Senate Panel Endorses Roberts

[spurster]

by a vote of 13-5. Chief Justice Roberts is sure thing now.

[Ocotillo]

In case you haven't figured it out by now, for the most part I am left of center.

Anyway, I lot of the liberal blogs are up in arms over this. I have to differ with them on this issue. As the minority party, Democrats have to pick their battles and this is not one to spill blood over. Roberts is an unknown eni y and will likely make conservatives happier than liberals with his future rulings. Since he is unknown, he may suprise some of the conservatives as well as quite a few Justices have gone on to have records that differed from what people thought going into their appointment.

If I had a vote, I would vote against the guy knowing full good and well, he is going to be confirmed. I would base my vote on the administration stonewalling on his papers and his general evasiveness during the hearings.

He may prove me wrong and be a bang up Chief Justice but I would still vote against confirmation because I have too many doubts about him. I would not promote a fillibuster or support it as that is a weapon that should be used judiciously (no pun intended).

Why make a big stink? Bush gets to pick, the Repubs have 55 votes and he is replacing one of the more conservative justices as it is. It's a wash and not a battle I would fight even if my base gets it neck hairs up about it.

Thus all you do is vote against the guy and if he is a disaster, you are on record voting against him. If he turns out to be an outstanding jurist, you shrug your shoulders and say I voted my conscience with what information I had.

Every ounce of energy should not be focused or spent on battles you know you won't win, it needs to be focused on the '06 races. Bush is a wounded duck (rather than a lame duck) and it remains to be seen if he is an albatross that the Repubs have carry around their respective necks.

[Marcus Bryant]

Roberts is going to be confirmed because, surprise, surprise, he's a great pick and the left couldn't come up with any sensational issue devoid of substance to hang on him.

The split in the Demo caucus can be explained by a couple of things: those Demos from "red states" want to cover their asses. The other, lesser explanation is that some Demo senators want to appear fairminded. It's hard to paint Roberts as an ideologue. Anyone who saw any part of the hearings would agree that the man is brilliant and very polished. It's highly likely that Bush's next pick will be more ideologically bent than Roberts. The Demos will put up a real fight over the next nominee.

[Yonivore]

In case you haven't figured it out by now, for the most part I am left of center.

Anyway, I lot of the liberal blogs are up in arms over this. I have to differ with them on this issue. As the minority party, Democrats have to pick their battles and this is not one to spill blood over. Roberts is an unknown eni y and will likely make conservatives happier than liberals with his future rulings. Since he is unknown, he may suprise some of the conservatives as well as quite a few Justices have gone on to have records that differed from what people thought going into their appointment.

If I had a vote, I would vote against the guy knowing full good and well, he is going to be confirmed. I would base my vote on the administration stonewalling on his papers and his general evasiveness during the hearings.

He may prove me wrong and be a bang up Chief Justice but I would still vote against confirmation because I have too many doubts about him. I would not promote a fillibuster or support it as that is a weapon that should be used judiciously (no pun intended).

Why make a big stink? Bush gets to pick, the Repubs have 55 votes and he is replacing one of the more conservative justices as it is. It's a wash and not a battle I would fight even if my base gets it neck hairs up about it.

Thus all you do is vote against the guy and if he is a disaster, you are on record voting against him. If he turns out to be an outstanding jurist, you shrug your shoulders and say I voted my conscience with what information I had.

Every ounce of energy should not be focused or spent on battles you know you won't win, it needs to be focused on the '06 races. Bush is a wounded duck (rather than a lame duck) and it remains to be seen if he is an albatross that the Repubs have carry around their respective necks.

I tend to agree with you on this Ocotillo. However, I think the Democrats did themselves no favor by being ideologically devisive on the committee vote.

The vote among Demoratic members was three in favor (Leahy, Kohl, and Feingold) and five against (Biden, Kennedy, Schumer, Feinstein, and Durbin). The Democratic "no" vote on the 18 member Committee exceeds the number of Republican votes, Senate-wide, against Justice Ginsburg who, by the way, wasn't asked to produce such papers and was exponentially more reticent to answer questions during the hearings than was Judge Roberts.

A majority of the Committee's Dems now has effectively endorsed the notion that it is proper for a Senator to vote against a supremely qualified conservative nominee, who receives top marks from the ABA and is backed by such liberal organs as the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, unless the nominee promises to decide issues the way the Senator desires. If a majority of Democrats vote that way on the Senate floor, then it seems to me that Republicans will have the right to apply this same concept when Democratic presidents nominate liberal judges in the future.

Not only that, Senator McCain said last night, the seven Democrats in the "gang of 14" are loath to filibuster the next nominee. Nor are more than five of the 55 Republican members likely to break ranks. Thus, I believe that there is no one of the lists of potential nominees we are seeing (to replace O'Connor) who likely would not be confirmed, and only two or three who, barring a poor performance before the Judiciary Committee, would not be a clear favorite in the confirmation battle. It follows that, if the President fails to replace Justice O'Connor with a strong conservative, it will almost surely be because President Bush didn't nominate one, and not because of the Senate.

Finally, the Roberts hearings should reinforce the view that that success doesn't require ideological compromise. Rather, the president maximizes his chances by putting forth an extremely well-qualified nominee who has the firepower to defend himself or herself against persistent and obnoxious questioning. If the president does so, then gender, ethnicity, and moderate credentials don't much matter.

And, since you have 5 Democrats on the Judiciary that basically told the world they're willing to reject a qualified nominee based purely on partisan ideology with no chance of stopping the nomination, they are more likely to be seen as the partisan hacks they are in a subsequent nomination process.

[Ocotillo]

And, since you have 5 Democrats on the Judiciary that basically told the world they're willing to reject a qualified nominee based purely on partisan ideology with no chance of stopping the nomination, they are more likely to be seen as the partisan hacks they are in a subsequent nomination process.

I believe the days of 90+ senators voting for a SOCTUS nominee are over, at least for the near term. The bitterness that has evolved over the last generation has led to many "traditions" going by the wayside in the name of partisan politics. One can argue until the cows come home who is right and who started it but things will likely deterioriate before they get better.

It is the cons utional perogative of a senator to vote against a nominee for the flimsiest of reasons, he/she only has to answer to the voters in his/her next election.

[Ocotillo]

One other thing, it is one thing to vote against the nominee and quite another to muddy up the process to destroy the chances of said nominee being confirmed. None of these senators have done anything in the Roberts hearings to "gum up" the process or hijack the nomination.

[Yonivore]

I believe the days of 90+ senators voting for a SOCTUS nominee are over, at least for the near term. The bitterness that has evolved over the last generation has led to many "traditions" going by the wayside in the name of partisan politics.

Hmmm...when did that begin? Oh yeah, When Tom Daschle went from being the Senate Majority leader to being the Senate Minority leader and, instead of honoring ages old traditions and rules of civility in Congress, set about establishing the Democratic practice of obstructionism that continues to this day. The Obstructionism that cost him his seat, by the way... Here's to hoping the Democrats never learn their lesson.

One can argue until the cows come home who is right and who started it but things will likely deterioriate before they get better.

Actually, I think things are already improving. Funny how when Democratic seats go Republican, things improve.

And, yes, it will be remembered that it was the Democrats that abandoned these traditions...

It is the cons utional perogative of a senator to vote against a nominee for the flimsiest of reasons, he/she only has to answer to the voters in his/her next election.

Tom Daschle answered to the voters...or, should I say, Tom Daschle heard the voters.

[Vashner]

Judge Roberts Answer The Question!!!

Do You Or Do You Not Watch Long Dong Silver!!!

[whottt]

And, yes, it will be remembered that it was the Democrats that abandoned these traditions..

Incredibly naive on your part...The Democrats ability in the area of revisionist history is unparalelled, racist.

Sincerely,

John Kerry, Al Gore, & their support of the Iraq war.

[Yonivore]

Incredibly naive on your part...The Democrats ability in the area of revisionist history is unparalelled, racist.

Sincerely,

John Kerry, Al Gore, & their support of the Iraq war.

Yeah, and both of those guys achieved their goal, didn't they?

[ChumpDumper]

Was this ever in doubt?

Confirmation was a no-brainer from the start. All that really matters is who's next.