Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Roberts Picks Up Democratic Support
ap on Yahoo ^ | 9/21/05 | Jesse J. Holland - ap

Posted on 09/21/2005 1:55:53 PM PDT by NormsRevenge

WASHINGTON - Chief Justice-nominee John Roberts, his confirmation secure, picked up support from fractured Senate Democrats Wednesday as President Bush met lawmakers to discuss a second, probably more contentious, vacancy on the Supreme Court.

The Judiciary Committee's senior Democrat, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, announced his support for Roberts shortly after leaving the White House, guaranteeing bipartisan backing for the nominee in Thursday's vote by the panel.

But Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, longtime liberal stalwart Edward Kennedy and former presidential candidate John Kerry all are opposing Roberts, underscoring a split in the Senate's 44 Democrats on whether they can or should mount even symbolic opposition to the successor of the late William H. Rehnquist.

Republicans control the Senate and the Judiciary Committee, so majority support was already assured for the panel's vote on Thursday and for confirmation next week.

However, some of the Democrats' liberal supporters hoped that a strong vote against Roberts would signal to Bush that replacing retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor with a far-right conservative would lead to a bigger fight in the Senate.

Leahy, who has led filibuster fights against Bush's lower court nominees, said in a speech on the Senate floor, "I do not intend to lend my support to an effort by this president to move the Supreme Court and the law radically to the right."

But Roberts "is a man of integrity," said Leahy. "I can only take him at his word that he does not have an ideological agenda."

Other Democrats, including Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Max Baucus of Montana, also have announced their support. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana are leaning toward voting for Roberts, and Kent Conrad of North Dakota is viewed as a possible vote for him as well.

Roberts is "very well credentialed," Landrieu said Wednesday.

The other six Judiciary Democrats — Joseph Biden, Herb Kohl, Charles Schumer, Dick Durbin, Russell Feingold and Dianne Feinstein — have yet to announce their votes.

Durbin and Schumer were confronted by television producer Norman Lear and other major party supporters during a trip to the West Coast over the weekend, according to party officials familiar with the conversation.

These Democratic supporters are strongly opposed to Roberts, and want Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, and Schumer, the head of the campaign committee, to oppose his confirmation.

Leahy's decision was "inexplicable and deeply disappointing," said Ralph Neas, head of People for the American Way.

The stakes become greater with the next nominee, and "the next nomination is going to be a great deal more contentious," said Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., the Judiciary Committee's chairman.

The conservative Roberts is replacing Rehnquist, a reliably conservative vote on the court. Bush's next nominee will replace O'Connor, one of the court's swing voters on affirmative action, abortion, campaign finance, discrimination and death penalty cases. Replacing her could give the president a chance swing the court to the right on many issues.

First lady Laura Bush reiterated in an Associated Press interview Tuesday that she hoped the president would name a woman.

Specter cautioned Bush during the Wednesday morning meeting that nominating either Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown — two appeals court judges Democrats filibustered but eventually allowed to be confirmed — to the O'Connor seat could cause problems, according to a congressional official familiar with the meeting. That official spoke on condition of anonymity because the give-and-take was considered confidential.

The senators offered some names to the president, who did not share his own opinions. White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush was considering a diverse list.

Among candidates widely mentioned are: federal appellate judges Owen, Brown, Edith Brown Clement, Edith Holland Jones, Emilio Garza, Edward Charles Prado, 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.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he urged the president to announce his decision within the next 10 days or so. Frist said a new justice could be confirmed "by Thanksgiving if that nomination comes quickly enough."

Specter suggested that the president wait awhile, and said he had talked to O'Connor about staying on through the full 2005-2006 term.

"It would be quite a sacrifice for her, but she's prepared to do it if she is asked," Specter said. "By next June we'll know a lot more about Judge Roberts ... than we do today."

