Skip to comments.Senate Judiciary Supports John Roberts By 13 to 5 Vote
Posted on 09/22/2005 6:32:52 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday brushed aside concerns of divided Democrats and backed President George W. Bush's nomination of conservative John Roberts to be chief justice of the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
All 55 Republicans are on board (RINO's included), and somewhere around 30 Democrats are opposed.
Who voted what?
to bad mary-jo wasn't around to judge pumpkin head......there is something wrong with this picture when we have ted "hiccup'kennedy and joe "they ain't my words" biden judging judges.......i wonder how the klansmen is gonna vote??? duh!
Ted Kennedy, Dianne Feinstein, Charles Schumer, Joseph Biden, and Richard Durbin voted "no".
Roberts is on his way in. It's the next nomination that will see the real confirmation fight.
Feingold must have decided that he doesn't want to be the moveon.org 2008 candidate.
Leahy, Kohl and Feingold For, all other Demons against.
BTW, Hillary is voting no.
Byrd is a Constitutional Historian as is Roberts. I bet they really had a great private talk and Roberts charmed and impressed him.
Byrd has **pretensions** to being a constitutional historian. But I've never heard of any sign that the old Grand Master actually is one.
dont get you dude.......spell it out
I'm sure Feingold wants to create a (phony) image of moderation and that this played into his 'yes' vote, but as with Leahy and the others its probably more so in preparation for the chance that Bush actually nominates a much more solidly known conseravtive for O'Connor's seat. Then they can attck that candidate without mercy and then claim that 'if only Bush had nominated another mainstream conservative (i.e. another O'Connor type they hope) like Roberts' then they wouldn't have to come out so forcefully against the racist, sexist, homophobic, and regressive radical conservative nominee.
No, there are 8 Democrats on the committee. Pat Leahy, Herb Kohl, and Russ Feingold voted to confirm Roberts.
Do you ever watch the Senate deliberations and voting on C-Span?
He is quite entertaining (often idiotic) and indeed well versed in the Constitution. Also, many other Senators on both sides have called him their "Resident Constitutional Scholar"
OK, what's blowing you away about him? Like I said, I don't get it. If Byrd has ever displayed deep insight and profound learning in his claimed field I guess I'd feel rewarded to know it. But ass-kissing from other senators doesn't show anything.
Nothing, I don't like him at all. I was simply making a commentary on his voting "Yes" for Judge Roberts.
I can also seriously dislike somebody and still see that they have a certain knowledge base.
That's what I was curious about. What specifically has he said that's blown you away, and made you think that this guy really is something special when it comes to the constitution? I've never seen it.
I know he likes to brag about carrying a small pocket edition of the constitution wherever he goes (he'll sometimes theatrically display it on interviews and such) though that seems to mainly be impressing him as opposed to anyone else.
Sorry I didn't understand your question.
When on the Senate Floor during debates a Senator will say something and Byrd will respond quite loudly, "THAT IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION" or " THAT IS NOT WHAT THE CONSITUTION SAYS."
Then he will proceed to pull out the well worn copy of the Constitution he keeps in his vest pocket, turn right to the exact page and paragraph in question. Everytime I have been watching he was always correct in his assertion
oh snake boy on crack......read real slow you might understand ....then teddy might be your hero/
Well, all right, though I don't think any of that qualifies a guy as a "constitutional historian", which to me implies a guy much more solid on background, how constitutional principles were developed, where they came from, etc. Maybe if he had said, "That's NOT what George Mason said during his losing argument about slavery at the Constitutional Convention!" I'd be more impressed.
Apparently you will not be impressed because it is someone who is very distasteful to you.
The Term "Constitutional Historian" means some one who studies the Constitution.
Byrd has been a legislator since 1946 in the W VA house and has cast just shy of 20,000 votes in the US Senate.
He has a B. A. Degree in Political Science and Law Degree (J.D.), both of which he earned while being a member of U S Senate.
