Obama reaching across aisle? not quite

[jonks]

Obama on Roberts:

?There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land,? Obama said.

?He seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view.?

?He does, in fact, deeply respect the basic precepts that go into deciding 95 percent of the cases that come before the Federal court: adherence to precedents, a certain modesty in reading statutes and constitutional text, a respect for procedural regularity, and an impartiality in presiding over the adversarial system.?

Yet he voted against confirmation. Hillary did too, but let's focus on the purported "uniter". He looked at one of the most qualified individuals to be nominated, flat out stated Roberts was qualified for the position, praised his temperament and personal qualities, yet ultimately voted against confirmation.

If Obama can't bring himself to vote for someone as qualified as Roberts merely because of his being conservative, which all republicans and 22 democrats did, how exactly is he supposed to appeal to moderate republicans?

For those of you that want to run immediately to Hillary's vote, remember that Obama's big thing is that he is supposedly post-partisan, and above the political fray. Take that away and he's a first term uber-liberal senator who gives good speeches.

Hopes and dreams? If you're not a liberal Obama's got nothing for you.

 

[b0mbrman]

That's it. I'm voting for Hillary

"I'm running for president, and I'm in it to win it" -- Hillary Clinton

Can you point to where Obama claims that he doesn't vote liberally?

 

[OrByte]

I just read something about this on Foxnews like 2 minutes ago. Where you just over there too?

I think it said something to the point that Obama's opinion about Justice Roberts was that he too often voted in favor of the strong over the weak.

I am paraphrasing but I think that is the general idea.

 

[Superrock]

I like McCain. I think he's a nice, old guy with a lot of good qualities. But I'm not going to vote for him in the upcoming election.

 

[Craig234]

There are excellent reasons for both of them to vote against John Roberts. Our nation will be harmed for decades by his appointment.

The way I read Obama's comments is that Roberts has strong basic legal skills. But Hitler had strong basic political skills - there's more to the issue to look at (no comparison of Roberts to Hitler is implied).

Frankly, Obama's 'reaching across the aisle' is perhaps the thing I like least about him. This is not the time for that; there is a time for it when the 'other side' has returned to sanity.

What we need now is damage repair, and that doesn't mean to keep digging the hole at half speed.

 

[Descartes]

Maybe I can't read or missed the back story, but do you have a reference showing that he voted against confirmation due to his being a conservative?

 

[nageov3t]

I just read something about this on Foxnews like 2 minutes ago. Where you just over there too?

McCain brought it up in a speech today.

I was surprised McCain didn't take the Wright bait... "Obama says Roberts didn't share his deepest values. Who does, his spiritual compass?"

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: Craig234
There are excellent reasons for both of them to vote against John Roberts. Our nation will be harmed for decades by his appointment.

The way I read Obama's comments is that Roberts has strong basic legal skills. But Hitler had strong basic political skills - there's more to the issue to look at (no comparison of Roberts to Hitler is implied).

Frankly, Obama's 'reaching across the aisle' is perhaps the thing I like least about him. This is not the time for that; there is a time for it when the 'other side' has returned to sanity.

What we need now is damage repair, and that doesn't mean to keep digging the hole at half speed.

Agreed. And the only way there'll be somebody on the other side of that aisle who won't bite any hand reaching across is for the current repub leadership to have their butts whupped like they haven't had since Barry Goldwater...

Repubs need regime change rather badly and only discrediting their current leadership will allow that...

 

[Lemon law]

If your criteria is a strong nationist that can unite a country, by all means, cast your vote for an Adolph Hitler, Stalin, GWB, or Mao. If your criteria is something different, understand that is why our founding fathers required the advice and consent of the US Senate. Personally, I think the selection of people like Scalia, Roberts, and Alito have been a national disaster. And Obama and Hillary were quite right to vote not to confirm.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Superrock
I like McCain. I think he's a nice, old guy with a lot of good qualities. But I'm not going to vote for him in the upcoming election.

Dude, you just totally tanked your campaign of being a uniter. Wait, you don't have one - but Obama does.

See it's what you purport to stand for - and your stands against it that create such stories. You never said you'd reach across the isle so you aren't expected to.

 

[Farang]

This just in: Barack Obama is a Democrat. Shocking.

 

[Vic]

compromise != capitulation

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Obama on Roberts:

?There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land,? Obama said.

?He seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view.?

?He does, in fact, deeply respect the basic precepts that go into deciding 95 percent of the cases that come before the Federal court: adherence to precedents, a certain modesty in reading statutes and constitutional text, a respect for procedural regularity, and an impartiality in presiding over the adversarial system.?

Yet he voted against confirmation. Hillary did too, but let's focus on the purported "uniter". He looked at one of the most qualified individuals to be nominated, flat out stated Roberts was qualified for the position, praised his temperament and personal qualities, yet ultimately voted against confirmation.

