Last Thursday, the nomination of John Roberts as the next Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court passed the Senate Judiciary Committee with a final vote of 13-5. The following Democrats on the committee opposed the passage: Kennedy, Schumer, Feinstein, Biden and Durbin. These Democrats voted for Roberts: Leahy, Kohl, and Feingold.
Today, the debate about the nomination begins in the full Senate at 1 pm ET. You can watch or listen online at C-SPAN 2. The final vote will be held this Thursday.
All Republicans are expected to vote to confirm and, as Senator Schumer notes, “Republicans are saying take the politics out of it, but they all marched in lockstep. Democrats made their mind up independently.” Some believe that the fact that the Republicans are voting as a bloc shows that Roberts may not be the safe bet to protect peoples’ rights that some of the Democrats voting for him expect him to be. Time will tell but, given his non-responsiveness to crucial questions in committee and the fact that the administration refused to release all of the documents related to his tenure in Reagan’s Solicitor General’s office, that gamble may be bigger than many want to admit.
To date, according to this AP story, the following Democrats have announce that they will be voting against Roberts confirmation this Thursday (14):
These Democrats will vote for Roberts (12):
That leaves 18 Senate Democrats either undecided or holding out on announcing their intentions, including Lieberman.
This week’s debate ought to be feisty and thorough, considering the importance of the position of Chief Justice. It ought to be because Roberts has positioned himself as a consensus builder who is unhappy with the many 5-4 split decisions that have come out of the court in the recent past. He subtly gave everyone a warning that he will take on the task of some serious arm-twisting in order to achieve that, but the message seems to have been missed by the Dems and the press. Perhaps some let it go as a message from someone who is naive with little judicial experience – who is he to think he can cajole the other justices? On the other hand, what it says about Roberts is that he is a man who is not afraid to attempt to exercise the power that comes with the office. That is not the overall impression he left during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, preferring instead to wow with his intellect and self-proclaimed sense of fairness.
So, yes, this debate ought to be feisty and thorough. I’m not confident that it will be though because, in order to have a thorough debate, you must have two opposing sides with equally strong positions. Those who are in favour of the Roberts confirmation have yet to prove the strength of their arguments. I doubt that will change before the vote is finally held.
I will not be live blogging the entire debate, but I will post some highlights as they come up.
I will be live blogging the final vote on Thursday.
that my very own sleep-enabling, MOR, play it safe senator Bayh is voting against Roberts. I’m guessing he’s going for some street cred in hopes of ’08 presidential run. Which is okay, I guess — I don’t want to kvetch about any effort to pander to the left.
Apparently, it’s against “hoosier values” to oppose Roberts’ nomination.
Huh, I had no idea that Roberts was the poster child for an irrational devotion to basketball and car racing.
he starts off by saying that Americans will be wtahcing the debate to see if the senators will put principles above politics in a bipartisan way. That’s rich coming from a Republican – all of whom will vote to confirm Roberts. Is that a matter of principle, Frist? Or is it just pure party politics? Perhaps it’s the principle of refusing to go against whatever Bush wants. That must be it. Some pricipled stance that is.
He then went on to quote Biden who, last week, told Roberts he was perhaps the best witness he’d ever seen come before the committee – as if Biden was praising Roberts’ qualifications. He wasn’t. Biden was commenting on the fact that Roberts was so cagey, you couldn’t get a straight answer from him. Roberts was definitely skilled in that arena.
So, the spin begins…
Reid begins his statement by chastising congress for not acting quickly on hurricane relief and the fact that the Republican-controlled congress refuses to allow a bill on the floor to aid veterans of the Iraq war.
is of Roberts, and they’re so cocky that they’re announcing it before he’s even confirmed.
Three cases were filed challenging this law in three separate states, and in all three instances the law was struck by federal courts as being unconstitutional. But that was then, and this is now.
hi catnip! i’ve missed you!
: )
hugs How are ya? Still live blogging?
Senators this week are walking into a trap on the vote on Roberts, one that will tie their hands behind their backs on the next person Bush brings up – as soon as the vote is final.
I very much fear you are absolutely right.