He Is On His Way...
Judge John Roberts passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee today, with a vote of 13-5.
The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved John Roberts' nomination as the next Supreme Court chief justice, virtually assuring his confirmation by the Senate next week.
The official tally of 13-5 was anticlimatic, with the committee's 10 majority Republicans lined up solidly behind the conservative judge's nomination to the full Senate weeks in advance.
But the decision by three Democrats to join Republican efforts to make Roberts the nation's 109th Supreme Court justice outlined the division in the minority caucus over whether Democrats can, or should, mount even symbolic opposition to Roberts to send President Bush a message on his next Supreme Court nomination.
Five Democrats--Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California, Joseph Biden of Delaware, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Charles Schumer of New York and Dick Durbin of Illinois--opposed Roberts in the final vote, and many of the arguments merged with senators' worries about the upcoming replacement for the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor.
Senate Judiciary chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., told reporters after the vote he thinks Bush may name a replacement for O'Connor within days of the final vote on Roberts.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan commended the committee "for moving forward in a civil and dignified way," noting the White House hopes this sets an example for considering Bush's second nomination to the court.
Liberal groups that had opposed Roberts expressed disappointment with the committee vote, with Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way, singling out Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.
He said the Wisconsin Democrat was the only member of his party on the committee who voted in favor of both John Ashcroft to become Bush's first attorney general and now Roberts. Neas said that Feingold's vote was a "tremendous mistake and a tremendous disappointment."
But Leonard Leo of the conservative Federalist Society said the fact that only three of eight committee Democrats supported Roberts was evidence of partisanship. "We're supposed to think the Democrats are being magnanimous? Give me a break," Leo said.
Roberts' confirmation as the 109th Supreme Court justice is all but assured because most of the Senate's 55 Republicans are supporting him and Democrats have decided not to filibuster his nomination.
But Democrats who oppose his nomination said they can't take the risk that Roberts will prove a conservative ideologue on the court.
Feinstein told a packed Judiciary Committee hearing room that her vote was decided after Roberts refused to fully answer questions from her and other Democrats in his confirmation hearing last week.
"I knew as little about what Judge Roberts really thought about issues after the hearings as I did before the hearing. This makes it very hard for me," said Feinstein, an abortion rights supporter.
"I cannot in good conscience cast a 'yea' vote," she said. "I will cast a 'no' vote."
Biden said his vote was a close call, but Roberts "does not appear to share the same expansive view of fundamental rights of previous nominees I have supported. I'm unwilling to take the constitutional risk at this moment in the court's history."
Feingold and Sen. Herb Kohl, both Wisconsin Democrats, and the committee's top Democrat, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, decided to support making the conservative judge the nation's 17th chief justice.
"I will vote my hopes today and not my fears," Kohl said.
Kohl said Roberts made it clear to him that he will be a modest judge, not an activist, and will approach arguments with an open mind.
"I take him at his word that he will steer the court to serve as an appropriate check on potential abuses of presidential power," Leahy told the committee and former Sen. Fred Thompson--Roberts' escort through the confirmation process,who watched from the crowd.
Those statements likely are directed at the president, who is expected to soon make public his choice to replace O'Connor, who has been a swing vote on issues including affirmative action, abortion, discrimination and death penalty cases.
Replacing her could give the president a chance to swing the court to the right on many issues.
Widely mentioned candidates include federal appellate judges Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Brown Clement, Edith Hollan Jones, Emilio Garza, Alice Batchelder, Karen Williams, J. Michael Luttig, J. Harvie Wilkinson, Michael McConnell and Samuel Alito.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former deputy attorney general Larry Thompson, lawyer Miguel Estrada and Maura Corrigan, a member of the Michigan Supreme Court, are also considered possibilities.
"We're already talking about the next nominee in code," noted Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. "Sen. Kohl, who voted yes, is talking about the balance of the court with O'Connor. Sen. Feingold is mentioning that he may not be receptive to Justice Brown. I can understand it. That's the way this situation is in 2005."
Democratic Sens. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Max Baucus of Montana have announced their support for Roberts. Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana has indicated she is leaning toward voting for the nominee. Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota is viewed as a possible vote for him, as well.
Senate Democrats opposing Roberts so far include Democratic leader Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer of California, John Kerry of Massachusetts and New Jersey Sens. Jon Corzine and Frank Lautenberg.
The White House wants Roberts to be in place as the nation's 17th chief justice when the Supreme Court begins its new term on Oct. 3.
Is anyone surprised as to who voted against him? Is anyone surprised by those that are already lining up against him in the full Senate? We can add Hillary’s name to the list of those opposed to him in the Senate, and again, there is no surprise there. The last line of defense for the Democrats are coming forward to do what the others on the judiciary committee were unable to do.
And the Democrats are catching hell from their special interest groups. Those groups are not happy that they did not put up a more worthy fight. Erwin Chemrinsky, Duke law professor, and frequent guest on Hugh Hewitt’s show, stated he was disappointed in Sen. Leahy, and that he would be disappointed in any other Democrat senator that voted in favor of Judge—or should I say Chief Justice—Roberts. Erwin does not get it, and neither do those that oppose him. Actually, I strike that. They do understand it, all too well.
They are losing their power in the judiciary, and it shows. They have put forth their agenda for more than fifty years, and the people are not happy with it. People are happy with what Roberts has said about how he will conduct himself on the high court. His way of doing things—according to him—is the right way. Jurists do not make the laws, they interpret them. They do not create what is not there, they do not interfere in the natural order of things in America, and "make America equal." This is not in their purview. That, ladies and gentlemen, is Congress’ job.
Congress makes the laws, the president signs them into existence, and the judiciary enforces and interprets them. That is their job. It may not be "sexy," in the eyes of the Left, but it is correct.
