Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Final Senate Vote on John Roberts (C-Span tally)
C-Span ^ | 9-29-05

Posted on 09/29/2005 9:17:56 AM PDT by LittleSpotBlog

Sept. 29, 2005 Final Senate Vote Accepted by a vote of 78-22: Republicans 55-0 Democrats 22-22 Independent 1

(Excerpt) Read more at c-span.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: roberts; scotus; senate
The usual suspects vote just as predicted...
1 posted on 09/29/2005 9:18:00 AM PDT by LittleSpotBlog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LittleSpotBlog

JEFFORDS VOTED YES??!!!


2 posted on 09/29/2005 9:20:03 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LittleSpotBlog

I see both my Senators and Clinton voted no.


3 posted on 09/29/2005 9:20:12 AM PDT by edcoil (Reality doesn't say much - doesn't need too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LittleSpotBlog

Of the Tri-state area NY NJ CT only DODD voted Yes.

Interesting


4 posted on 09/29/2005 9:24:27 AM PDT by alisasny (Liberal UTOPIA rains down in New Orleans Way to go)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LittleSpotBlog

Hillary and Obama both voted against.


5 posted on 09/29/2005 9:24:29 AM PDT by Lil'freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LittleSpotBlog

And the NOS are:

Akaka (HI)
Bayh (IN)
Biden (DE)
Boxer (CA)
Cantwell (WA)
Clinton (NY)
Corzine (NJ)
Dayton (MN)
Durbin (IL)
Feinstein (CA)
Harkin (IA)
Inouye (HI)
Kennedy (MA)
Kerry (MA)
Lautenberg (NJ)
Mikulski (MD)
Obama (IL)
Reed, J. (RI)
Reid, H. (NV)
Sarbanes (MD)
Schumer (NY)
Stabenow (MI)


6 posted on 09/29/2005 9:24:32 AM PDT by Texagirl4W ("I am too blessed to be stressed and too anointed to be disappointed!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Hard to believe Jeffords and several other far lefties voted yes. I was amazed by Byrd, Murray, Levin, Dodd and others.


7 posted on 09/29/2005 9:24:34 AM PDT by TNCMAXQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LittleSpotBlog

Notice how "Fredo" Kerry & Schemer Schumer, bot
cravenly waited until everyone else voted, before
casting theirs?


8 posted on 09/29/2005 9:24:58 AM PDT by NickatNite2003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LittleSpotBlog

Evan Bayh voted "N"

I used to like that guy. Sounded like a Republican. Supported Bush Hate to say it, but we have to watch out for him in '08. He's wooing the MSM with his votes now.


9 posted on 09/29/2005 9:25:28 AM PDT by rightinthemiddle (Free Speech is a Right. Being Wrong is Just...Wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alisasny

Retract that and LIEberman

CT went with Roberts NJ and NY didnt.


10 posted on 09/29/2005 9:25:28 AM PDT by alisasny (Liberal UTOPIA rains down in New Orleans Way to go)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: alisasny

The "surprise" yes votes will be leading the filibuster over whoever the next nominee is.


11 posted on 09/29/2005 9:25:29 AM PDT by Sometimes A River (Will the next President inherit George W. Bush's hurricane making machine?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

Boxer and Feinstein no doubt.............


12 posted on 09/29/2005 9:26:03 AM PDT by calrighty (`Nobody)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dangus
Wow, the queen of infanticide, olie snowe and her little pal susie collins voted yes, President Bush must have taken them to the wood shed.

About time Mr. President, about time!

13 posted on 09/29/2005 9:26:40 AM PDT by newsgatherer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TNCMAXQ

They're saving their bullets.

I hope for Janice Rogers Brown. KKK Bobby can vote against her.


14 posted on 09/29/2005 9:26:44 AM PDT by rightinthemiddle (Free Speech is a Right. Being Wrong is Just...Wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Acts 2:38

Which of the NAYS are up for re-election in 2006???

Those ought be our targets : )


15 posted on 09/29/2005 9:26:53 AM PDT by alisasny (Liberal UTOPIA rains down in New Orleans Way to go)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: agrace

Check out the no's. Surprised?


16 posted on 09/29/2005 9:28:14 AM PDT by lightingguy (Sorry, I got distracted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alisasny
Stab-me-now for one. Keith Butler in 2006.
17 posted on 09/29/2005 9:29:35 AM PDT by Dan from Michigan (Draft Mark Sanford for President - 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dangus

C-SPAN's formatting is FUBAR, but it appears these are the "No" votes:

Akaka, HI
Bayh, IN (!)
Biden, DE
Boxer, CA
Cantwell, WA
Clinton, NY
Corzine, NJ
Dayton, MN
Durbin, IL
Feinstein, CA (!)
Harkin, IA (!)
Inouye, HI
Kennedy, MA
Kerry, MA
Lautenberg, NJ
Mikulski, MD
Obama, IL
Reed, RI
Reid, NV
Sarbanes, MD
Schumer, NY
Stabenow, MI

Feinstein had already said how she would vote, but it is surprising, since she normally tries to position herself as "the rational one" in CA.