___

Associated Press writers Deb Riechmann and David Espo contributed to this report.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 109th; democratic; johnroberts; judicialnominees; patrickleahy; picks; roberts; robertshearings; scotus; support
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-117 next last

1 posted on 09/21/2005 1:55:54 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Senate leaders and the top two lawmakers on the Judiciary Committee speak with members of the media, Wednesday, Sept. 21, 2005, after a White House meeting with President Bush to discuss the second vacancy on the Supreme Court. The meeting was similar to one Bush held in July, one week before he nominated Roberts to fill the shoes of the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. Left to right are Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter, R-Penn. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)


2 posted on 09/21/2005 1:57:18 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... "To remain silent when they should protest makes cowards of men." -- THOMAS JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Democrat, Patrick Leahy

Just bowing to the inevitable and positioning himself as a "moderate" to create political cover to justify filibustering the next one.

3 posted on 09/21/2005 1:57:54 PM PDT by MNJohnnie ("Don't get stuck on stupid, reporters.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Is leaky up for reelection?


4 posted on 09/21/2005 1:58:50 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Liberal Talking Point - Bush = Hitler ... Republican Talking Point - Let the Liberals Talk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Yup, everything is proceeding "according to plan", the question is what plan? ;-)


5 posted on 09/21/2005 1:59:23 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... "To remain silent when they should protest makes cowards of men." -- THOMAS JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

6 posted on 09/21/2005 2:01:10 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... "To remain silent when they should protest makes cowards of men." -- THOMAS JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

Thats exactly what I asked this morning when I heard this news!


7 posted on 09/21/2005 2:02:18 PM PDT by Bush gal in LA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

President Bush should QUICKLY nominate his friend Alberto Gonzalez.

He will be confirmed quickly and he is slightly to the right of O'Connor.

Then they should get one more of the old republican justices to announce.

Bush nominates a person who tips the court. This will energize the base for the mid-term elections AND possibly bring us a filibuster proof Senate.


8 posted on 09/21/2005 2:02:56 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

"confronted by television producer Norman Lear"

Gee, from watching his television shows, who would have thought that Norman Lear was a left wing democrat?


9 posted on 09/21/2005 2:03:12 PM PDT by Ninian Dryhope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

I still hope they fillibuster.


10 posted on 09/21/2005 2:04:41 PM PDT by FreedomSurge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Arlene Spectre drives me crazy. And, by the way, where did this idea that a swing-vote (O'Conner) could only be replaced by a swing-vote? I don't recall seeing anything like that in any of our founding documents. Replacing swinging door O'Conner with a solid conservative would be the right thing to do.


11 posted on 09/21/2005 2:05:48 PM PDT by hsalaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

>>>>President Bush should QUICKLY nominate his friend Alberto Gonzalez. He will be confirmed quickly and he is slightly to the right of O'Connor.

Well, he'd get all the democratic votes, only people to oppose him would be a handful of non RINO-republicans. I, however, will stay home a couple years from now when the RINOs call to ask me to work again. I didn't bust my but to put Bush's liberal cronies on the court.

patent


12 posted on 09/21/2005 2:06:14 PM PDT by patent (A baby is God's opinion that life should go on. Carl Sandburg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

"Roberts is "very well credentialed," Landrieu said Wednesday."

She then added "unlike myself."


13 posted on 09/21/2005 2:08:10 PM PDT by frankjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

In 2010 if I did my math right. He is in his 6th term.

Biographical Sketch 2005

Patrick Leahy of Middlesex was elected to the United States Senate in 1974 and remains the only Democrat elected to this office from Vermont. At 34, he was the youngest U.S. Senator ever to be elected from the Green Mountain State.


14 posted on 09/21/2005 2:13:33 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... "To remain silent when they should protest makes cowards of men." -- THOMAS JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

I watched a judge with that look on his face sending a guilty dude to 25 to life in the slammer.


15 posted on 09/21/2005 2:14:10 PM PDT by danmar ("No person is so grand or wise or perfect as to be the master of another person." Karl Hess)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

there isn't an exploded head in all of DUmmie land.

:)


16 posted on 09/21/2005 2:15:16 PM PDT by smonk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Leahy, who has led filibuster fights against Bush's lower court nominees, said in a speech on the Senate floor, "I do not intend to lend my support to an effort by this president to move the Supreme Court and the law radically to the right."