The Bunny ;)
Judge John Roberts passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee today, with a vote of 13-5.
The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved John Roberts' nomination as the next Supreme Court chief justice, virtually assuring his confirmation by the Senate next week.
The official tally of 13-5 was anticlimatic, with the committee's 10 majority Republicans lined up solidly behind the conservative judge's nomination to the full Senate weeks in advance.
But the decision by three Democrats to join Republican efforts to make Roberts the nation's 109th Supreme Court justice outlined the division in the minority caucus over whether Democrats can, or should, mount even symbolic opposition to Roberts to send President Bush a message on his next Supreme Court nomination.
Five Democrats--Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California, Joseph Biden of Delaware, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Charles Schumer of New York and Dick Durbin of Illinois--opposed Roberts in the final vote, and many of the arguments merged with senators' worries about the upcoming replacement for the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor.
Senate Judiciary chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., told reporters after the vote he thinks Bush may name a replacement for O'Connor within days of the final vote on Roberts.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan commended the committee "for moving forward in a civil and dignified way," noting the White House hopes this sets an example for considering Bush's second nomination to the court.
Liberal groups that had opposed Roberts expressed disappointment with the committee vote, with Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way, singling out Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.
He said the Wisconsin Democrat was the only member of his party on the committee who voted in favor of both John Ashcroft to become Bush's first attorney general and now Roberts. Neas said that Feingold's vote was a "tremendous mistake and a tremendous disappointment."
But Leonard Leo of the conservative Federalist Society said the fact that only three of eight committee Democrats supported Roberts was evidence of partisanship. "We're supposed to think the Democrats are being magnanimous? Give me a break," Leo said.
Roberts' confirmation as the 109th Supreme Court justice is all but assured because most of the Senate's 55 Republicans are supporting him and Democrats have decided not to filibuster his nomination.
But Democrats who oppose his nomination said they can't take the risk that Roberts will prove a conservative ideologue on the court.
Feinstein told a packed Judiciary Committee hearing room that her vote was decided after Roberts refused to fully answer questions from her and other Democrats in his confirmation hearing last week.
"I knew as little about what Judge Roberts really thought about issues after the hearings as I did before the hearing. This makes it very hard for me," said Feinstein, an abortion rights supporter.
"I cannot in good conscience cast a 'yea' vote," she said. "I will cast a 'no' vote."
Biden said his vote was a close call, but Roberts "does not appear to share the same expansive view of fundamental rights of previous nominees I have supported. I'm unwilling to take the constitutional risk at this moment in the court's history."
Feingold and Sen. Herb Kohl, both Wisconsin Democrats, and the committee's top Democrat, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, decided to support making the conservative judge the nation's 17th chief justice.
"I will vote my hopes today and not my fears," Kohl said.
Kohl said Roberts made it clear to him that he will be a modest judge, not an activist, and will approach arguments with an open mind.
"I take him at his word that he will steer the court to serve as an appropriate check on potential abuses of presidential power," Leahy told the committee and former Sen. Fred Thompson--Roberts' escort through the confirmation process,who watched from the crowd.
Those statements likely are directed at the president, who is expected to soon make public his choice to replace O'Connor, who has been a swing vote on issues including affirmative action, abortion, discrimination and death penalty cases.
Replacing her could give the president a chance to swing the court to the right on many issues.
Widely mentioned candidates include federal appellate judges Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Brown Clement, Edith Hollan Jones, Emilio Garza, Alice Batchelder, Karen Williams, J. Michael Luttig, J. Harvie Wilkinson, Michael McConnell and Samuel Alito.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former deputy attorney general Larry Thompson, lawyer Miguel Estrada and Maura Corrigan, a member of the Michigan Supreme Court, are also considered possibilities.
"We're already talking about the next nominee in code," noted Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. "Sen. Kohl, who voted yes, is talking about the balance of the court with O'Connor. Sen. Feingold is mentioning that he may not be receptive to Justice Brown. I can understand it. That's the way this situation is in 2005."
Democratic Sens. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Max Baucus of Montana have announced their support for Roberts. Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana has indicated she is leaning toward voting for the nominee. Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota is viewed as a possible vote for him, as well.
Senate Democrats opposing Roberts so far include Democratic leader Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer of California, John Kerry of Massachusetts and New Jersey Sens. Jon Corzine and Frank Lautenberg.
The White House wants Roberts to be in place as the nation's 17th chief justice when the Supreme Court begins its new term on Oct. 3.
Is anyone surprised as to who voted against him? Is anyone surprised by those that are already lining up against him in the full Senate? We can add Hillary’s name to the list of those opposed to him in the Senate, and again, there is no surprise there. The last line of defense for the Democrats are coming forward to do what the others on the judiciary committee were unable to do.
And the Democrats are catching hell from their special interest groups. Those groups are not happy that they did not put up a more worthy fight. Erwin Chemrinsky, Duke law professor, and frequent guest on Hugh Hewitt’s show, stated he was disappointed in Sen. Leahy, and that he would be disappointed in any other Democrat senator that voted in favor of Judge—or should I say Chief Justice—Roberts. Erwin does not get it, and neither do those that oppose him. Actually, I strike that. They do understand it, all too well.
They are losing their power in the judiciary, and it shows. They have put forth their agenda for more than fifty years, and the people are not happy with it. People are happy with what Roberts has said about how he will conduct himself on the high court. His way of doing things—according to him—is the right way. Jurists do not make the laws, they interpret them. They do not create what is not there, they do not interfere in the natural order of things in America, and "make America equal." This is not in their purview. That, ladies and gentlemen, is Congress’ job.
Congress makes the laws, the president signs them into existence, and the judiciary enforces and interprets them. That is their job. It may not be "sexy," in the eyes of the Left, but it is correct.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 11:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home