Bayh has definite presidential ambitions; his vote is interesting because it signals he's more concerned with the Move-On Democrats in the primaries than winning a general election.

I guess Harkin is retiring?


18 posted on 09/29/2005 9:29:59 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Acts 2:38

> The "surprise" yes votes will be leading the filibuster over whoever the next nominee is.

Yep, plus the so-called Gang of 14.


19 posted on 09/29/2005 9:30:36 AM PDT by cloud8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LittleSpotBlog; dubyaismypresident; SmithL; Ol' Sparky; Reagan Man

I'm mildly surprised at Jeffords vote. But remember, he also supported Charles Pickering, Sr. for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The next nomination will be THE BIG ONE! Recently, I've been hearing that White House Counsel Harriet Miers could be the choice. She's never been a judge before, but neither had Byron White (whom Robert Byrd supported, if I remember correctly). Could she be a teflon nominee like Roberts was?


20 posted on 09/29/2005 9:32:20 AM PDT by Clintonfatigued (Jeanine Pirro for Senate, Hillary Clinton for Weight Watchers Spokeswoman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LittleSpotBlog
In Washington State: Cantwell No, Murray Yes.

Hmmm...I wonder what that means in relationship to the upcoming Cantwell race post-Gregoire.
21 posted on 09/29/2005 9:32:36 AM PDT by pollyannaish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alisasny
Of the Tri-state area NY NJ CT only DODD voted Yes. Interesting

Gee maybe that will make up for his advocacy of cutting funding to Lon Nol's government in Cambodia because, "The greatest gift our country can give to the Cambodian people is peace, not guns. And the best way to accomplish that goal is by ending military aid now." Or maybe not. Yeah, Chris. Great gift. I suppose at least some of those people found peace in the grave. Is that what you meant?

TWO MILLION PEOPLE DIED BECAUSE YOU (AND OTHERS LIKE YOU) WERE WRONG. YOU AREN'T QUALIFIED TO BE DOG CATCHER.

22 posted on 09/29/2005 9:33:44 AM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TexasGreg

Ping


23 posted on 09/29/2005 9:34:17 AM PDT by GarySpFc (Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texagirl4W
Bayh (IN)

I see Bayh is trying to keep up with Clinton. A vote to show support for the base, but hopefully won't tarnish his 'moderate' image.

24 posted on 09/29/2005 9:35:05 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TNCMAXQ

The one really hateful Dem who voted yes who shocked me was Leahey.


25 posted on 09/29/2005 9:35:11 AM PDT by GarySpFc (Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rightinthemiddle
I agree, this guy has joined the traitor ranks. Don't know how he can stay in power without voting the way his constituents want.

The MA Senator traitors are able to do it, and so is Hitlery, so maybe he has gained the wisdom of the Dark Side.
26 posted on 09/29/2005 9:35:12 AM PDT by southlake_hoosier (.... One Nation, Under God.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Acts 2:38
Good strategery call. I think you are right.

Notice that Clinton voted no to appeal to her base, but if you are accurate will appear moderate during "the big fight."
27 posted on 09/29/2005 9:35:51 AM PDT by pollyannaish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: edcoil
I see both my Senators and Clinton voted no.

There goes Feinstein's last shred of credibility.

28 posted on 09/29/2005 9:42:27 AM PDT by oldbrowser (A living, breathing constitution is a usurpation of the people's sovereignty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Lake and Marion Counties might think he is still a moderate. The rest of the state should see he has turned his back on them, and has joined forces with the Jack--- brigade.
29 posted on 09/29/2005 9:43:27 AM PDT by southlake_hoosier (.... One Nation, Under God.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: newsgatherer

Yes, Collins actually gave a great defense of Roberts not answering cases that might appear before him, I was really surprised. Thought maybe invasion of the bodysnatchers had taken place ;)


30 posted on 09/29/2005 9:44:53 AM PDT by psychopuppy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Texagirl4W

These 22 have said that they don't care about the judges qualifications, only that he adhere to the Democratic party agenda.


31 posted on 09/29/2005 9:47:03 AM PDT by oldbrowser (A living, breathing constitution is a usurpation of the people's sovereignty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: edcoil
Both of mine (Sarbanes and Mikulski) were just as useless, albeit not surprising, in their votes.
32 posted on 09/29/2005 9:54:53 AM PDT by LittleSpotBlog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: calrighty

the witches of the west


33 posted on 09/29/2005 9:56:59 AM PDT by newfrpr04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Always Right; rightinthemiddle
My email to Sen Bayh:

http://bayh.senate.gov/LegForm.htm

Dear Senator Bayh,

This is a sad day in the state of Indiana. It appears that you have decided to ignore the people that voted you into office and join forces with those who would undermine this great Country.

