Skip to comments.WSJ: 18-0 (v. the 13-5 Senate Judiciary Committee vote for Judge Roberts)
Posted on 09/23/2005 6:07:58 AM PDT by OESYEdited on 10/17/2005 7:37:36 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
That was the vote count when the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmed Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer in the 1990s, and it should have been the vote for John Roberts yesterday, instead of 13-5. The two Bill Clinton appointees are every bit as liberal as Judge Roberts is conservative, and they were just as unforthcoming during their confirmation hearings on how they would vote on specific cases.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Living in California, we have no represenation in the Senate. Both Boxer and DiFi have never listened to or cared about all the people they are suppose to represent - only their special interests.
DiFi was just as wrong in her vote as she is in the majority of her votes on any issue.
The five who voted against him have in total less than half of his brain power.
Maybe the Republicans should have opposed some of the liberal judges. I thought so at the time. I think the talk at the time is that the President has a right to choose and if they opposed liberal judges then, some day a Republican President would then be denied his right to have a conservative.
Republicans, as usual, do not know how to play the war game now or then. If liberals opposed my conservative judge, then I would send a more conservative judge.
Liberals are liberals and they are there to win, regardless.
Given that most of DiFi's questions boiled down to; "How could we ever trust a Catholic on the Supreme Court", she is one of the most bigoted Senators in Congress.
If we're going to get dissed for a moderate, might as well get dissed for a conservative. Let's give 'em something real to fret about...
I don't see how they can convincingly vote this way when this is compared to the Ginsburg vote. She is the most left wing of any judge ever, and yet wasn't the vote 99-1 based purely on her competence to be a judge?
You know I can't post the whole store. Write the newspapers involved, or post the full articles yourself, say, from your own blogsite -- i.e., until they sue you.
Yes, because the Republicans are chumps. They play nice---with people who aren't nice. They play with cheaters, yet they play fair.
I agree with those who say that President Bush has nothing to lose by appointing a conservative, but it's very doubtful he will do that. It is more important to appease the Democrats than to do what the people voted him a second term to do; more important to reach across the aisle than to build a Supreme Court that will respect the Constitution for decades to come.
I think that Bush may be worried about RINOs that may not vote for a true conservative judge, because of MSM pressure. Then he might not be able to get the votes to confirm the judge. We may have 55 Republicans in the Senate, but we have less than 50 conservatives.