Posted on 07/20/2005 1:24:45 PM PDT by newgeezer
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has the first crack at approving President Bush's new Supreme Court nominee, indicated Wednesday he is aiming toward holding confirmation hearings in September.
September is the "preferable time" to open hearings on Judge John Roberts, said Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican.
Bush nominated the conservative Roberts Tuesday night, beginning what's certain to be a tough political battle. Conservative and liberal groups almost immediately jumped into action, with abortion rights a central issue.
"If Roberts is confirmed to a lifetime appointment, there is little doubt that he will work to overturn Roe v. Wade," said the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League.
Specter said he was "disappointed" Naral believes Roberts is an unsuitable choice for the high court seat. The chairman noted that Roberts believes the Supreme Court's decision legalizing abortion is "long settled precedent."
Specter also pledged "full, fair and complete" hearings, perhaps stretching three days or more.
Roberts, 50, has impeccable legal credentials, having graduated from Harvard Law School and serving as a law clerk for then-associate justice William Rehnquist. He also worked as a special assistant to the attorney general and then served in the White House under President Reagan.
When he hasn't been in government or on the bench, Roberts has been an attorney for Hogan & Hartson in Washington.
Roberts was named to the federal circuit court in Washington in 2003. He would be the fourth current member of the Supreme Court to have served on the D.C. circuit, joining Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said in an interview on CNN Wednesday morning that he intends to grill Roberts about his views on the rights of women and workers and about the environment.
"We have made enormous progress over the period of these last 40 years," said Kennedy, who voted against Roberts for his current position. "Are we going to have a judge that's going to sustain that progress or try to reverse it?" asked the senator, a Judiciary Committee member.
Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat who also voted against Roberts, said on CBS that the nominee wouldn't answer what he called basic questions about abortion rights.
"If he wants to be on the Supreme Court, he has to be forthcoming, not to satisfy my curiosity, but to convince the American people that a man who could serve on the court for 20 to 30 years really is in the mainstream of American thinking," Durbin said.
Meanwhile, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., told Fox News on Wednesday that he doesn't see a filibuster holding back Roberts's nomination.
"It shouldn't take that long to put together a hearing, to ask him the questions we need to ask him and to move forward with the confirmation process," said Kyl, also a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Robert Schroeder is a reporter for MarketWatch in Washington.
The Senate is in recess during August.
If they did vote against it, it was in committee and they then changed their vote and voted for his confirmation.
Ahh Ted Kennedy, champion of women's rights...
except for the right to not be drowned in an Oldsmobille.
Not sure that correct. I think it was 99-1 with Schumer saying no. Can someone verify that?
I have seen many press reports with it saying it was unanimous with no vote total given and one press report with the vote being given as 99-0
Comments also here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1447037/posts
Not quite. Roberts passed out of committee by a 16-3 margin. Kennedy, Schumer and Durbin were the three that voted against him. On the floor of the Senate, Roberts was confirmed on a voice vote, meaning no roll call was taken. The Democrats wanted the voice vote so that they wouldn't be divided on the issue on a roll call vote.
I know it was 16-3 in the Judiciary Committee with Kennedy, Durbin and Schumer voting against John Roberts.
"If Roberts is confirmed to a lifetime appointment, there is little doubt that he will work to overturn Roe v. Wade," said the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League.
NARRAL should be NAKRAL for National Abortion and Killing Rights Action League.
Thank you for the heads up.
Did some quick research. He was voted out of committee 16-3 and approved by the full senate by unanimous consent.
Roberts was sent out of committee on a 16-3 vote. He was confirmed by unanimous consent on the Floor.
In other words, when the senate voted on his confirmation, he was unanimously approved.
I'm not entirely sure about that. It's a matter of semantics, and I'm not sure what the Senate rules say. If there's a voice vote, there's no roll call and no tallying of votes. People can voice opposition, it's just not recorded. I'm not sure if that's officially considered a "unanimous" vote or not.
No, it wasn't unanimous. Schumer voted against him, the lone hold out.
Schumer, Kennedy and Durbin voted against Roberts in committee. On the Senate floor, it was a voice vote, so there was no roll call and no tallying of votes. I'm not sure if that's officially considered "unanimous" or not.
I don't think any senator ought to be allowed to sit on a committee for more than 1 term - that way the same old obstructionists can't keep blocking up the committee assignments!
If they fight this one, the next one is just going to look like "more of the same."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.