Skip to comments.Roberts Nomination Sent to Full Senate
Posted on 09/22/2005 12:22:20 PM PDT by kellynla
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 (news, bio, voting record), 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
An evasive Roberts said he may or may not be happy about this, that traditionally a SC justice would be happy at his confirmation by the comitee but he did not think it proper to comment further.
Sen. Russ Feingold's vote means that he's running in 08 for President.
Who in the hell is this Ralph Neas? (well, I do know, but...) How does this toad have such power and noteriety???
The only question - Will the Democrats filibuster?
Fiengold is running for POTUS and knows he would be dead in the gate if he voted no. He will need (will not get) middle America to have a prayer..Same for Hillary which is why I don't think she stands a prayer of the nomination much less the office.
Nah, Feingold was told to vote Yes, as was Kohl. This whole thing was choreographed to make the Democrats look "reasonable."
"Same for Hillary which is why I don't think she stands a prayer of the nomination much less the office"
Yup, despite all the stern warnings from fellow conservatives about the danger of Hillary, I think she will fizzle big time when it really counts....and thank God for that. I have already told several people that, if Hillary is elected President, I wouild commit suicide in the most gruesome manner possible in protest.
Anyone of these clowns who believes they can beat the other Clintoon out of the 'Rat nomination for POTUS in '08 needs to quit "polishing their helmet." LOL
I sometimes think that these clowns just run for office so they can eat in nice restaurants and sleep in nice hotels and maybe "get lucky" for months and months...and if they siphon off a few hundred grand in the process...well so be it!
"Will the Democrats filibuster?"
that's an easy one...NO
the 'Rats are keeping their powder dry for the next candidate...
and that's when the proverbial manure will hit the fan.
Funny, I was watching Feingold's speech on C-SPAN and did not stay to see how he voted. I was sure, based on the highly critical tone, that he would vote AGAINST Roberts.
If he's running for POTUS, he will do so in the highly nuanced (i.e., lying) mode of John Kerry.
if Hillary is elected President, I wouild commit suicide in the most gruesome manner possible in protest.
You Wont Be Alone On That My Friend--Why Not Take A Few Libs Off The Planet Before You Go?
Don't think you have much to worry about ....except there are Democrats that are every bit as bad..who do have a shot. That IMHO is our strength, although this time we need to run a candidate who looks good, can articulate without the "uh" sound and who is quick on his feet. Mitch Romney comes to mind tho I don't know his position on important issues. Border, 2nd Amend, Roe, PBA, Taxes, etc.
Neas power comes from the folks that care what he has to say.
His comments during the hearings were disgustingly negative and demeaning.
Now he votes yes? What a piece of garbage, but then, I ought not be surprised.
No doubt there is a financial aspect ot running, Sharpton is ample evidence of that but as much as I despise the Demmys I don't think they are so far around the bend as to really run Hillbill. OMO but I don't think she could get elected dog catcher in a national election..Just picture how the other lady executive with an overbite managed to screw up LA in an emergency and ask yourself if you want the country run by her "sister" (who despises the military BTW) during a war with the turban heads.
Among the ultra left wing crackpots he is an important man.
He is one of the visionary leaders alongside "Mother Sheehan" and "Hanoi John".
Anyone know when the full Senate vote will take place?
In retrospect, then, Bush should have left Roberts as the replacement to O'Connor, since his nomination was so hard to fight. He would have an easier time arguing that a conservative to replace Rehnquist was acceptable.
Now he has allowed them to argue that a conservative judge replacing O'Connor "moves the court to the right."
To argue thusly is to accept and enshrine bogus leftist cant. There is no precedent for any requirement that a nominee be ideologically similar to the departing justice, or that the existing "balance" of the court must be maintained. This is just leftist B.S. introduced at the present time because we have a President who has promised nominees more conservative than the current court. The "balance", such as it is, should result from the electorate electing successive Presidents based in part on their judicial philosophies. President Bush said what sort of jurists he would nominate, he was twice elected, so let's roll! Leftist propaganda should be scoffed at, rather than accomodated!
one down, but the search uh goes on
It's not bogus when our own elected R's cater to it. Whether or not I accept it, they do. As long as they're going to shrink away from "bad press," they should consider that when planning.
Trust me, Roberts will be the most conservative judge Bush puts on the court now that he has done this backwards.