But Roberts "is a man of integrity," said Leahy. "I can only take him at his word that he does not have an ideological agenda."

Other Democrats, including Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Max Baucus of Montana, also have announced their support. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana are leaning toward voting for Roberts, and Kent Conrad of North Dakota is viewed as a possible vote for him as well.

Roberts is "very well credentialed," Landrieu said Wednesday.

The other six Judiciary Democrats — Joseph Biden, Herb Kohl, Charles Schumer, Dick Durbin, Russell Feingold and Dianne Feinstein — have yet to announce their votes.

17 posted on 09/21/2005 2:16:07 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... "To remain silent when they should protest makes cowards of men." -- THOMAS JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hsalaw

You are absolutely right. The constitution doesn't give any formula for the composition of the SC. I think Bush is again going to nominate a solid conservative and let the fight begin. They can say all they want about bad mouthing Brown and Owen but this senate confirmed them. They cannot now go back and say they are too far to the right and then filibuster either one.


18 posted on 09/21/2005 2:16:30 PM PDT by conservative blonde (Conservative Blonde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: xzins
President Bush should QUICKLY nominate his friend Alberto Gonzalez.

Gonzales is a legal lightweight, not withstanding questions regarding his positions regarding the 2nd Amendement, abortion and illegal immigration. He would be an inferior choice.

19 posted on 09/21/2005 2:18:34 PM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: montag813

2 words re: Gonzales

La Raza


20 posted on 09/21/2005 2:24:34 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... "To remain silent when they should protest makes cowards of men." -- THOMAS JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

leaky's support is just show biz. Dusty will give co(m)rade and wooden head nelson a pass to vote yes. This fool from the AP thinks he's telling us something. He aint. These mutts had this worked out after day one when they saw they had no chance of beating Roberts. The rest is show biz. The next one will be all smoke and no real fire. They will ALL vote against the next nominee in the committee. wooden head and bennie nelson will vote right. that will be enough to pass whomever comes up without at least two rino defections. The funny thing is that wooden head won't fool anybody. Harris will kick his ass anyway. Ben will be gone as well. Comrad Conrade will go down no matter how he votes on either or both of these judges.


21 posted on 09/21/2005 2:25:30 PM PDT by jmaroneps37 (The quisling ratmedia: always eager to remind us of why we hate them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservative blonde
They cannot now go back and say they are too far to the right and then filibuster either one.

Naiveté is so cute!!! Demoncrats can do whatever the MSM will let them get away with, which covers a lot of hypocrisy. They have already started to do this by saying (in previous interviews and speeches) that an appointment to the appeals court is one thing, but a lifetime appointment to the SC is another. I think Leahy announced for Roberts only because he can then say that whoever else gets nominated is an extremist - after all, he voted for the conservative Roberts, didn't he?

22 posted on 09/21/2005 2:26:36 PM PDT by BruceS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Specter suggested that the president wait awhile, and said he had talked to O'Connor about staying on through the full 2005-2006 term.

No way! We waited for years on a couple of lower court appointments so forget it Specter. Get these people through the BS known as the Judicial Committee.

23 posted on 09/21/2005 2:26:37 PM PDT by BushisTheMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
President Bush should QUICKLY nominate his friend Alberto Gonzalez.

Gonzalez is a left-leaning moderate La Raza skunk whose main qualification is his ethnic heritage.

He will be confirmed quickly and he is slightly to the right of O'Connor.

O'Connor was a left leaning moderate whose main qualification for the job was a vagina. Once the dust clears she will go down as one of the all-time worst SCJs. A legal gymnast if there ever was one.

This president said he would nominate justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. Another dopey affirmative action nomination will be the last frigging straw.

24 posted on 09/21/2005 2:27:28 PM PDT by XpandTheEkonomy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ninian Dryhope
"Gee, from watching his television shows, who would have thought that Norman Lear was a left wing democrat?"

Gee...from watching his shows, who would have thought he was a television producer?

