OYEZ! OYEZ! Hail To The New Chief Justice!
Ladies and gentlemen, children of all ages, we have our 17th Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. By a vote of 78-22 (close to my prediction of 79-21 I gave last week), he was confirmed by the Senate.
Chief Justice Roberts will serve his mentor well on the high court, and it’s the first step taken in this war. Step #2 comes with the president’s next nominee. We’re on record here with our short list, and we’re crossing our fingers that J. Michael Luttig will be the next nominee. Below is the way the Democrats voted. At this point, Evan Bayh can no longer be called a moderate. He is firmly in the camp of the Left.
(Note: The years next to each person is the year they face reelection. This cannot be tossed aside. Many of these yes votes are strategic; these Democrats want to look as though they support the president. We shall see when nominee #2 comes up.)
Democrats voting Yes:
Max Baucus of Montana (2008)
Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico (2006)
Robert Byrd of West Virginia (2006)
Kent Conrad of North Dakota (2006)
Russ Feingold of Wisconsin (2010)
Tim Johnson of South Dakota (2008)
Herb Kohl of Wisconsin (2006)
Mary Landrieu of Louisiana (2008)
Patrick Leahy of Vermont (2010)
Ben Nelson of Nebraska (2006)
Bill Nelson of Florida (2006)
Mark Pryor of Arkansas (2008)
Ken Salazar of Colorado (2010)
Christopher Dodd of Connecticut (2010)
Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut (2006)
Byron Dorgan of North Dakota (2010)
Carl Levin of Michigan (2008)
Ron Wyden of Oregon (2010)
Tom Carper of Delaware (2006)
Patty Murray of Washington (2010)
Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas (2010)
James Jeffords (I) of Vermont (2006)
Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia (2008)
Democrats voting no:
Evan Bayh of Indiana (2010)
Joseph Biden of Delaware (2008)
Barbara Boxer of California (2010)
Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York (2006)
Jon Corzine of New Jersey (2006)
Mark Dayton of Minnesota (2006)
Dick Durbin of Illinois (2008)
Dianne Feinstein of California (2006)
Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts (2006)
John Kerry of Massachusetts (2008)
Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey (2008)
Barbara Mikulski of Maryland (2010)
Barack Obama of Illinois (2010)
Harry Reid of Nevada (2010)
Charles Schumer of New York (2010)
Debbie Stabenow of Michigan (2006)
Jack Reed of Rhode Island (2008)
Tom Harkin of Iowa (2008)
Daniel Inouye of Hawaii (2010)
Paul Sarbanes of Maryland (2006)
Maria Cantwell of Washington (2006)
Daniel Akaka of Hawaii (2006)
Now, as I stated above, those voting yes probably voted that way from a strategic point-of-view. They know that when it comes time for reelection, voting in favor of the new Chief Justice could help them in their bid to win back their seat. Now, those that voted no are going to spin their vote. They’re going to carp about how they felt the man was a danger to the Constitution, and that he was not forthcoming with his answers.
It doesn’t matter how they spin it. An opponent should bring up this vote. They should point to what Chief Justice Roberts said in his confirmation, and the fact that he was as forthcoming as he could be. A judge can’t tip his hand to how he will rule on this subject, or that subject. To do so would be a violation of the legal Canon of Ethics. These fools know better.
Next up will be the president’s second nominee. That nominee is expected to be announced early next week. We’re crossing our fingers her at the Asylum that the president will throw down the gauntlet, and nominate a solid Constitutionally-minded jurist to take O’Connor’s seat.
Publius II
Ladies and gentlemen, children of all ages, we have our 17th Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. By a vote of 78-22 (close to my prediction of 79-21 I gave last week), he was confirmed by the Senate.
Chief Justice Roberts will serve his mentor well on the high court, and it’s the first step taken in this war. Step #2 comes with the president’s next nominee. We’re on record here with our short list, and we’re crossing our fingers that J. Michael Luttig will be the next nominee. Below is the way the Democrats voted. At this point, Evan Bayh can no longer be called a moderate. He is firmly in the camp of the Left.
(Note: The years next to each person is the year they face reelection. This cannot be tossed aside. Many of these yes votes are strategic; these Democrats want to look as though they support the president. We shall see when nominee #2 comes up.)
