Here:
The poll, conducted Sept. 8-11, finds that 58% of Americans support the Senate confirming Roberts to serve as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Twenty-seven percent oppose his confirmation and 15% have no opinion.
Gallup has asked this question four times since President Bush nominated Roberts in late July, initially to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. At that time, 59% of Americans said the Senate should confirm Roberts. Then, in August, support for Roberts' confirmation decreased slightly, but still a slim majority of Americans (51% in early August and 52% in late August) supported his confirmation. Gallup polling conducted after Bush nominated Roberts to serve as chief justice upon the recent death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist -- but before the Senate confirmation hearings began this week -- finds support for his confirmation at 58%.
This nomination won't be an issue in the next presidential election (aside from people like me who already vote based on Court nominations), and I guarantee no one will remember how a particular senator voted come 2006. Does this poll mean ANYTHING?
This said as a non-lawyer.
Well, unless their opponent reminds the electorate. That's most likely a problem for Dems in red states or for moderate Dems in deep-blue states who might face primary challenges.
It wouldn't be about John Roberts, it would be "He opposed Bush! He's an obstructionist!" or "He supported Bush! He's a sellout!"
Given that there's another vacancy on the Court, it could matter.
Some could simply say this: "I do not have a clear enough impression of Roberts' judicial philosophy - or whether he even has one - to have an opinon on him personally. However, I feel that unless the nominee is proven to be corrupt, incompetent or has a proven non-Constitutionalist philosophy, the President's nomination deserves deference. Thus, I am an undecided on Roberts but think that given the current state of information, he should be confirmed."
The real question is how many 'swing' voters would care about whether their senator voted to confirm or oppose Roberts' nomination, and I suspect that number cannot be very high.
Time Poll conducted by Schulman, Ronca &Bucuvalas (SRBI) Public Affairs. Sept. 7-8, 2005. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).
"Based on what you've heard or read about John Roberts, do you think he should or should not be confirmed by the Senate to serve as chief justice of the Supreme Court?".
Should Be Confirmed Should Not Be Confirmed Unsure
% % %
ALL 48 26 26
Republicans 73 9 18
Democrats 29 41 31
Independents 48 29 23
A similar dynamic hurt the Republicans in the Clinton impeachment.
If most Democrats voted against Roberts, they would probably make their base happy without alienating the independents. But the Democrats would be in trouble if they tried to block a vote.
I hope a siginificant number of Democrats vote against Roberts, if only to send a message about the other open seat. My guess is that Bush/Rove want to try to run up the score for exactly the same reason.
The problem with this approach is it makes the Dems look obstructionist. That detracts from their credibility if/when they oppose the next nominee. It might also embolden Bush to pick someone more conservative than Roberts for the second seat, on the theory that having spent some of their political capital voting against Roberts, the Dems won't have much left to oppose O'Connor's replacement.
To defeat the next nominee, the Dems will have to look reasonable to the moderate Republicans they hope to persuade to defect, as well as to the public they hope to persuade to pressure the moderate Republicans to defect. The way to do this is to vote for Roberts, unless they have a smoking gun to point to, or enought votes to defeat him.