If Obama can't bring himself to vote for someone as qualified as Roberts merely because of his being conservative, which all republicans and 22 democrats did, how exactly is he supposed to appeal to moderate republicans?

For those of you that want to run immediately to Hillary's vote, remember that Obama's big thing is that he is supposedly post-partisan, and above the political fray. Take that away and he's a first term uber-liberal senator who gives good speeches.

Hopes and dreams? If you're not a liberal Obama's got nothing for you.

Your fundamental outlook on life is determined by your experience. Roberts has always had it good and has no idea what it means to grow up disadvantaged or looked down on. He is more of the same already on the court. He is not a good choice at all except for other Republicans..... Qualifications for the court are a dime a dozen. Real and deep empathetic human beings are rare. That is what is needed.

 

[glutenberg]

Hasn't this piece already been done before. Wasn't there some controversy about someone telling Obama that even if he thinks Roberts is a qualified candidate that he shouldn't vote for him because Democrats will point that out in future periods when he needs support. Whatever the case, Roberts may be legally sound in following legal precedents but that doesn't mean that Obama needs to vote for him. For all we know, Obama feels that we need another strong Chief Justice like Warren that breaks precedents.

 

[Lemon law]

For what its worth, being chief justice on the supreme court carries with it no real power. Its still majority rules.

 

[lupi]

Remember, the snake oil is good as long as you leave it in the bottle.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
For what its worth, being chief justice on the supreme court carries with it no real power. Its still majority rules.

True. I guess I should revise it so that a liberal candidate would want a liberal bench because it offers more liberal interpretations of precedents. This really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

Edit:
To srjonk: If Obama felt that a Republican was a very intelligent individual and highly qualified for political office, would you feel that he should consider him as a VP candidate purely as a gesture of reaching across the aisle knowing that that candidate will most likely have differing views than he?

 

[theeedude]

Roberts is a right wing ideologue. Qualified or not, that's bad for the country.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Roberts is a right wing ideologue. Qualified or not, that's bad for the country.

elections have consequences.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: senseamp
Roberts is a right wing ideologue. Qualified or not, that's bad for the country.

elections have consequences.

Exactly, and Obama is an elected official, he can vote his constituents' will.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: senseamp
Roberts is a right wing ideologue. Qualified or not, that's bad for the country.

elections have consequences.

Indeed they do. If, however, the winners show themselves to be other than who they claimed, the consequences are even more profound down the road. And that's exactly what's happening to the repubs.

GWB didn't represent himself as a rightwing ideologue- he campaigned to the middle, twice. Too bad the electorate fell for it...

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: senseamp
Roberts is a right wing ideologue. Qualified or not, that's bad for the country.

elections have consequences.

Indeed they do. If, however, the winners show themselves to be other than who they claimed, the consequences are even more profound down the road. And that's exactly what's happening to the repubs.

GWB didn't represent himself as a rightwing ideologue- he campaigned to the middle, twice. Too bad the electorate fell for it...

Just like Obama isn't representing himself as a leftwing ideologue... hmmmm

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Just like Obama isn't representing himself as a leftwing ideologue... hmmmm

He's representing himself as a liberal. Do you have evidence he's something else, that he plans to nationalize the auto industry, set caps on wealth at $10 million, or some such?

 

[idiotekniQues]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: senseamp
Roberts is a right wing ideologue. Qualified or not, that's bad for the country.

elections have consequences.

Indeed they do. If, however, the winners show themselves to be other than who they claimed, the consequences are even more profound down the road. And that's exactly what's happening to the repubs.

GWB didn't represent himself as a rightwing ideologue- he campaigned to the middle, twice. Too bad the electorate fell for it...

Just like Obama isn't representing himself as a leftwing ideologue... hmmmm

as an obama supporter, i am quite certain obama will nationalize all industry and give the rich's german imported car to those pesky urban african americans

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: senseamp
Roberts is a right wing ideologue. Qualified or not, that's bad for the country.

elections have consequences.

Indeed they do. If, however, the winners show themselves to be other than who they claimed, the consequences are even more profound down the road. And that's exactly what's happening to the repubs.

GWB didn't represent himself as a rightwing ideologue- he campaigned to the middle, twice. Too bad the electorate fell for it...

Just like Obama isn't representing himself as a leftwing ideologue... hmmmm

I like how your argument is "because Bush lied about something Obama is too".

What's also interesting is the 'elections have consequences' statement. Damn right they do, and the Senate isn't just a body made for deciding if the resume of a judge is good enough for him to be confirmed, they can, should, and do vote for him based off of his ideology. Same way the president nominated him based on his ideology.

At least with this election it is pretty likely the Democrats will win the presidency and almost certain they will enlarge their senate majority, so we'll be able to install some good justices when Stevens retires (maybe Scalia too? It would be nice to be rid of him)