bk at September 21, 2005 04:30 PM

When the next Scalia comes along, which I promise you will happen

I have very little faith in the President to do any such thing. On what do you base your optimism?

[T]his is a smart strategy regardless of whether or not the next nominee actually is substantially more of an ideologue than Roberts.

Trouble is, how do they now paint the next nominee as being any more extreme than the way some of them have painted Roberts? The "play along" strategy only works if they can maintain a level of discipline, to ensure that during the course of the hearings, nobody makes any rash statements or makes hyperbolic comments about Roberts. As long as they achieve that, "play along" might work. Trouble is, they didn't maintain that discipline, and the dems and their allies have made a profusion of rash statements and hyperbolic comments. The damage is already done. Posted by: Simon at September 21, 2005 05:02 PM

Is this like the office pool for March Madness? What's the prize?

Posted by: c3 at September 21, 2005 07:37 PM

The prize is a false sense of pride. ;-)

Posted by: Blue Jean at September 21, 2005 10:21 PM

Heh, good one, c3.

Let me answer your question in a round about way, Simon.

Seems to me that it's likely the gang of 14 is going to try to flex its muscles over this next nominee

I'm going to have to disagree with you there, bk. My prediction, and remember, I'm right 97.6% of the time ;), is that this next Justice will be very conservative. There are several members of Bush's base who are extremely upset that he didn't pick someone more akin to Scalia or perhaps Thomas. Others of said base fear that he might turn into a David Souter.

The sure fire way to quiet them especially after the Democrats have used all their weapons on Roberts? Bring in a Scalia. Someone with a strong record of being very conservative. Democrats are out of ammunition and now it falls on the gang of 14.

Remember, the gang are together for the sole purpose of keeping out a justice who has "extraordinary circumstances." Lindsey Graham only objects on the ground of ethics. McCain has said that he doesn't see Scalia as "extraordinary." Do you think the Democrats of the 14 don't either?

I predict a fall. Ultimately, I'm sure they'd like to get things done, but when push comes to shove, most of them will go back to their party - they had their fifteen minutes of fame.

Could I be wrong? I sure hope so, but right now I see things as being fairly grim.

Posted by: CleverWes at September 21, 2005 10:40 PM

Remember, the gang are together for the sole purpose of keeping out a justice who has "extraordinay circumstances."

Actually, I seem to remember that the gang of 14 are together for the sole purpose of preventing the nuclear option. The extraordinary potential of a nominee is the criterion for whether a filibuster against a nominee is sustained by the gang.

I can buy that Bush may nominate someone vary conservative, but it won't be another Scalia, it will be someone in the mold of Associate Justice Rehnquist ("the lone ranger", quite distinct from the latterday Chief). It will be a conservative, not an originalist; someone who won't get in the way of the modern GOP program, a program which is quite difficult to reconcile against the original understanding of the constitution.

McCain has said that he doesn't see Scalia as "extraordinary."

I'm sure it's not what he means, but I disagree with McCain on this one. I don't think we will see another Justice of Scalia's calibre - I mean that in both senses of the word - in the foreseeable future. Posted by: Simon at September 21, 2005 10:59 PM

Trouble is, how do they now paint the next nominee as being any more extreme than the way some of them have painted Roberts? The "play along" strategy only works if they can maintain a level of discipline, to ensure that during the course of the hearings, nobody makes any rash statements or makes hyperbolic comments about Roberts. As long as they achieve that, "play along" might work. Trouble is, they didn't maintain that discipline, and the dems and their allies have made a profusion of rash statements and hyperbolic comments. The damage is already done.

Simon, spoken like a true wonk. :-) All they have to do is give Roberts a fair amount of support, declare him a reasonable nominee, then call the next guy unreasonable if they think they can make the case. Your claim that they've somehow invalidated themselves due to previous behavior supposes that the general public has been watching as closely as you and has as long a memory. Newsflash: they haven't been, and they don't. The last scotus nom 95% of the GP remembers is Clarence Thomas.

The dems can choose to fillibuster, and if they do, the whole shebang crosses over into the realm of PR. Many are predicting that Bush seems poised to play into this by nominating a darling of social conservatives. If he does, the question then becomes, do GOP members who think the socons already have too much influence really want to go to the mat for a guy that much of the public will view as extreme, and then take that hit come re-election time. especially if the socon darling is more likely to be a socially conservative activist than a limited-federal powers originalist. Do YOU really want the sort of guy that you've identified as simply a different flavor of dead wrong?

I know you like to wish that everything will be decided on clear principle, and this tends to color your predictions. We'll see. I'm not convinced Bush wants to nominate a socon darling. But if he does, a fillibuster is a virtual lock to be attempted, it becomes a PR battle, and the GOP as a whole (socons, neocons, deficit hawks, pro-business onlys, libertarians) has to decide whether it is willing to pay the price.

