Roberts' Confirmation Virtually Assured

AP ^ | 9/16/5 | JESSE J. HOLLAND

[SmithL]

WASHINGTON -- The only real question left about Supreme Court nominee John Roberts is how many Democrats will vote for him to become the nation's 17th chief justice.

This week's grueling four-day Senate confirmation hearings only confirmed for most of the Senate's majority Republicans their contention that President Bush's pick to succeed William H. Rehnquist is the perfect choice.

Since Democrats don't plan to filibuster, they must decide if it's worth casting a symbolic vote against the 50-year-old Roberts, knowing they can't stop his confirmation and that Bush will soon choose another conservative to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a swing vote on the court.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has asked his caucus members not to make a decision before a closed-door meeting Tuesday. But Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., thinks about half of them ultimately will vote to confirm Roberts.

There are 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats, and independent Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont in the Senate, and "I think he can get from 75 to 80 votes," Conrad told reporters.

That would surprise conservatives, who say Democrats are too partisan on judicial picks to consider voting for Roberts. It would also disappoint liberals, who are hoping the Roberts vote can influence Bush's next pick.

[SmithL]

Are they flying Anita Hill's coke can in?

[Question Liberal Authority]

There are 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats, and independent Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont in the Senate

For crying out loud. Why don't they just say 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats? Talk about people who won't admit their ideology.

[msnimje]

Virtually???? The MSM is living in a VIRTUAL WORLD! He may very well be the most qualified person to sit on the Supreme Court EVER.

[Common Tator]

Are they flying Anita Hill's coke can in?

NO.

Here is a clue.. The media will not tell you why Democrats are not trying to destroy Roberts.

Click here for the 'tator take on what is really going on in the Democratic party and the Supreme Court.

[shield]

The dembos from red states will vote for Roberts. Since, Roberts is so perfect...it'll be too hard to justify a NO vote (even though the dembos don't need any type of justification~being the obstructionist they've become)...

No Republican agreed with Ginsberg...they still voted for her...understanding this was the president's pick, he was elected and it was their duty to vote for her.

[goldstategop]

John Roberts is a nice guy with a bright mind. The Democrats are going to vote against him because they don't agree with him on all aspects of the law? Yeah, a NO vote will win over Peoria, alright.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Paleo Conservative]

For crying out loud. Why don't they just say 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats?

But that is rather misleading. How many of the DemocRATS are really communists?

[oceanview]

politically, we want as many NO votes from the Dems as we can get. we don't want them to be able to say "we voted for Roberts, but this (insert nominee #2) is a out of the mainstream...".

whether Roberts gets 55 votes, or 70 - he still gets in.

[shield]

So what do you think? How many NO votes?

[Common Tator]

He may very well be the most qualified person to sit on the Supreme Court EVER.

Bork is also a brilliant legal genius. And was just as good as Roberts at quoting and explaining the law. That didn't stop the Democrats from Borking him.

They pulled the attack ads on Roberts. They ran them day and night on Bork.

Check out my column link in #4

[msnimje]

Bork is also a brilliant legal genius. And was just as good as Roberts at quoting and explaining the law. That didn't stop the Democrats from Borking him

The thing that Judge Roberts has that Judge Bork does not is the temperament to get through a confirmation without being devoured by the Dems.

[kjam22]

I read your column.... and I think it makes sense. The mood of the country is different than when they borked Bork and fried Thomas. I would guess Roberts won't get more than 20 no votes.

[MarcusTulliusCicero]

Actually, it would be 49 Republicans and 50 Democrats, since we should count Collins, Snowe, Chaffee, Specter and McCain (except occasionally on fiscal or defense matters)as Democrats.

[oceanview]

40 I hope, let the Dems marginalize themselves. I could care less about Schumer and Boxer and their ilk - but I want to see some of the moderates voting no, like Dorgan for example.

[mozarky2]

Or better still, 55 Republicans and 45 Socialists?

[JohnBDay]

Any Democrats who is running in 2008 (Hillary, Kerry, Biden, Feingold, Bayh) will vote against Roberts. There will probably also be 10-15 "true believers" from safe blue state who will vote against him. Should be a pretty easy confirmation.

[angry elephant]

Yeah, I'm sure both our hare-brained Washington state senators will vote against Roberts.

[Sivad]

I have a question that perhaps someone can either
answer directly or provide a link. The very nature
of this question will probably cause somebody to
wonder if I might be a DU mole. I assure you I
am not. And, I apolize in advance if this question
would be better placed somewhere else. Anyway, my
question has to do with judicial activism. When
my liberal friends and liberal officials such as
Rep. John Lewis assert that only through judicial
activism were civil rights advances made in the
1950s and 60s, what are some proper conservative
counter arguments? Will somebody help?

Thanks

[Sivad]

Of course, that is "apologize", not "apolize".