My guess is with a 60 year career as a legislator, two degrees and an obvious interest in and passion for the subject, it is not at all outrageous to consider him a "Constitutional Historian." Some fellow Senators call him a "walking encyclopedia" of such matters which strikes me as a very specific complement - they could have said, "he is well versed" or "he sure knows his stuff."
And your grammar and punctuation is top notch! BTW, your ID reflects... what? That you like Fat Teddy, aka, "The Swimmer"?
does your mommy know your on her computer? sniff.....sniff....you smell gay
No, I'm not impressed with his credentials as a "constitutional historian" because he has none. Displayed none to my knowledge, anyway. That he's been in the Senate for a long time is nice (I'm curious how many votes Teddy Kennedy has to cast before he too becomes an historian), and that he has the constitution memorized is nice, but that no more makes him an expert on constitutional history than memorizing the back of a baseball card makes one a go-to guy on how to play baseball.
You are obviously do not know the meaning of the word, "Historian."
1. A writer, student, or scholar of history.
2. One who writes or compiles a chronological record of events; a chronicler.
But frankly, I do not know why I ever wasted my timed trying to explain it to you because you are basing you comments on emotions rather than facts.
I guess I'd be more hurt if this came from one who could actually write a coherent sentence. I don't see why you're so high on Byrd's scholarship, which is why I asked for evidence. That you can't produce anything germane to the question is no excuse to get personal.
You are correct, that sentence is incoherent.
It is the result of faulty and rapid editing to try and remove any hint of it being a personal attack as that is not how it was intended.
I will try again.
I never said Byrd was a SCHOLAR, I said he was a historian.
From the Merrian-Webster dictionary:
Main Entry: his·to·ri·an
Pronunciation: hi-'stOr-E-&n, -'stor-, -'stär- Function: noun
1 : a student or writer of history; especially : one that produces a scholarly synthesis
2 : a writer or compiler of a chronicle
Robert Byrd is a student of history in that he has a Bachelors degree in political Science from Marshall University. He also holds a Juris Doctorate from American University Law School.
He is a writer of history in that he has written several books including, "The Senate of the Roman Republic: Addresses on the History of Roman Constitutionalism" and a four volume work entitled, "The Senate: 1789-1989."
If pressed, I could probably come up with a list of a thousand people who are Historians and as much full of shit as is Byrd. The fact that their conclusions and interpretations are unreasonable or even incorrect does not change the fact that are Historians.
A horrible lawyer is still a lawyer and a horrible teacher is still a teacher until and unless the are fired for their incompetence or malpractice.
As it stands, the sheeple of West Virginia have not seen fit to remove Byrd from office after 47 years and people continue to buy his books on the history of the Senate.
I'm in law school right now and no way is a JD going to make any of these people an historian or anything close. This just isn't relevant. Same with the BA.
He is a writer of history in that he has written several books including, "The Senate of the Roman Republic: Addresses on the History of Roman Constitutionalism" and a four volume work entitled, "The Senate: 1789-1989." If pressed, I could probably come up with a list of a thousand people who are Historians and as much full of shit as is Byrd. The fact that their conclusions and interpretations are unreasonable or even incorrect does not change the fact that are Historians.
This is more to the point, and there may not be as much difference between us as I thought. That said, I don't consider a poor historian a real historian, and since we were talking about Byrd in the context of impressing Roberts, seems to me that was something that mattered. These books, for example, are hardly histories in the normal sense, but collections of speeches. They don't even seem to have been "written"; the blurb on the Rome book, at least, notes that it was all spoken from memory, and includes no notes or citations, which if accurate points to shockingly low standards in both Byrd and the Government Printing Office which let this be put out. For the Senate bookset (two volumes of which are simply anthologies of speeches from other senators and a collection of statistics) we're told it was "edited" by two women named Mary Sharon Hall and Wendy Wolff, leaving one free to wonder how much of the heavy lifting was actually done by them.
If Byrd's voting to confirm Roberts's nomination, I think it has more to do with West Virginia's reddish politics, and that there's really no good reason to oppose the man, who is perhaps the most qualified candidate for the Supreme Court around right now. In less politically charged times I suspect there wouldn't have been any controversy at all.