25 posted on 09/21/2005 2:28:12 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Anyone know when the actual vote is scheduled for or does each Senator now just announce their vote to the press and bypass the formalities?


26 posted on 09/21/2005 2:28:44 PM PDT by Republican Red (''Van der Sloot" is Dutch for ''Kennedy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
One fact seems totally clear. The post 2004 election analysis by the Democrats had to show one thing. That is President Bush Won ohio by 120 thousand votes because he got about 280 thousand registered Democrats in Ohio to vote for him.

Karl Rove, I know, had the Ohio organization and perhaps several other state organizations actively going after the religious right. What most people don't understand is that half of the religious right are Registered Democrats. When Bush volunteers contacted chruch members we did not even ask party affiliation. Rove's research showed that 70 percent of church members would vote for Bush, but less than 50 percent of them were Republicans.

Two thousand five hundred Registered Democrats showed up for a week day Bush rally in Ross County Ohio. I was held about 3 weeks before the election. I know how many because we checked voter registration on every person that got at ticket to the rally. Every Democrat that got tickets to that rally, was asked why they wanted to attend a Bush Rally. I was one of two people interviewing the Democrats who applied for tickets. Think about it.. In THE bellweather county of ohio, one out of every eight attendees to a Bush rally was a Democrat.

The Democrats who attended gave us 3 reasons for supporting President Bush. About a third supported President Bush becuase of the war in IRAQ. But 2/3 of those 2500 Democrats were supporting President Bush because of gay rights and/or abortion. They voted for Bush to change the direction of the supreme court. They were well aware that the only thing a president could do on those two issues was appoint people to the supreme court.

Natioal Democrats are not stupid.. If they fillibuster the bush supreme court nominees, they will convert somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 to 14 million registered Democrats into Registered Republicans.

Democrats can't afford to do that. They now know that defeating Bush Surpreme Court nominees can cost them the presidency again in 2008, and remove any chance of winning the senate or the house.

People who think that Democrats are saving up to bork the next nominee are mistaken. If the political cost were not so steep they would have borked Roberts. They dare not do so... The problem is far too many Registered Democrats do not believe in abortion and do not believe in gay rights. Even the most rabid democratic senators do not want to remove all chances for the Democrats to regain political power.

Democrats like Ried are playing to the Democratic base. But they are not playing real loud. Several Democrat Senators in states where all the Democrat votes are needed to win, Democratic Senators will vote for Roberts.

27 posted on 09/21/2005 2:31:14 PM PDT by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
One fact seems totally clear. The post 2004 election analysis by the Democrats had to show one thing. That is President Bush Won ohio by 120 thousand votes because he got about 280 thousand registered Democrats in Ohio to vote for him.

Karl Rove, I know, had the Ohio organization and perhaps several other state organizations actively going after the religious right. What most people don't understand is that half of the religious right are Registered Democrats. When Bush volunteers contacted chruch members we did not even ask party affiliation. Rove's research showed that 70 percent of church members would vote for Bush, but less than 50 percent of them were Republicans.

Two thousand five hundred Registered Democrats showed up for a week day Bush rally in Ross County Ohio. I was held about 3 weeks before the election. I know how many because we checked voter registration on every person that got at ticket to the rally. Every Democrat that got tickets to that rally, was asked why they wanted to attend a Bush Rally. I was one of two people interviewing the Democrats who applied for tickets. Think about it.. In THE bellweather county of ohio, one out of every eight attendees to a Bush rally was a Democrat.

The Democrats who attended gave us 3 reasons for supporting President Bush. About a third supported President Bush becuase of the war in IRAQ. But 2/3 of those 2500 Democrats were supporting President Bush because of gay rights and/or abortion. They voted for Bush to change the direction of the supreme court. They were well aware that the only thing a president could do on those two issues was appoint people to the supreme court.

Natioal Democrats are not stupid.. If they fillibuster the bush supreme court nominees, they will convert somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 to 14 million registered Democrats into Registered Republicans.

Democrats can't afford to do that. They now know that defeating Bush Surpreme Court nominees can cost them the presidency again in 2008, and remove any chance of winning the senate or the house.