Suppose the next nom is a socon darling. Hiw likely is it that such a judge could become a darling of social conservatives without saying a bunch of sanctimonious and pious things that much of the general public will not be thrilled by? Stay tuned.

Personally, my opinion is that Bush is NOT going to nominate a justice on the basis of any such objective criteria. My money is on Gonzalez at this point. He's a friend Bush trusts as a true friend that gives him a solid romantic emotional feeling about being a good conservative. And he's been polishing his socon apple fighting porn as the AG.

Posted by: bk at September 22, 2005 08:21 AM

Great analysis Brian. I think the Democrats (correctly or not) smell blood for the next nominee. Roberts will be confirmed easily, but Reid's action suggests they think they have Bush over a barrel after this Katrina fiasco. They may very well overplay their hand, but if Bush nominates a darling of the socons, as you call it, the PR war may work in their favor.

I agree with you, people have short memories. A vote for or against a SC nominee isn't something that most people will really remember, so I doubt there is any lasting damage to Dems for supporting or not supporting Roberts. But I would bet that they will climb over each other to portray the next nominee as too conservative. But Bush may try to undermine that strategy by nominating a black, Hispanic, or woman (ideally, a black, Hispanic woman). I thought originally that Bush would go to the mat for his conservative base but I think that's unlikely now given his growing weakness and the uneasiness in GOP ranks. Of course, I personally hope that's correct.

As you say, Brian, SC confirmations are no longer about principles, its about politics. The stakes are so much higher now that it's naive to think that the person's actual qualifications have much to do with the process. For example, a lot of Democrats, including my wife, think that Roberts is a "stealth" candidate, meaning that he comes across as relatively moderate, but they look at his background as suggesting a hard core conservative. With that kind of analysis, it's obvious that the hearings themselves have nothing to do with eliciting the nominees judicial philosophy--it's about staking out a position with the base. The fact that Harry Reid--who is hardly a hardcore liberal--is voting against Roberts largely because of pressure from liberal interest groups shows what the process has become. And it's the same on the other side except that the conservatives seem to be on the defensive--they trust Bush to "do the right thing" but, because of their own blinders, don't seem to realize how weakened he has become.

Posted by: Marc at September 22, 2005 11:16 AM

the conservatives... trust Bush to "do the right thing"

Yeah, many do. But there's disagreement within the ranks as to what the "right thing" is! This makes unity a real problem. Many republicans don't want a socon darling, but the socons of course are of the mind that anything less is a betrayal.

Honestly, I am not convinced Bush spends much time troubling himself over the philosophical distinctions of the various branches. For him, conservatism is a feeling. He's a romantic at heart. For him, part of that romance really truly does lie in his pledge to be a uniter, not a divider, disparaged as that comment has been. His conservatism really does include a sense of obligation not to make drastic changes that will be divisive and upset the country. Being President has made him hyper aware of this. And in this "save the applecart" sense of conservatism, the socons are not on board.

I'm expecting Bush to nominate someone that feels like he or she has a solid wholesome conservative Republican character, but who also expresses the same understanding of how problematic agressive change can be. He cares more about this romantic leadership-driven view of responsible stewardship than about absolute fealty to the views of the various ideologically driven factions. IMO, of course.

Posted by: bk at September 22, 2005 11:32 AM

Brian,

I agree that Bush has sort of a romantic notion of what conservatism is--it's more a feeling than a set of specific principles. I think he also has a romantic view of what constitutes leadership. But he seems not to understand that much of the country sees his policies as divisive, not unifying. For example, rushing back to Washington to sign the Terry Schiavo bill. I suspect you are right--this was his keeping with his notion that life is sacred and that everyone should share his idea of it. But it blinds him to the fact that not everyone does. And, given his desire to be seen as a decisive leader--a romantic idea that leaders can bring everyone along through simple resolve--it pushes him to take actions that divide the country more.

I suspect Bush is much more concerned with loyalty than he is with ideological purity or, for that matter, competence. This might fall in with his romantic view, not just of conservatism, but of leadership in general.

I think the problem Bush is facing is that many don't share either his romantic sense of what a conservative is or his romantic sense of leadership. The true conservatives, like the true liberals, see ideology as everything and expect fealty to it. At some point and I think this is it, Bush is going to have to wake up to the fact that conservatives aren't one big happy family and, more to the point, that the country as a whole doesn't necessarily share his view of the good.

Posted by: Marc at September 22, 2005 12:04 PM

65+, no problem.

I guess 79 in favor, 19 against.

What do I win if I'm closest? A chance to guest-blog on Centrist Coalition?

