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.
Poor Norman Lear. So much money spent, so little influence.
"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.
Has the Hill-debeast announced her intentions, yet?
Not yet, but I'd bet she votes
No altho it wouldn't surprise me if she voted Yes.
This may be Leaky's attempt at a little power struggle.
Gonzales is very unlikely to be nominated. As sitting AG, he would have to recuse himself from far too many cases.
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?
I'm betting she votes yes, just to prove she's not an extreme liberal.
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.
The votes are orchestrated already. Things like the makeup of the individual senator's voting base, the safeness of his/her seat and other factors all play a part.
The leader knows what final vote pro and con among his ranks will be satisfactory for public consumption and for the strategy for the next nomination.......and 'Rat senators will play their part so the vote comes out as planned.
The votes are written in stone already by both parties.
All the breastbeating and all the pious announcements right now are beanbag.
Leni
Ginsberg was different. Oconner served on what, some state level court of appeals for 2 years before her nomination? Ginsberg was on the DC circuit for years before hers. Plus Clinton knew what he wanted when he chose RBG and got it. Reagan had no clue.
And Boxer too.
WASHINGTON - Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., announced Wednesday that she will oppose the nomination of John Roberts to be Supreme Court chief justice.
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/12706405.htm
I agree; it's pure theater which Dems will vote yes or no. The lesser Dems will do what the leadership says they can do.
Okay, most of the moonbats have reported that they'll vote "no". Now let's see what the "moderate" Dems are allowed to do.
All from states that Bush carried. That is not a coincidence.
Really I'd like to but the endless stream of profanity would overload the server. Think of the children.
ha ha
Conrad and Dorgan of ND (a true red state) will decide who is closest to election and that one will vote for what the President wants while the other will solemnly vote "his conscience" (barf). It's political calculation and cynicism at their very worst.
No argument on that aspect of it. I was enjoying XpandTheEkonomy's choice words for O'Connor and hoping he'd have an equally tart and enjoyable description of RBG. She's a lot worse than O'Connor, even if Clinton knew it in advance.
I think he's right. Oconner was chosen because she was a woman. Ginsberg was chosen because she was as liberal a candidate as Clinton could easily get through the Senate under Orrin Hatch's watch without a huge fight, and happened to be a woman. With Bork and Thomas in recent past I hardly blame him. Is she worse than Oconner? Yes. But I can live with Ginsberg. She is at least honest, its traitors like Souter that really piss me off.
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.