People who think that Democrats are saving up to bork the next nominee are mistaken. If the political cost were not so steep they would have borked Roberts. They dare not do so... The problem is far too many Registered Democrats do not believe in abortion and do not believe in gay rights. Even the most rabid democratic senators do not want to remove all chances for the Democrats to regain political power.

Democrats like Ried are playing to the Democratic base. But they are not playing real loud. Several Democrat Senators in states where all the Democrat votes are needed to win, Democratic Senators will vote for Roberts.

28 posted on 09/21/2005 2:31:14 PM PDT by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Specter is a double agent, a poison pill, and apparently the most unpopular man in congress according to colleagues and aides. Not too mention his disgraceful resume.

What a life.

29 posted on 09/21/2005 2:32:01 PM PDT by XpandTheEkonomy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
President Bush should QUICKLY nominate his friend Alberto Gonzalez.

All I could think of when I read this post was some twisted version of the "Bad Idea Jeans" sketch on SNL.

Guy #1: "Well, he's an ex free-base addict, and he's trying to turn around, and he needs a place to stay for a couple of months.

BAD IDEA

Guy #2: Normally I wear protection, but then I thought, "When am I gonna make it back to Haiti?"

BAD IDEA

G.W. Bush: I think I'll nominate Alberto Gonzales to the Surpreme Court. He should provide a reliable conservative vote on the Surpreme Court for years to come.

BAD IDEA

30 posted on 09/21/2005 2:34:53 PM PDT by Texas Federalist ("There is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget." Tom DeLay - R? Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Republican Red

I had seen Sept 29th somehwere but don't quote me..


31 posted on 09/21/2005 2:38:44 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... "To remain silent when they should protest makes cowards of men." -- THOMAS JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
Democrats like Ried are playing to the Democratic base. But they are not playing real loud.

----

Considering they hold a majority of the MSM talk and print puppet strings, They may be fools but they aren't all DUmmies. ;-)

btw , Good info re: dem turnout at President Bush's events, Thanks.

32 posted on 09/21/2005 2:42:02 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... "To remain silent when they should protest makes cowards of men." -- THOMAS JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
Good analysis. There is no other course of action that makes political sense than to plow straight ahead.

Brown or Owens, and let the radical left implode...

33 posted on 09/21/2005 2:43:35 PM PDT by THX 1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: xzins
This will energize the base for the mid-term elections AND possibly bring us a filibuster proof Senate.

Shhhh... If you go around spouting off the strategy, the Dems might be able to defend themselves.

Or maybe they won't because they think they're smarter than Bush.

34 posted on 09/21/2005 2:44:38 PM PDT by coconutt2000 (NO MORE PEACE FOR OIL!!! DOWN WITH TYRANTS, TERRORISTS, AND TIMIDCRATS!!!! (3-T's For World Peace))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
"{Roberts} does not have an ideological agenda."

Ok, per Leahy's inference, does Leahy mean there are 3 or 5 justices with a leftist ideological agenda?

35 posted on 09/21/2005 2:48:30 PM PDT by TeleStraightShooter (When Frist exercises his belated Constitutional "Byrd option", Reid will have a "Nuclear Reaction".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: FreedomSurge

save you popcorn, I expect they will fillibuster O'Conner's replacement... and fail holding in it.


36 posted on 09/21/2005 2:49:45 PM PDT by TeleStraightShooter (When Frist exercises his belated Constitutional "Byrd option", Reid will have a "Nuclear Reaction".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: conservative blonde

But isn't that exactly what they will do? After all, they have no respect for the constitution, do they?


37 posted on 09/21/2005 2:56:12 PM PDT by uglybastard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Reid, Kennedy and Kerry are shown to be the horses a##es they are.


38 posted on 09/21/2005 3:04:57 PM PDT by ex-snook (Swapping factories and dollars to buy America for cheap goods is lose-lose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: XpandTheEkonomy
O'Connor was a left leaning moderate whose main qualification for the job was a vagina.