Posted by: Oberon at September 22, 2005 12:30 PM

Yeah, it's true that Bush's romantic view of being a unifier extends to being so inclusive as to win over liberals, as we all know. I wouldn't say that he's blind to it. I expect he views himself as being as open as he can be without betraying romantic conservatism. And honestly, part of the fault has to go the reflexive haters on the farther left too. There are many aspects of Bush's big spending that would have been given a virtual pass had they been enacted by a democrat like Clinton. Enacted by Bush, the evil give-aways to business interests are the centerpiece of insight. Let Clinton enact the same stuff, and the centerpiece becomes helping senior citizens or low-income earners, and whatever "big business give-aways" there are become only the cost of doing business.

I'm not at all convinced that Bush's romantic view of conservatism serves him ill. The fact that members of ideologically disparate factions all express some belief that he'll do the right thing is evidence of this. The ability to be a romantic unifer is an important one when you need a big tent to hold various factions.

Posted by: bk at September 22, 2005 01:27 PM

While I do believe a lot of what you guys are saying, I also want to look at what's motivating Bush at this point.

1) He wants to help the country. I might not agree on all the issues with the way he feels is the best response, but I don't think he's out there to "get" (insert minority).

2) As we've heard a million times, he's put a lot of thought into his "legacy."

If he appoints another Roberts, do you think that'll add any flavor to his legacy? If he adds someone with a very strong conservative background who is very open about their views and opinions, that'll be something to remember as well as placate some of the Republicans angry about Roberts.

I do hope that I'm mistaken, and I'll offer my congratulations to everyone who disagreed if I am.

Posted by: CleverWes at September 22, 2005 02:53 PM

The conventional wisdom is that legacy-driven maneuvers kick into high gear after the mid-term elections. Of course the rare opportunity a scotus nom represents is reason for exceptions.

I have my doubts that Bush is currently ready to go legacy at the expense of serious legislation. One may not agree with his approach to reforming SS, but I think he realizes the clock is ticking, so he gets credit for that. He may well decide there's no choice but to set it aside, but my sense is he's going to make another push...

I'm not convinced that Bush views Roberts as a nonentity incapable of legacy impact. We'll know by the next nom, I guess, but I think Bush's romantic view is that he's most likely to be regarded well by posterity if what he views as very solid responsible choices work out well in the long term, scotus-wise and otherwise. I'm also not sure Bush is as legacy driven as Clinton, who I think at base is more insecure. For better or worse, I think Bush keeps his own counsel to some extent, and is comfortable being his own yardstick, because he believes history will vindicate him.

Posted by: bk at September 22, 2005 03:54 PM

Put me down for 66+.

Posted by: boz at September 22, 2005 04:41 PM

Well, I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that he'll get 66 or more votes in favor. I do think there will be a sizable token opposition by Dems. But, if the next appointment is going to be as controversial as the scuttle says it will be... strategically I think most Dems will save their opposition for the next nominee.

Posted by: Kevin at September 22, 2005 06:28 PM

Hillary will vote no, according to some reports.

Posted by: Simon at September 22, 2005 08:50 PM

I guess I'm late but I would have guessed 66.

I predict Janice Rogers Brown is the next nominee.

Posted by: Susan at September 22, 2005 10:44 PM

I'd be surprised if Brown is the next nominee. She's made way too many bomb-throwing speeches (the New Deal equals slavery, etc.)

Posted by: Oberon at September 23, 2005 09:51 AM

Yeah Oberon, that's a good general point. If nothing else, the politicization of scotus noms in the modern era means that the advantage goes to the circumspect.

It is indeed ironic that so many are calling for openness of views on the part of nominees, yet each new circus warns any nominee against that. Put in such a spot, who among us would trust that senators were looking for info and not ammo? It's a real conundrum.

Posted by: bk at September 23, 2005 10:47 AM

"Advantage goes to the circumspect." Well put.

OTOH, there's a difference between openly expressing views and expressing far-right or far-left views. A nominee who openly express centrist views probably have an easier time.

OTOTOH, I want supreme court justices who are circumspect. Judicious, even.

Besides, the political calculus for Bush doesn't favor Brown -- Brown's history will give the Democrats easy lines of attack against the entire Republican party, but accomplish little for the Republicans.

OTOH, most of my predictions about Bush are completely wrong.

Posted by: Oberon at September 23, 2005 11:55 AM

I wanna change my vote to 66+....

Posted by: Tully at September 23, 2005 01:22 PM

Yup, me too, I'll go to 66 plus. 3/8 of the committee democrats went for Roberts, so if 3/8 of remaing democratic senators follow, and 95% of the GOP goes party line, that projects to 69. looks like Roberts should get a solid 2/3 to 3/4 in favor of confirmation.

Anyone have an idea of when Bush might announce the next nominee? I dunno how many incumbent Republican senators running in 2006 expect either a serious primary challenge from a moderate or a serious moderate liberal challenge in the general election. Such senators are unlikely to appreciate the nomination of anyone who could be characterized as a bombthrower on social issues.

Posted by: bk at September 23, 2005 02:46 PM