Report: Obama Considered Backing Roberts For Chief Justice, Reversed Over Politics

TPM Election Central:

A new Washington Post feature story on Pete Rouse, a longtime Washington hand who became Barack Obama's chief of staff in 2005, contains this interesting piece of information: Obama was strongly considering voting to confirm John Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. And then, the paper reports, Rouse reminded him just what the political ramifications of such a decision would be:

And then Rouse, his chief of staff, spoke up. This was no Harvard moot-court exercise, he said. If Obama voted for Roberts, Rouse told him, people would remind him of that every time the Supreme Court issued another conservative ruling, something that could cripple a future presidential run. Obama took it in. And when the roll was called, he voted no.

Read the whole story: TPM Election Central

Comments

[MissFortunate]

11:38 AM on 08/29/2007

Oh, that's crazy, he actually thought about something before voting! Obama is one of those thinking politicians. That could come in handy people !

[daniel155]

11:32 PM on 08/28/2007

There actually are a few fairminded people in the Senate who recognize the right of the president to appoint qualified nominees to the court and who realize that the court balances over time as parties trade control of the presidency. So they don't oppose the nominees on partisan ground.

I can cite Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) as an example. He voted for both Clinton nominees to the court. The are similar Democrats as well.

But they are a dying breed and now judiciary nominations are politicized like everything else. It sounded like Obama wanted to be part of the independent group but like so many others let political ambition get in the way.

I don't necessarily criticize Obama for knowing which side his bread is buttered on. But what goes around, comes around.

Republicans are just as skilled as Democrats at obstructionism and Clinton or Obama will have tough fights to get their judicial nominees approved. It should not have to be that way.

[Kansas Evans]

12:05 AM on 08/29/2007

I don't think the problem people have is with the right of the president to appoint qualified nominees to the court. I think the problem is with presidents who initiate confrontations by not seeking advise from Congres and nominate decidedly ideological candidates for the court. The religious right constantly claim Roberts and Alito as (obviously partisan) victories.
When Clinton made his nominations, he had already met with members of Congress to find out who would and wouldn't be approvable. Ginsburg is a big proponent women rights, there's no denying. Other than that, Clinton's nominations tended to be more conservative as Democrats.

[daniel155]

12:15 AM on 08/29/2007

Point taken, but Republicans could have made it tougher on the Clinton nominees particularly Ginsburg since they controlled the Senate at the time. But for whatever reason they chose not to make it a partisan battle. I don't think that Clinton or Obama's nominees will have it so good.

[AceInTheHole]

11:35 AM on 08/28/2007

IT IS A VERY GOOD SIGN , THAT AFTER WISE COUNCEL,BARACK CHANGED HIS MIND!
Because that means that he has probably changed his mind about Lieberman as well.

I wish the present administration was capable of changing their miscreant minds and start finding the American people to be worthy of being treated with respect due fellow countrymen, instead of treating them as enemies, dupes, and contrarians, which they are not.

But I'm afraid that, this is to much to expect from these inccorigibles.

[researcher]

04:02 AM on 08/28/2007

hey they are all politicans the trick is to put into office the one that will do the least damage.

these people have ego's so large they actually think they can invade another country on false pretenses and americans will fight their illegal war for profits.

and they are right and americans will keep on fighting to the end just like the german soldiers did. and in the end hitler blamed the german people for the loss and who will george bush jr blame? you got it the american people.

this war is not about politicans it is about the ignorance of the people who vote and dont vote in a republic.

we have met the enemy and it is us.

[SiskoKid]

02:52 AM on 08/28/2007

Ouch. That would mean he actually likes Roberts but didn't vote for him simply due to politics. So, he's a liar and a politician.

Something Obama fans have to get through their skulls.

Someone else was right, if this were Hillary, this whole site would be crawling up her legs, cramming into her nether regions and stabbing at will.

Grow up, guys. Your Obama is a conservative religious freak like the rest of the right wing. It's funny that Hillary gets that title when she's done nothing for over a decade but sincerely hate the right due to a "right wing conspiracy".

You guys on here are so laughable sometimes.

[thegreatgiginthesky]

07:35 AM on 08/28/2007

Read the whole story doofus. What is with neo-cons and just reading the headlines?

[SiskoKid]

07:27 PM on 08/28/2007

YOU'RE the neocon! You're rooting for a guy who likes neocons in private but publicly, while running for president no less, doesn't. And you're all about that!!!

