Roberts confirmed: 78-22

[Pengwuino]

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2005-09-29T191843Z_01_EIC956914_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-COURT-ROBERTS.xml

Have at it you ideologs

[deckart]

Right on. He seems to have been thoroughly cavity checked by nation. Now we can let him get to work.

[cronxeh]

Geez give more info will ya

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00245

What really disappoints me is that both democratic senators from NY, CA, NJ, MA, MD, IL, HI and others voted against Roberts. This pretty much makes up a bulk of democratic senator states. It almost seems like a partisan vote rather than a logical one

[deckart]

I agree, cronxeh. I mean, the guy was impeccable in his profession. Many of the senators are simply expressing an opinion based on his political preference. But, fair enough, the senators are supposed to be the voice of their constituents.

[Townsend]

But, fair enough, the senators are supposed to be the voice of their constituents.

Yeah, I would say they did their job by voting the way they did....

[deckart]

BTW, cronxeh, thank you for the link.

In my state of WA we have two Democrats in the Senate. One voted Yea, and the other Nay. Looking at both of their websites, only Patty Murray, who voted Yea, wrote a statement of why she voted the way she did. http://murray.senate.gov/news.cfm?id=246591 I was very impressed with her statement.

[pattylou]

I would guess our (CA) senators split as well (Actually - feinstein said she'd vote no, come to think of it, so maybe they both voted no. )

I listened to the hearings and he seems like a decent man. He is certainly knowledgeable and capable. He said explicitly that he is not an idealogue. I am not in fear of anything being overturned.

He's even been called marginally left of Rehnquist. He has more experience arguing cases in front of the Supreme court than any other supreme court justice.

I expect if he hadn't been confirmed someone much more frightening would have been nominated.

I am not surprised or particularly disappointed.

The only "liberal" thorn I can stick in your side, is that by confirming him, the democratrs have made good on their promise of not filibustering a reasonable candidate. This puts pressure on Bush to be even more careful with O'Connor's replacement.

[pattylou]

Geez give more info will ya

What really disappoints me is that both democratic senators from NY, CA, NJ, MA, MD, IL, HI and others voted against Roberts. This pretty much makes up a bulk of democratic senator states. It almost seems like a partisan vote rather than a logical one
I should have read this first.

Feinstein said her sole reason voting no was because she remembers women going to Mexico for illegal abortions and dying, etc etc - this was during her college years. It doesn't sound partisan, or a response to her constituents (though I am sure we generally agree with her) but a personal thing. I hope that puts your mind at ease a little.

Would some *other* split among the democratic party (or no split at all) have been more reassuring?

[deckart]

Feinstein is making the assumption that Robert's would rule against abortion. That could very well be a bad assumption. If what you said is her entire reasoning (because I haven't researched her statements) the she is not voting rationally, IMO.

[Ivan Seeking]

Thank goodness the Republicans crashed and burned before the next candidate is considered. This was my greatest concern about the second Bush term. Now they will have to include the Democrats as an effective part of the approval process.

[cronxeh]

I wonder if chief justices have some kinda pizza parties among themselves :biggrin:

[Ivan Seeking]

I wonder if chief justices have some kinda pizza parties among themselves :biggrin:

Not quite. You've heard of beer and toga parties? How about robe and brandy parties? They're almost the same thing.

[pattylou]

Feinstein is making the assumption that Robert's would rule against abortion. That could very well be a bad assumption. If what you said is her entire reasoning (because I haven't researched her statements) the she is not voting rationally, IMO.
You might wish to find transcripts from the hearings to see what she said, and not make assumptions.

[cronxeh]

Not quite. You've heard of beer and toga parties? How about robe and brandy parties? They're almost the same thing.
:rofl:

TOGA! TOGA!

"Come on Johhny you are the youngest one amongs us. You have to jump through all those hoops and put that cherry with your buttocks into that glass of beer and drink it"
:rofl:

[Astronuc]

I wonder if chief justices have some kinda pizza parties among themselves :biggrin: There is only one 'Chief Justice' of the US at one time. The other justices of the Supreme Court are Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States

Roberts is the 17th Chief Justice - as compared to 43 presidents in 216 years.

[Ivan Seeking]

I missed that one.

Yes, it's like Walmart - associates.

[McGyver]

The Democracitc party will surely be tested with respect to the nomineee and voting in replacing Sandra Day O'Connor.

It is really like a chess match - and Bush gets the first move. He knows the Dems want to keep the pressure on his administration regarding hurricane Katrina failures - and if he makes the nomination a long drawn out fight - it will deflect attention from failed White House policies and cronyism appointments. Bush would also like to rally his religious right base - which has been waiting for this day for many years.

There is no doubt in my mind that Bush will nominate a religious conservative and challenge the Dems to an all out fight. I believe he figures, he's down in the polls post Katrina, let's put it all on the line - and I believe he's prepared to use the Presidential "nuclear option" to over-ride a Dems-Senate philabuster.

The Dems only hope lies in their ability to continue to expose the reckless and narrow-mindedness of the Bush White House polices post Katrina - and bring these broader MORAL and PUBLIC INTEREST concerns into the pre-nomination discussions and the actualnominee Q&A in the Senate. The Dems will have to divide the Bush Christian base - and expose his moral, public safety, and humanitarian failures.

The fight will take attention away from emphasis on the post Katrina investigation. But the Dems should continue to bring those issues into the debates on religious values.

[SOS2008]

Catherine Crier is currently being interviewed on CNBC about present changes in the Supreme Court, and to discuss her new book: CONTEMPT -- How the Right Is Wronging American Justice.

The Far Right wants to control our federal judiciary in order to enact this reactionary agenda. At first blush, the focus seems to center on social issues—abortion, gay rights, affirmative action, and religion in schools. These items certainly garner the most press attention, but don't be fooled.

There is another insidious aspect to their designs. Economic and political issues are crucial to them as well. If they are successful in our federal courts, this plot will have a profound impact on citizens in every arena. They are making efforts to curtail federal regulation of businesses, environmental protections, worker's rights, bankruptcy laws, tort liability, and property interests, among other causes.

This radical group also wants much more control exerted by the states. For over a century, the federal courts have built a safety net in order to protect the constitutional rights of every American. But Edwin Meese began arguing in the 1980s that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states, and now the extreme Right supports his assertion that such Constitutional protections only exist to inhibit action by the national government. They want our individual guarantees surrendered back to the states, where enforcement will diminish and maybe disappear altogether.

Despite the Far Right's claims that they want the courts to leave Congress alone, they actually aim to reduce congressional authority. They want ultraconservative judges to strike down a great deal more federal legislation and to negate decades of legal precedent—the very definition of "reactionary." The extreme Right may argue against judicial "activism," but they certainly know how to practice it. And through it all, they camouflage these issues under a shiny veneer of values, morality, and religion.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/catherine-crier/contempt-how-the-right_b_7199.html

There is a revolution, but as she says it is under the camouflage of "values, morality, and religion."