The NYT does not mention filthy lucre as a possible motivation for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s surprise announcement yesterday that he is voting no on the John Roberts nomination for the Supreme Court. But fund-raising from his base is the only motive that makes sense to me for such a politically tone-deaf move after the country witnessed Roberts giving one of the more deft performances in front of a Senate committee in recent years.
The Washington Post amplifies in their editorial: IN ANNOUNCING his opposition yesterday to the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to be chief justice of the United States, Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) made a remarkable statement: “The president is not entitled to very much deference in staffing the third branch of government, the judiciary.” Leave aside the merits of the Roberts nomination, which we support; if Mr. Reid regards Judge Roberts as unworthy, he is duty-bound to vote against him. But these are dangerous words that Democrats will come to regret.
Most probably… And as for Reid, I doubt deep down he really opposes Roberts. It’s all a political game. And if the Minority Leader is ultimately trolling for dollars here, he is basically undermining the intent of the Founding Fathers regarding the Supreme Court nominating process. They doubtless would have agreed with the WaPo which also points out in its editorial: This country has only one president at a time.