Now that you're warmed up, could you tell us what you think of Ginsburg? LOL

39 posted on 09/21/2005 3:06:36 PM PDT by Pearls Before Swine (Is /sarc really needed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

I still say, if Roberts gets the 66 votes of approval that Justice Rehnquist received in his floor vote for Chief, it will be a significant success. Rehnquist garnered 67 votes back in 1972 in his first set of hearings.


40 posted on 09/21/2005 3:10:10 PM PDT by Reagan Man (Secure the borders;punish employers who hire illegals;halt all welfare handouts to illegals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ninian Dryhope

Poor Norman Lear. So much money spent, so little influence.


41 posted on 09/21/2005 3:12:51 PM PDT by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: xzins

"Old Republicans"? Well, you've got Scalia and Thomas. Both of them have a good ten years left. You've got Souter (appointed by 41). He hasn't done us any favors recently. That leaves you with Stevens (appointed by Ford). He's got it in his will that he should be stuffed and propped into his Seat should he die before another Dem is elected Prez.

So now you're left with a guy completely unacceptable to strict constructionists on the court.


42 posted on 09/21/2005 3:15:51 PM PDT by WinOne4TheGipper (Please don't feed the tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Has the Hill-debeast announced her intentions, yet?


43 posted on 09/21/2005 3:46:34 PM PDT by SmithL (There are a lot of people that hate Bush more than they hate terrorists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
President Bush has wanted John Roberts to be Chief Justice since he was elected in 2000. The "Teflon Bork" will be the Libs worst nightmare.
44 posted on 09/21/2005 3:47:54 PM PDT by new yorker 77 (FAKE POLLS DO NOT TRANSLATE INTO REAL VOTERS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Not yet, but I'd bet she votes
No altho it wouldn't surprise me if she voted Yes.


45 posted on 09/21/2005 3:51:03 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... "To remain silent when they should protest makes cowards of men." -- THOMAS JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
I wonder what the motive here is. The best strategy is to show a united front. All the D's vote no, but no filibuster and it gives them credentials for the next one. I thought that Harry Reid's announcement was not after meeting with party leaders but as a pre-emptive strike. He was trying to make the others vote with him.

This may be Leaky's attempt at a little power struggle.

46 posted on 09/21/2005 3:58:36 PM PDT by AmishDude (Join the AmishDude fan club: "Great point." -- AliVertias; ":-) Very clever" -- MJY1288)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patent; xzins

Gonzales is very unlikely to be nominated. As sitting AG, he would have to recuse himself from far too many cases.


47 posted on 09/21/2005 4:00:08 PM PDT by AmishDude (Join the AmishDude fan club: "Great point." -- AliVertias; ":-) Very clever" -- MJY1288)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
"It would be quite a sacrifice for her, but she's prepared to do it if she is asked," Specter said. "By next June we'll know a lot more about Judge Roberts ... than we do today."

You couldn't possibly be suggesting that the next nominee should be determined by the political leanings of Judge Roberts' first year rulings, could you Arlen?

48 posted on 09/21/2005 4:11:28 PM PDT by agrace (Where were you when I founded the earth? Tell me if you know so much. Job 38:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

I'm betting she votes yes, just to prove she's not an extreme liberal.


49 posted on 09/21/2005 4:17:50 PM PDT by SmithL (There are a lot of people that hate Bush more than they hate terrorists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Biden's a NO.

Senator Joseph Biden (D-Del.) will vote against the confirmation of John G. Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States, a source who has spoken to the senator told The Huffington Post.

Last Wednesday, Biden told Roberts, "We're rolling the dice with you, judge because you won't share your views with us. You've told me nothing in this Kabuki dance. The public has a right to know what you think."

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid announced he would vote against Robert’s confirmation yesterday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/09/21/biden-to-vote-against-rob_n_7684.html


Whatever. Its completely ridiculous how this is a 100% political process and these senators whore out their votes. No wonder it takes 3 months for nominees to get confirmed.


50 posted on 09/21/2005 5:05:17 PM PDT by zendari
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-117 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson