Skip to comments.Roberts Confirmation Heads to Senate Floor
Posted on 09/26/2005 6:32:47 AM PDT by Jess Kitting
WASHINGTON - John Roberts' ascension to chief justice is so assured that senators debating the nomination this week may spend as much time talking about President Bush's upcoming nomination to fill a second vacancy on the Supreme Court.
Two-thirds of the 100 senators Republican and Democrats alike had already announced their support of the conservative federal appeals court judge as the successor to the late William H. Rehnquist before the Senate even started its final debate Monday afternoon.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
"Democrats opposing Roberts say they're afraid the former lawyer in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations will be staunchly conservative like Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia."
The above quote from a reporter notes the fear of the Libs...OMG, someone who will follow the law, not legislate from the bench, and support the Constitution, IS STAUNCHLY CONSERVATIVE!!!
I will believe it when I see the final vote.
By the way, has Monday afternoon already passed on the East Coast? This writer tries to make it sound like confirmation is a foregone conclusion. I wish I could be so optimistic, but the fight isn't over until the 51st Senator has voted to confirm. The Dems might still try to derail this in the final hours.
Is the final vote for the entire Senate scheduled for today?????
I wish Bush had kept Roberts as O'Conner's replacement.....
Further down in the article, it says this:
"A floor vote is planned for no later than Thursday."
It is a shame that Rehnquist couldn't hang on for another couple of months.
Of course if Bush were a conservative of conviction, he would have tabbed either Scalia or Thomas to replace Rehnquist as Chief Justice instead of the new guy. But Bush is a squish who wants to avoid a domestic fight at all costs. Oh well.
Has Boxer broken down in tears yet, begging to know why in the name of God we are in such a rush that we have to rush through this vote without thoroughly investigating the serious charges that... that... that she hasn't decided on yet?
I actually think Roberts was an excellent choice, it was just stupid to waste him as a Rehnquist replacement when Roberts was good enough to pass as an O'Connor replacement. Bush would of had a much easier time getting another conservative on the court as a Rehnquist replacement. Politically, it was a real stupid move, now the GOP will have to go nuclear to get another good conservative to the court.
This kind of story
makes me nervous, makes me think
the Left and the press
are setting us up
to de-rail the guy and this
makes for more "drama" . . .
I totally agree, but I still think that Scalia deserved to be nominated for Chief Justice a heck a lot more than Roberts. Even Thomas deserved it more for that matter.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 1 p.m. on Monday, September 26. I further ask consent that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then proceed to executive session for the consideration of Calendar No. 317, John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States. I further ask consent that the time from 1:30 to 2:30 be under the control of the majority leader or his designee, the time from 2:30 to 3:30 be under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee, 3:30 to 4:30 under majority control, and 4:30 to 5:30 under the control of the Democratic side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Click here: 109th Congress - Senate - September 22, 2005
Navigate to: 62 . ORDERS FOR MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2005
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, next week we will begin to debate the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be America's Chief Justice. I am confident it will be a continuation of a process that has been quite dignified and civil. We will continue that momentum as we go through next week. A final vote on his nomination will be held on Thursday, and I look forward to a full and robust debate that brings credit to this great institution. Our duty to advise and consent on the selection of Supreme Court Justices is perhaps one of our most solemn obligations. I thank my colleagues for their continuing hard work in this regard.
In summary, the order we have laid out provides that we will begin the Roberts nomination on Monday. We were prepared to have Senators deliver opening statements during Friday's session. However, nobody has come forward with a specific request to speak. Therefore, we will return on Monday and proceed to executive session to begin that debate.
I mentioned earlier that we will vote on Monday, and Senators should expect that vote to begin somewhere around 5:30. We are clearing a number of legislative items, and we will announce on Monday what that vote will be.
I encourage my colleagues to take advantage of Monday and early Tuesday to speak on the Roberts nomination. Senators should not delay--please do not--their statements until Wednesday. The vote on the nomination will be next week. We will be prepared to remain in session as late as necessary to accommodate Members' speeches. I know that most all Members will either want to come to the floor or submit their statements to the RECORD, and we will accommodate them. Again, I encourage them, so we won't have this great rush on Wednesday or Thursday morning, to come Monday and Tuesday and make their addresses.
Click here: 109th Congress - Senate - September 22, 2005
Navigate to: 64 . PROGRAM -- (Senate - September 22, 2005)
Well.... YEAH! I think that's the point.
Conservatives support the Constitution and the rule of law, even if that doesn't mean our side "wins" a particular battle, but they don't. They support the touchy feely "I meant well and therefore anything goes" rule, even if it leads to the opposite results they promised. After all, they meant well!
Conservatives support the Constitution and the rule of law...
Yes, this is the STARK CONTRAST with the libs -- they DO NOT follow the law, they break it constantly, and we see no accountability for doing it...that is why they just keep doing it, even ON THE SCOTUS!!!
I am AMAZED the President didn't consult such experts as you on how to handle matters.
The awkward thing is that O'Connor "graciously" made her resignation effective only upon the confirmation of her replacement. That means that nobody has to vote to confirm anyone they don't like beter than O'Connor - and that means as a practical matter that it will be quite diffficult to replace O'Connor. And she's not making it any easier by talking to Arlen Specter and agreeing to stay on for a year.
A floor vote is planned for no later than Thursday.
Let this part of the Bush legacy begin!
I'm really sorry, but I'm not a mindless Limbot who lives in a no-criticism-of-Republicans-allowed zone. I like Bush and voted for him, but if I disagree with one of his decisions or think that he doesn't have the stomach for a fight I'm going to say so. Get over it.
There is no law against blabbing so go right ahead. However, it doesn't take much thought to realize that Bush is far better at politics than his critics.
Just because he does not like a big, noisy fight as do many of us doesn't mean we are right or he is wrong.
Nor does it take much intelligence to realize that FReepers are NOT the average American and are indeed FAR to the Right of most. Satifying all freepers would almost certainly mean losing far more from the not as conservative voters.
I don't agree. This way, he has the new member of the court AND the CJ in one fell swoop. The fight will be there no matter WHO is nominated, whether to replace Rehnquist or O'Connor. The Dems will howl and claim that the candidate is too right wing, too out of the mainstream.
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.