Since you are a Senator from Indiana, I know that you must have grown up with great values and morals. Had great pride in the USA and in Indiana.

But, it appears that you have sold yourself to the powers that would be.

If you wish to join forces with outsiders and ignore the people of Indiana, I wish you would have the courage to say so and resign your position, so that someone with Indiana's concerns in mind may take office.

Thanks,
34 posted on 09/29/2005 9:57:57 AM PDT by southlake_hoosier (.... One Nation, Under God.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Texagirl4W

And the NOS are:

Akaka (HI)
Bayh (IN)
Biden (DE)
Boxer (CA)
Cantwell (WA)
Clinton (NY)
Corzine (NJ)
Dayton (MN)
Durbin (IL)
Feinstein (CA)
Harkin (IA)
Inouye (HI)
Kennedy (MA)
Kerry (MA)
Lautenberg (NJ)
Mikulski (MD)
Obama (IL)
Reed, J. (RI)
Reid, H. (NV)
Sarbanes (MD)
Schumer (NY)
Stabenow (MI)

That should have said StabeCOW (MI) Debbie is going down in 06' because of petty votes like this. Especially given the fact the ubber-lib Levin voted in favor!


35 posted on 09/29/2005 9:58:05 AM PDT by Deano
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LittleSpotBlog

Both Arkansas senators (d) voted yes - they received enough vote yes or else letters and calls!

Grassroots uprisings and demands do work - especially for cowards and other criminals as representatives - as 90%+ of ALL of them are.


36 posted on 09/29/2005 10:02:27 AM PDT by hombre_sincero (www.spadata.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: southlake_hoosier
Since you are a Senator from Indiana, I know that you must have grown up with great values and morals. Had great pride in the USA and in Indiana.

And strangely, Roberts is an Indiana boy himself. Bayh to do that to a fellow hoosier with such an outstanding record to score political points is just low.

37 posted on 09/29/2005 10:02:39 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Texagirl4W

Bayh voted no? He is running for President...


38 posted on 09/29/2005 10:04:55 AM PDT by lugsoul (Sleeper troll since 1999.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LittleSpotBlog

Sore losers, especially Kerry/Kennedy.WAAAAAAAHHHHHH

Massachusetts should be ashamed.


39 posted on 09/29/2005 10:05:28 AM PDT by SueRae
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightinthemiddle

I hope for Janice Rogers Brown. KKK Bobby can vote against her.


The President should nominee her right this moment and that would take Tom Delay off the front pages!!!


40 posted on 09/29/2005 10:11:07 AM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: southlake_hoosier
Dear Senator Bayh,

This is a sad day in the state of Indiana. It appears that you have decided to ignore the people that voted you into office and join forces with those who would undermine this great Country.

Since you are a Senator from Indiana, I know that you must have grown up with great values and morals. Had great pride in the USA and in Indiana.

But, it appears that you have sold yourself to the powers that would be.

If you wish to join forces with outsiders and ignore the people of Indiana, I wish you would have the courage to say so and resign your position, so that someone with Indiana's concerns in mind may take office.

Thanks,



It's great, my question is does he ever read it? And how do we effectively address our elective officials so that they read our message???
41 posted on 09/29/2005 10:16:10 AM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: southlake_hoosier

BTTT!!


42 posted on 09/29/2005 10:22:45 AM PDT by calrighty (`Nobody)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Yes, Bayh voted no. He wants to be VP for Clinton (My guess only).
43 posted on 09/29/2005 10:33:03 AM PDT by Texagirl4W ("I am too blessed to be stressed and too anointed to be disappointed!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: LittleSpotBlog

Wow. Hillary voted No.

Kind of surprising in a way. But I guess it was a safe vote for her. She could placate her base w/out really affecting the outcome.


44 posted on 09/29/2005 10:39:42 AM PDT by Pessimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: psychopuppy

Frist or the President must have sat them down and said, "Nothing you want passes till you stop the hissy fits!"


45 posted on 09/29/2005 11:08:48 AM PDT by newsgatherer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Pessimist

This is Hillary's Letter to a female upstate NY constitutent:

Original Message-----
From: Senator_Clinton@clinton.senate.gov
[mailto:Senator_Clinton@clinton.senate.gov]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 8:54 PM

Subject: A message from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

September 23, 2005



Dear Mrs. X:

Because you have shared with me your concerns regarding the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States, I am sending to you in its entirety my statement announcing my decision to vote against his confirmation. I hope that you will read the statement with the same care and thoughtfulness that I gave to this decision. My statement follows.

* * * * * * *

The nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States is a matter of tremendous consequence for future generations of Americans. It requires thoughtful inquiry and debate, and I commend my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee for their dedication to making
sure that all questions were presented and that those outside of the Senate had the opportunity to make their voices heard. After serious and careful consideration of the Committee proceedings and Judge Roberts's writings, I
believe I must vote against his confirmation.

I do not believe that the Judge has presented his views with enough clarity and specificity for me to in good conscience cast a vote on his behalf.

The Constitution commands that the Senate provide meaningful advice and consent to the President on judicial nominations, and I have an obligation to my constituents to make sure that I cast my vote for Chief Justice of the
United States for someone I am convinced will be steadfast in protecting fundamental women's rights, civil rights, privacy rights, and who will respect the appropriate separation of powers among the three branches.

After the Judiciary Hearings, I believe the record on these matters has been left unclear. That uncertainly means as a matter of conscience, I cannot vote to confirm despite Judge Roberts's long history of public service.

In one memo, for example, Judge Roberts argued that Congress has the power to deny the Supreme Court the right to hear appeals from lower courts of constitutional claims involving flag burning, abortion, and other matters.
He wrote that the United States would be far better off with fifty different interpretations on the right to choose than with what he called the "judicial excesses embodied in Roe v. Wade." The idea that the Supreme Court could be denied the right to rule on constitutional claims had been so long decided that even the most conservative of Judge Roberts's Justice Department colleagues strongly disagreed with him.

When questioned about his legal memoranda, Judge Roberts claimed they did not necessarily reflect his views and that he was merely making the best possible case for his clients or responding to a superior's request that he make a particular argument. But he did not clearly disavow the strong and clear views he expressed, but only shrouded them in further mystery. Was he just being an advocate for a client or was he using his position to advocate for positions he believed in? The record is unclear.

It is hard to believe he has no opinion on so many critical issues after years as a Justice Department and White House lawyer, appellate advocate and judge. His supporters remind us that Chief Justice Rehnquist supported the
constitutionality of legal segregation before his elevation to the high court, but never sought to bring it back while serving the court system as its Chief Justice. But I would also remind them of Justice Thomas's assertion in his confirmation hearing that he had never even discussed Roe
v. Wade, much less formed an opinion on it. Shortly after he ascended to the Court, Justice Thomas made it clear that he wanted to repeal Roe.

Adding to testimony that clouded more than clarified is that we in the Senate have been denied the full record of Judge Roberts's writings despite our repeated requests. Combined, these two events have left a question mark
on what Judge Roberts's views are and how he might rule on critical questions of the day. It is telling that President Bush has said the Justices he most admires are the two most conservative justices, Justices
Thomas and Scalia. It is not unreasonable to believe that the President has picked someone in Judge Roberts whom he believes holds a similarly conservative philosophy, and that voting as a bloc they could further limit the power of the Congress, expand the purview of the Executive, and overturn key rulings like Roe v. Wade.

Since I expect Judge Roberts to be confirmed, I hope that my concerns are unfounded and that he will be the kind of judge he said he would be during his confirmation hearing. If so, I will be the first to acknowledge it.

However, because I think he is far more likely to vote the views he expressed in his legal writings, I cannot give my consent to his confirmation and will, therefore, vote against his confirmation. My desire to maintain the already fragile Supreme Court majority for civil rights,
voting rights and women's rights outweigh the respect I have for Judge Roberts's intellect, character, and legal skills.

* * * * * *

Thank you for writing. For updates on this and other important issues being discussed before the United States Senate, please check my website at
http://clinton.senate.gov.

Sincerely yours,
Hillary Rodham Clinton





http://clinton.senate.gov


46 posted on 09/29/2005 11:16:18 AM PDT by victim soul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Pessimist
The "NO" voters are about the best list of "Domestic Enemies" one could comprise from the Senate.....

Not a single one can be entrusted with any real power..
All of them have a record of placing self, power and personal wealth above all other considerations....

A POX on all their asses...

Semper Fi
47 posted on 09/29/2005 12:53:08 PM PDT by river rat (You may turn the other cheek, but I prefer to look into my enemy's vacant dead eyes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: LittleSpotBlog

And the supposedly "moderate" Obama voted Nay.


48 posted on 09/29/2005 2:02:09 PM PDT by MarxSux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: victim soul
Hillary wrote this: My desire to maintain the already fragile Supreme Court majority for civil rights, voting rights and women's rights outweigh the respect I have for Judge Roberts's intellect, character, and legal skills.

Here is what she REALLY means: My desire to maintain the already fragile Supreme Court majority for civil rights, voting rights and women's rights outweigh the respect I have for The Constitution of the United States.

49 posted on 09/29/2005 3:12:35 PM PDT by feedback doctor (Dan Rather - guilty until proven innocent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson