Thursday - September 22, 2005

Judge Roberts: Now On To The Full Senate

Roberts Nomination Sent to Full Senate
WASHINGTON (AP)

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved John Roberts’ nomination as the next Supreme Court chief justice, virtually assuring his confirmation by the Senate next week. The official tally of 13-5 was anticlimatic, with the committee’s 10 majority Republicans lined up solidly behind the conservative judge’s nomination to the full Senate weeks in advance. But the decision by three Democrats to join Republican efforts to make Roberts the nation’s 109th Supreme Court justice outlined the division in the minority caucus over whether Democrats can, or should, mount even symbolic opposition to Roberts to send President Bush a message on his next Supreme Court nomination.

Five Democrats — Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California, Joseph Biden of Delaware, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Charles Schumer of New York and Dick Durbin of Illinois — opposed Roberts in the final vote, and many of the arguments merged with senators’ worries about the upcoming replacement for the retiring Sandra Day O’Connor. Senate Judiciary chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., told reporters after the vote he thinks Bush may name a replacement for O’Connor within days of the final vote on Roberts. White House spokesman Scott McClellan commended the committee “for moving forward in a civil and dignified way,” noting the White House hopes this sets an example for considering Bush’s second nomination to the court. Liberal groups that had opposed Roberts expressed disappointment with the committee vote, with Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way, singling out Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.

He said the Wisconsin Democrat was the only member of his party on the committee who voted in favor of both John Ashcroft to become Bush’s first attorney general and now Roberts. Neas said that Feingold’s vote was a “tremendous mistake and a tremendous disappointment.” But Leonard Leo of the conservative Federalist Society said the fact that only three of eight committee Democrats supported Roberts was evidence of partisanship. “We’re supposed to think the Democrats are being magnanimous? Give me a break,” Leo said.

Roberts’ confirmation as the 109th Supreme Court justice is all but assured because most of the Senate’s 55 Republicans are supporting him and Democrats have decided not to filibuster his nomination. But Democrats who oppose his nomination said they can’t take the risk that Roberts will prove a conservative ideologue on the court. Feinstein told a packed Judiciary Committee hearing room that her vote was decided after Roberts refused to fully answer questions from her and other Democrats in his confirmation hearing last week.

“I knew as little about what Judge Roberts really thought about issues after the hearings as I did before the hearing. This makes it very hard for me,” said Feinstein, an abortion rights supporter. “I cannot in good conscience cast a ‘yea’ vote,” she said. “I will cast a ‘no’ vote.” Biden said his vote was a close call, but Roberts “does not appear to share the same expansive view of fundamental rights of previous nominees I have supported. I’m unwilling to take the constitutional risk at this moment in the court’s history.”

Feingold and Sen. Herb Kohl, both Wisconsin Democrats, and the committee’s top Democrat, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, decided to support making the conservative judge the nation’s 17th chief justice. “I will vote my hopes today and not my fears,” Kohl said. Kohl said Roberts made it clear to him that he will be a modest judge, not an activist, and will approach arguments with an open mind. “I take him at his word that he will steer the court to serve as an appropriate check on potential abuses of presidential power,” Leahy told the committee and former Sen. Fred Thompson — Roberts’ escort through the confirmation process — who watched from the crowd. Those statements likely are directed at the president, who is expected to soon make public his choice to replace O’Connor, who has been a swing vote on issues including affirmative action, abortion, discrimination and death penalty cases.

Replacing her could give the president a chance to swing the court to the right on many issues. Widely mentioned candidates include federal appellate judges Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Brown Clement, Edith Hollan Jones, Emilio Garza, Alice Batchelder, Karen Williams, J. Michael Luttig, J. Harvie Wilkinson, Michael McConnell and Samuel Alito. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former deputy attorney general Larry Thompson, lawyer Miguel Estrada and Maura Corrigan, a member of the Michigan Supreme Court, are also considered possibilities. “We’re already talking about the next nominee in code,” noted Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. “Sen. Kohl, who voted yes, is talking about the balance of the court with O’Connor. Sen. Feingold is mentioning that he may not be receptive to Justice Brown. I can understand it. That’s the way this situation is in 2005.”

Democratic Sens. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Max Baucus of Montana have announced their support for Roberts. Sen. Mary Landrieu (news, bio, voting record) of Louisiana has indicated she is leaning toward voting for the nominee. Sen. Kent Conrad (news, bio, voting record) of North Dakota is viewed as a possible vote for him, as well. Senate Democrats opposing Roberts so far include Democratic leader Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer of California, John Kerry of Massachusetts and New Jersey Sens. Jon Corzine and Frank Lautenberg.

Posted by The Skipper     on 09/22/2005 at 03:20 PM   
Filed Under: • Judges-Courts-Lawyers • Politics •  
• Comments (21) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner