Buchanan overstates Democratic support for Alito and Roberts on Supreme Court confirmation votes
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: On Morning Joe, Pat Buchanan misrepresented Senate votes by Democrats on the confirmations of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, saying, "Roberts probably got 25 Democrats, Alito probably got a dozen." In fact, four Democrats voted to confirm Alito, while Roberts received 22 votes from Democrats.
On the October 20 edition of Morning Joe, Pat Buchanan misrepresented Senate votes on the confirmations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito. Remarking on a comment the day before by former Secretary of State Colin Powell on Meet the Press that he would "have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that's what we'd be looking at in a McCain administration," Buchanan said: "[W]hatever you say, Roberts and Alito united the Republican Party. They got almost, I think, and [MSNBC political analyst] Lawrence [O'Donnell] can correct me here, a hundred percent of the votes of the Republicans. Roberts probably got 25 Democrats, Alito probably got a dozen. And to go after them and say, look, they're going to make the Supreme Court conservative, I mean, what is the Republican Party about?" In fact, four Democrats, not 12, voted to confirm Alito. Roberts received 22 votes from Democrats. Moreover, then-Judge Alito did not receive "a hundred percent of the votes of the Republicans"; then-Senator Lincoln Chafee (RI) voted against him.
From the October 20 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
SCARBOROUGH: Well, Colin Powell, you have to go back to 1995. Back in '95, people were talking about Colin Powell possibly running for president in 1996. Even then, Colin Powell and the conservative base of the party, which I'm a part of, had some real problems. Powell was critical of the direction the Republicans were going in 1995. He was not at all comfortable with the evangelical wing of that party. So, what we heard from Colin Powell yesterday being concerned about the direction of the Republican Party was the same thing that we heard 13 years ago. So I didn't take a lot of stock in that. I took more stock, Pat Buchanan, in the fact that he basically said don't worry about Barack Obama. He knows what he doesn't know. He is going to put good advisers around him and, of course, I think that's all we can ask of a candidate that doesn't have a lot of experience.
BUCHANAN: He gave a full-throated endorsement to Barack Obama, credentialed him. He undercut McCain at the very point he's being attacked -- erratic, didn't handle the economic thing well -- went after Palin, trashed their campaign, went after the Supreme Court justices they might appoint. What Colin Powell did yesterday, Joe, was burn his --
SCARBOROUGH: Can I stop you there?
BUCHANAN: Hold it -- was burn his bridges to the Republican Party forever. I think he is now very much with Barack Obama --
O'DONNELL: Speaking of somebody who's already done that.
SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, Buchanan knows.
BUCHANAN: I can tell you how to do that. But he did it in a way, he was even more dramatic, two weeks before the campaign. When McCain and Palin are coming back up the hill, he pushed them right back down again.
SCARBOROUGH: But how fascinating -- I thought the -- actually, for a man that measures every word and is about as authoritative a leader as we have in America today, I thought his Supreme Court comments were a bit gratuitous.
BUCHANAN: Well, exactly --
SCARBOROUGH: Why did he go there?
BUCHANAN: I don't know why. I mean, because, look, whatever you say, Roberts and Alito united the Republican Party. They got almost, I think, and Lawrence can correct me here, a hundred percent of the votes of the Republicans. Roberts probably got 25 Democrats, Alito probably got a dozen. And to go after them and say, look, they're going to make the Supreme Court conservative, I mean, what is the Republican Party about?
From the October 19 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:
POWELL: Now, I understand what politics is all about. I know how you can go after one another, and that's good. But I think this goes too far. And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It's not what the American people are looking for. And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign and they trouble me. And the party has moved even further to the right, and Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift. I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that's what we'd be looking at in a McCain administration. I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say and it is permitted to be said. Such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.
the problem is it's a no win situation when voting not to confirm these guys. because if one nomination fails, the republicans will pull the old "democrats only want one kind of judge" routine and whip up public sentiment against them. if it wasn't alito or roberts, there would have been two carbon copies right behind them. whoopi goldberg took some grief because she asked mccain if she had to worry about being a slave again. but what she was asking was if slaves are counted in the original constitution, what does that say for the people who call themselves "originalists".
and it's not that i think we have to have all liberals. i actually agreed with the decision saying a city could not ban gun ownership. but what we have now are judges who are just pro corporate in the extreme, and a court that used the 14th amendment "equal protection" as part of it's justification in stopping the vote in bush v. gore, because they said the vote of a bush voter might be "diluted" by counting under different county standards. the fact that thousands of other votes went totally uncounted, much less diluted, did not seem to be important.
the media is all over palin on snl. ha, ha, ha. don't know why that is focused on, instead of the fact she still refused to undergo an hour on meet the press. and mccain is still harping on joe the fake plumber. does reality enter into this anywhere?
Wha's BS is that they are basically saying if Dems don't vote en masse for republican choices there is a problem, but if republicans don't vote en masse foe a Democratic choice there is a problem. In both cases the problem is the Democrats. So much for democracy in the republican fascist state...
Kind of piddly, but the bigger question is, why did ANY of them vote to confirm?
I sometimes wonder why the Dems voted to confirm Samuel Alito!
I begin to think that they were cowed into it, for if they had filibustered or caused a shutdown of the government or anything short of giving GW Cry-baby his rattle every time he throws a tantrum, the White House and their partners in crime at the corporate owned media would have slammed down on the Dems relentlessly until the cry-baby got his way....
I mean.... finally, it seems the Dems are growing balls (small ones, but at least we are begining to see it) .... but the damage is done that a rightwing ideological nutcase will be sitting on the Suprme Court the next 25-30 years.
Of course, in the warped world of Pat Buchanan, the Dems voting to confirm... the only posible answer was that they 'supported' Alito? I doubt it!
Good god.... someone give Pat a bib!
Roberts was actually the more troublesome confirmation. Number one, he's very young and thus will have an impact on the court for a long time. Number two, he's the chief justice, amplifying his potential sway on the court.
Roberts was actually the more troublesome confirmation. Number one, he's very young and thus will have an impact on the court for a long time. Number two, he's the chief justice, amplifying his potential sway on the court.
As bad as John Roberts is, things would be far worse if Scalia had been made Chief Justice.....
Except that Scalia is quite a bit older. These Cons are thinking long term.
This, for me, is one of the most important issues. The next president could get the chance to appoint two or three justices. The Troglodytes already on the court are relatively young, so they probably will remain. The Liberals on the court are getting pretty old, and will probably retire soon. The best we can hope for is to hold the line against the knuckledraggers.
If Grampy, wins, there's a good chance that Palintwit would take over the presidency within the first term. Do we really want Miss Glossolalia-End-Times-Gidget appointing a Supreme Court justice?
Hey! Don't make Pat present actual FACTS! Facts have a well-known liberal bias!
And to go after them and say, look, they're going to make the Supreme Court conservative, I mean, what is the Republican Party about?
Write this down and date it so you remember it. It's a specific admission that the GOPpers choose and support nominees to the Supreme Court based on their ideology, not on their judicial competence.
Which also means a)they can be opposed on the same basis and b)others can do the same and the GOPpers have no basis to complain (even though they will anyway).