Democrats voting Yes:
Max Baucus of Montana (2008)
Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico (2006)
Robert Byrd of West Virginia (2006)
Kent Conrad of North Dakota (2006)
Russ Feingold of Wisconsin (2010)
Tim Johnson of South Dakota (2008)
Herb Kohl of Wisconsin (2006)
Mary Landrieu of Louisiana (2008)
Patrick Leahy of Vermont (2010)
Ben Nelson of Nebraska (2006)
Bill Nelson of Florida (2006)
Mark Pryor of Arkansas (2008)
Ken Salazar of Colorado (2010)
Christopher Dodd of Connecticut (2010)
Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut (2006)
Byron Dorgan of North Dakota (2010)
Carl Levin of Michigan (2008)
Ron Wyden of Oregon (2010)
Tom Carper of Delaware (2006)
Patty Murray of Washington (2010)
Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas (2010)
James Jeffords (I) of Vermont (2006)
Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia (2008)
Democrats voting no:
Evan Bayh of Indiana (2010)
Joseph Biden of Delaware (2008)
Barbara Boxer of California (2010)
Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York (2006)
Jon Corzine of New Jersey (2006)
Mark Dayton of Minnesota (2006)
Dick Durbin of Illinois (2008)
Dianne Feinstein of California (2006)
Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts (2006)
John Kerry of Massachusetts (2008)
Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey (2008)
Barbara Mikulski of Maryland (2010)
Barack Obama of Illinois (2010)
Harry Reid of Nevada (2010)
Charles Schumer of New York (2010)
Debbie Stabenow of Michigan (2006)
Jack Reed of Rhode Island (2008)
Tom Harkin of Iowa (2008)
Daniel Inouye of Hawaii (2010)
Paul Sarbanes of Maryland (2006)
Maria Cantwell of Washington (2006)
Daniel Akaka of Hawaii (2006)
Now, as I stated above, those voting yes probably voted that way from a strategic point-of-view. They know that when it comes time for reelection, voting in favor of the new Chief Justice could help them in their bid to win back their seat. Now, those that voted no are going to spin their vote. They’re going to carp about how they felt the man was a danger to the Constitution, and that he was not forthcoming with his answers.
It doesn’t matter how they spin it. An opponent should bring up this vote. They should point to what Chief Justice Roberts said in his confirmation, and the fact that he was as forthcoming as he could be. A judge can’t tip his hand to how he will rule on this subject, or that subject. To do so would be a violation of the legal Canon of Ethics. These fools know better.
Next up will be the president’s second nominee. That nominee is expected to be announced early next week. We’re crossing our fingers her at the Asylum that the president will throw down the gauntlet, and nominate a solid Constitutionally-minded jurist to take O’Connor’s seat.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 10:33 AM
3 Comments:
I thought Hillary said she would vote for Roberts. Darn, I should have known better than to take her at her word.
I bow to your political astuteness! Well done. Rawriter
Jen,
Hillary said she would vote against Roberts. The only four Democrats that we knew were going to vote in favor of Roberts were Leahy, Byrd, Lieberman, and Feingold.
Hillary, Biden, Kerry, and Kennedy all came out last week and said they wouldn't vote for him. Now, to be fair, Hillary DID say she would likely vote in favor of Roberts less than a week after being named as the replacement for O'Connor.
I suppose she thought it was wrong that he was elevated prior to the hearings even beginning upon the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist. Maybe she thought Stevens or Ginsburg should have been elevated. It matters not. She flip-flopped, and when she goes on her reelection bid, she should be called on it.
When she states that he was "too extreme" to be the Chief Justice, people need to point out that the extremists in her party--Leahy, Byrd, Landrieu, Feingold, Dodd, Murray--all voted FOR HIM. What is it that she discovered that the committee couldn't? And if it were that bad, why didn't she share it with the rest?
The simple fact of the matter is she never intended to vote for him in the first place. It was another failed attempt to make it seem as though she was a centrist Democrat. She's running from herself, and it's not working. Watching Hillary is much like watching a dog chase it's tail.
Mistress Pundit
Post a Comment
<< Home