Democrats unlikely to block Bush nominee-analysts
By Alan Elsner
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Barring unforeseen revelations,
President Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court John Roberts is
highly likely to be confirmed, political analysts said on
Wednesday.
Roberts, a conservative appeals court judge, could only be
blocked from taking his lifetime seat if the Democratic
minority in the Senate decided to filibuster the nomination,
endlessly extending debate to prevent it coming to a vote.
Under Senate rules, it takes 60 votes to cut off debate.
Several Democratic consultants and independent academics
cited three reasons it would be very difficult, if not
impossible, for Democrats to filibuster Roberts.
They said it was uncertain enough Democrats would vote
against Roberts to effect the filibuster, public opinion was
likely to be hostile and Senate Republicans might revive their
efforts to change the rules so filibusters could not apply to
judicial nominations.
“He’ll face tough questions but it’s hard to imagine he can
be filibustered. I have to think at least five or six Democrats
would be inclined to vote for him,” said Mike McCurry, who
served as press secretary to former President Bill Clinton and
now runs a political consultancy.
“The Republicans start with 55 votes in the Senate and
Democrats need to remind themselves of that. Plus, he sounds at
least from what we know right now like a decent, thoughtful,
reflective guy,” McCurry said.
Several analysts praised the way the White House managed
the introduction of Roberts. All day Tuesday, the media was
full of speculation that appeals court judge Edith Clement was
the nominee.
By springing Roberts on the public in the evening, the
White House was able to control the crucial first impression
the nominee left with the public as a highly qualified,
intellectually brilliant jurist who was no extremist.
“The White House managed to find a nominee who will move
the court to the right without having the kind of provocative
characteristics that could cause problems during confirmation,”
said Dean Spiliotes, a political scientist at the New Hampshire
Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm’s College.
Roberts has a relatively thin record on the appeals court,
having only served on the bench for two years. He was confirmed
by the Senate to that post by a unanimous voice vote.
FORTY OPINIONS
Women’s groups, environmentalists and liberal activist
organizations, who had geared up for a do-or-die fight against
Bush’s nominee, all called on the Senate to reject Roberts.
“George Bush could have chosen a moderate conservative …
Instead he chose, characteristically, to pick a fight. We
intend to give him one,” said National Organization for Women
president Kim Gandy.
But even if they all stick together, Democrats are likely
to find their hands tied in the Senate.
“Roberts can’t be blocked. This is a mainstream,
pro-business conservative, not a social jihad warrior. A
filibuster just wouldn’t resonate with the public,” said Cal
Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University
in Dallas.
Democratic political consultant Douglas Hattaway, who
worked on then vice president Al Gore’s 2000 presidential
campaign, agreed. “The Senate has a strong tradition of letting
the President have his pick. The odds are against a successful
filibuster unless there’s some extreme, egregious things that
come out that we don’t know about yet.” he said.
Republicans almost ended the Democratic minority’s ability
to use the filibuster to block judicial nominees earlier this
year by threatening to change Senate rules of procedure.
They were blocked when seven Democrat and seven Republican
senators came together and agreed to preserve the filibuster
but to use it only in “extraordinary circumstances,” which they
did not define, leaving it to the personal judgment of each of
the 14 signatories.
If Democrats did try to filibuster Roberts, analysts said
it was likely the group of 14 would break apart, paving the way
for the Republican leadership to revive the effort to change
Senate rules.