Opinion: Where was The Times when Democrats voted against John Roberts?

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

A common criticism from readers this morning in response to today’s editorial praising GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham for supporting Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court is that The Times never censured the Democrats who toed the party line and voted against John G. Roberts Jr.’s confirmation as chief justice. Several commenters make the same point as reader Scot Robertson:

So, when Democrats object -- dare I say, whine -- about the nominees of a Republican President, they are doing due diligence, but when Republican Senators object to the nominee of a Democrat President, they are being petty, obstructionist and partisan. This is typical of the way the MSM has sold its’ soul to liberal ideology.

So was The Times a cheerleader for hyper-partisan Democrats hell-bent on derailing President Bush’s judicial nominees, including Roberts? Hardly. In fact, The Times editorial board sided with conservatives who wanted to legislate away the use of the filibuster as a means to block Bush’s judicial picks:

And, in a separate editorial, the Times had harsh words for the 22 Democratic senators who voted against Roberts’ confirmation.

Read the full editorials from 2005 after the jump.

First, the anti-filibuster editorial, dated May 18, 2005:

Nuke It, Already

We usually like it when centrist senators like John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) try to galvanize the sensible center on behalf of some compromise, but we sincerely hope they fail in their attempt to preserve the Senate’s filibuster. Count this page on the side of conservative social activists who are pushing Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to ‘nuke’ the filibuster.

We don’t share these activists’ enthusiasm for the White House judicial nominees triggering the current showdown. But we do believe that nominees are entitled to a vote on the floor of the Senate. The filibuster, an arcane if venerable parliamentary tactic that empowers a minority of 41 senators to block a vote, goes above and beyond those checks on majority power legitimately written into the Constitution.

The filibuster is an inherently reactionary instrument most famously used to block civil rights legislation for a generation. Democratic senators themselves decried the filibuster not long ago when they were in the majority and President Clinton’s judicial nominees were being blocked.

Frist is on the verge of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. He plans to bring the nomination of Priscilla R. Owen, a Texas Supreme Court justice, before the full Senate today. Democrats have blocked her nomination in the past, and Frist is now threatening to force a change in rules to prohibit filibusters of judicial nominees. That would be a great triumph for the American people. It would be an even greater triumph if the Senate were to destroy the filibuster altogether.

Alas, we shouldn’t uncork the champagne bottles just yet. Because the filibuster is at heart a conservative’s weapon, and because Frist is essentially asking senators (regardless of their ideology) to relinquish some of their individual power, we’re fearful that the centrists may yet prevail. That would be one judicious compromise that would deny the American people a worthwhile victory.

Second, the editorial criticizing Democrats for voting against Roberts, dated Sept. 30, 2005:

Poor judgment

The good news is that 22 Democratic senators voted to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as the 17th chief justice of the United States. That’s more than anyone would have imagined just a few months ago, when the talk in Washington was all about filibusters and nuclear options. The bad news is that 22 Democratic senators voted against Roberts. That’s far more than the handful of Republicans who voted against Bill Clinton’s two Supreme Court appointees, Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Washington’s recent polarization suggests things could have been worse. But it is still alarming that 22 Democrats voted against a nominee of Roberts’ caliber. Last November, the American people granted President Bush the power to appoint Supreme Court justices, and in his first opportunity to exercise this power he has acted responsibly, choosing a mainstream conservative with unimpeachable credentials. Half the Democrats in the Senate -- including such independent-minded liberals as Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont and Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, both members of the Judiciary Committee -- did the right thing by supporting the president’s choice.

But too many Democrats beholden to liberal interest groups embarrassed themselves and the party by opposing Roberts. These groups wield disproportionate power in mobilizing activists and raising campaign funds, but they do not speak for the majority of Americans or even most Democrats.

Worse, in terms of the broader national interest, by appearing so obstructionist, these senators have undermined their credibility to oppose future judicial picks who may actually be outside the mainstream.

It was almost comical watching the likes of Harry Reid, the ostensibly centrist Senate minority leader from Nevada, and Charles E. Schumer of New York struggle to justify their opposition to Roberts, all the while conceding he may turn out to be a terrific justice. Closer to home, it was disappointing to see Dianne Feinstein, California’s centrist senator, on the wrong side of the issue, opposing Roberts’ confirmation.

Except for Feingold, most Democratic senators harboring presidential aspirations also voted against Roberts. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Joseph R. Biden, John Kerry and Evan Bayh all felt compelled to please organizations that have a vested interest in turning each one of these confirmation battles into Armageddon. At what cost to their future credibility with centrist voters remains to be seen.