Was Sen. Maria Cantwell acting on principle or was she pandering when she voted not to confirm John Roberts as chief justice of the United States on Thursday?
Cantwell, a Washington Democrat, and her Republican critics won’t agree on the answer. Our guess is that principle and politics both entered into her decision. Whether it helps or hinders her campaign for a second term next year remains to be seen. But it’s hard not to conclude that voting against an extremely well-qualified candidate, one who despite the thickly partisan atmosphere on Capitol Hill garnered the support of half the Senate’s Democrats, will make it harder for Cantwell to claim the political center she likely will need to win in 2006.
The individual’s right to privacy was at the heart of Cantwell’s decision to vote no, she said in a floor speech Tuesday. Cantwell has been an effective champion of tougher laws against identity theft, and is strongly pro-choice on abortion, as a majority of Washington voters have been since they legalized first-trimester abortions way back in 1970 – three years before the Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade decision. She also worried that Roberts might be a threat to the Endangered Species Act. That’s the principle part.
But by siding with the vocal opponents of the Roberts nomination, Cantwell made a calculated move to the left, one that will surely pay off in added campaign support from that flank. That could leave more room in the center, though, where at least one Republican challenger, Mike McGavick, hopes to make inroads. Refusing to vote for Roberts, especially when 22 other Democrats did (including Washington colleague Patty Murray, not a conservative by any definition), hardly makes Cantwell appear moderate.
As a practical matter, Cantwell’s vote didn’t matter. Roberts already had more than enough votes for confirmation. It does, however, beg the question of what kind of Supreme Court nominee put up by the Bush administration would get her approval. The nomination of Roberts – especially after he told the Judiciary Committee that he agrees Roe vs. Wade is the settled law of the land – presented at least a momentary chance to retreat from extremism and encourage bipartisanship.
By opting not to seize that chance, Cantwell took a substantial political risk, one her opponents already have pounced on.
Will it matter at home? We’ll see in 2006.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