If that's not a neocon, I don't know what is.

[Kansas Evans]

10:43 PM on 08/28/2007

Do you have any examples of how Obama has showed his neocon truth. If you do? I'm more than willing to read and discover for myself.

And I ask you, if we guys on here are so laughable, and you're on here . . . you know the rest.

[jpginla]

02:42 AM on 08/28/2007

I think what the Election Central article completely misses is the point that this is exactly how politics is supposed to work: Barack considered his vote, and then changed his mind when he realized that his constituents would not support him later. (Granted, he may have been thinking about a larger pool than his current Illinois constituents, but Senators are supposed to be thinking country-wide, not simply myopically focused solely on what their own state's voters think.)

I say, if he changed his mind because of the potential political fall-out, that is a good thing, not a bad thing. It doesn't mean he has less character, it means he has more savvy, and that he is willing to listen to the people who are likely to elect him. The only way that happens is if they are in the majority, so this is democracy in action for a change, and not horse-trading inside the beltway.

[gvincent]

01:05 AM on 08/28/2007

Well, if more Democrats took his initiative, maybe congress wouldn't have let the White House get away with all the crap they have. I don't like Obama, I don't like Hillary, no bias here. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what you think, it's what you do.

http://www.crookedinc.com

[RusStyles]

12:23 AM on 08/28/2007

Another yawner...I think some folks in the media suffer from Barackitis. They write about the most inane, innocuous, irrelevant topics. He visited an icecream shop and ordered a black cheery mixed with blah, blah...

[naijaman]

12:11 AM on 08/28/2007

I actually read the whole story on www.barackobama.com and all I can say is that this Obama piece you have here is so misconstrued how shameful, just another hidden hit piece to sway public opinion.

Pathetic.

[lafrance]

12:10 AM on 08/28/2007

the story appears to back up the thinking that Obama is a very thoughtful man who surrounds himself with wise and intelligent people to advise him. and he listens to their counsel while concidering his own and thoughtfully weighs both.
Neither a pandering phoney like Clinton or a stubborn idiotic cowboy like presient chimpy, Obama shows his strength in following in the tradition of our most effective and beloved presidents.

[klondiker]

11:41 PM on 08/27/2007

Well, of course, everything's acceptable for Barack, isn't it?

If this were Hillary, there would be twenty comments right now saying that she was a triangulator, calculator, has no principles, follows the political winds, etc, etc.

I guess the answer is: we don't really mind if people are political calculators, as long as they calculate in our favour.

As Nora Ephron might ask: How can you forgive Barack for calculating his vote for Chief Justice, and not forgive Hillary for the teeny, tiny mistake of voting for the war?

(Don't answer the question. It's a You've Got Mail reference.)

[lafrance]

12:13 AM on 08/28/2007

I can forgive because Hillary holds her finger to the wind, has no policy stands and is an opportunist.
Obama is a truly thoughtful and wise man who surrounds himself with wise advisors. Hillary surrounds herself with fellow opportunists like her union busting mark Penn. They are more the pack of wolves rather than judicious and effective legislators and law makers.

[thegreatgiginthesky]

07:34 AM on 08/28/2007

More than anything this shows that he is willing to work in a truly bi-partisan manner instead of just givin lip service like Bush.

[steamboat]

06:49 PM on 08/28/2007

Oh please, Obama liking Roberts for judge hasn't cost 3,000 American lives. Clinton being for the war did.

[Chocolate2008]

11:25 PM on 08/27/2007

Whatever!

This is a NON STORY.

Russ Feingold Voted for Roberts and we forgave him and he is the most Progressive of all. Obama "considered" it and decided not to. Do you think we care? No!

Big F-ing WHOOP!

[Chocolate2008]

11:28 PM on 08/27/2007

...and furthermore, Barack Obama is the most Progressive FRONT RUNNER. This story does nothing at all to change that. He made the right decision and it's stupid to sit here and psychoanalyze why he considered his decision before voting. I want a President who thinks things through anyway!

Geez!

[steamboat]

09:23 AM on 08/28/2007

FACT: There are three branches of govt. It was set up that way to counterbalance each other so we do NOT put too much power in one person or one group. Thats the greatness of America.......We should NOT play politics with our judges. The judges should be there to interpret the constitution and laws. NOT make laws. That is the legislatures job.....So having said that, there is no reason John Roberts should NOT be Chief Justice. He is very qualified.

[slc20]

11:24 PM on 08/27/2007

And........?