Posted on 09/21/2005 1:55:53 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Chief Justice-nominee John Roberts, his confirmation secure, picked up support from fractured Senate Democrats Wednesday as President Bush met lawmakers to discuss a second, probably more contentious, vacancy on the Supreme Court.
The Judiciary Committee's senior Democrat, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, announced his support for Roberts shortly after leaving the White House, guaranteeing bipartisan backing for the nominee in Thursday's vote by the panel.
But Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, longtime liberal stalwart Edward Kennedy and former presidential candidate John Kerry all are opposing Roberts, underscoring a split in the Senate's 44 Democrats on whether they can or should mount even symbolic opposition to the successor of the late William H. Rehnquist.
Republicans control the Senate and the Judiciary Committee, so majority support was already assured for the panel's vote on Thursday and for confirmation next week.
However, some of the Democrats' liberal supporters hoped that a strong vote against Roberts would signal to Bush that replacing retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor with a far-right conservative would lead to a bigger fight in the Senate.
Leahy, who has led filibuster fights against Bush's lower court nominees, said in a speech on the Senate floor, "I do not intend to lend my support to an effort by this president to move the Supreme Court and the law radically to the right."
But Roberts "is a man of integrity," said Leahy. "I can only take him at his word that he does not have an ideological agenda."
Other Democrats, including Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Max Baucus of Montana, also have announced their support. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana are leaning toward voting for Roberts, and Kent Conrad of North Dakota is viewed as a possible vote for him as well.
Roberts is "very well credentialed," Landrieu said Wednesday.
The other six Judiciary Democrats — Joseph Biden, Herb Kohl, Charles Schumer, Dick Durbin, Russell Feingold and Dianne Feinstein — have yet to announce their votes.
Durbin and Schumer were confronted by television producer Norman Lear and other major party supporters during a trip to the West Coast over the weekend, according to party officials familiar with the conversation.
These Democratic supporters are strongly opposed to Roberts, and want Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, and Schumer, the head of the campaign committee, to oppose his confirmation.
Leahy's decision was "inexplicable and deeply disappointing," said Ralph Neas, head of People for the American Way.
The stakes become greater with the next nominee, and "the next nomination is going to be a great deal more contentious," said Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., the Judiciary Committee's chairman.
The conservative Roberts is replacing Rehnquist, a reliably conservative vote on the court. Bush's next nominee will replace O'Connor, one of the court's swing voters on affirmative action, abortion, campaign finance, discrimination and death penalty cases. Replacing her could give the president a chance swing the court to the right on many issues.
First lady Laura Bush reiterated in an Associated Press interview Tuesday that she hoped the president would name a woman.
Specter cautioned Bush during the Wednesday morning meeting that nominating either Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown — two appeals court judges Democrats filibustered but eventually allowed to be confirmed — to the O'Connor seat could cause problems, according to a congressional official familiar with the meeting. That official spoke on condition of anonymity because the give-and-take was considered confidential.
The senators offered some names to the president, who did not share his own opinions. White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush was considering a diverse list.
Among candidates widely mentioned are: federal appellate judges Owen, Brown, Edith Brown Clement, Edith Holland Jones, Emilio Garza, Edward Charles Prado, Alice Batchelder, Karen Williams, J. Michael Luttig, J. Harvie Wilkinson, Michael McConnell and Samuel Alito. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, lawyer Miguel Estrada and Maura Corrigan, a member of the Michigan Supreme Court, are also considered possibilities.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he urged the president to announce his decision within the next 10 days or so. Frist said a new justice could be confirmed "by Thanksgiving if that nomination comes quickly enough."
Specter suggested that the president wait awhile, and said he had talked to O'Connor about staying on through the full 2005-2006 term.
"It would be quite a sacrifice for her, but she's prepared to do it if she is asked," Specter said. "By next June we'll know a lot more about Judge Roberts ... than we do today."
___
Associated Press writers Deb Riechmann and David Espo contributed to this report.
leaky's support is just show biz. Dusty will give co(m)rade and wooden head nelson a pass to vote yes. This fool from the AP thinks he's telling us something. He aint. These mutts had this worked out after day one when they saw they had no chance of beating Roberts. The rest is show biz. The next one will be all smoke and no real fire. They will ALL vote against the next nominee in the committee. wooden head and bennie nelson will vote right. that will be enough to pass whomever comes up without at least two rino defections. The funny thing is that wooden head won't fool anybody. Harris will kick his ass anyway. Ben will be gone as well. Comrad Conrade will go down no matter how he votes on either or both of these judges.
Naiveté is so cute!!! Demoncrats can do whatever the MSM will let them get away with, which covers a lot of hypocrisy. They have already started to do this by saying (in previous interviews and speeches) that an appointment to the appeals court is one thing, but a lifetime appointment to the SC is another. I think Leahy announced for Roberts only because he can then say that whoever else gets nominated is an extremist - after all, he voted for the conservative Roberts, didn't he?
No way! We waited for years on a couple of lower court appointments so forget it Specter. Get these people through the BS known as the Judicial Committee.
Gonzalez is a left-leaning moderate La Raza skunk whose main qualification is his ethnic heritage.
He will be confirmed quickly and he is slightly to the right of O'Connor.
O'Connor was a left leaning moderate whose main qualification for the job was a vagina. Once the dust clears she will go down as one of the all-time worst SCJs. A legal gymnast if there ever was one.
This president said he would nominate justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. Another dopey affirmative action nomination will be the last frigging straw.
Gee...from watching his shows, who would have thought he was a television producer?
Anyone know when the actual vote is scheduled for or does each Senator now just announce their vote to the press and bypass the formalities?
Karl Rove, I know, had the Ohio organization and perhaps several other state organizations actively going after the religious right. What most people don't understand is that half of the religious right are Registered Democrats. When Bush volunteers contacted chruch members we did not even ask party affiliation. Rove's research showed that 70 percent of church members would vote for Bush, but less than 50 percent of them were Republicans.
Two thousand five hundred Registered Democrats showed up for a week day Bush rally in Ross County Ohio. I was held about 3 weeks before the election. I know how many because we checked voter registration on every person that got at ticket to the rally. Every Democrat that got tickets to that rally, was asked why they wanted to attend a Bush Rally. I was one of two people interviewing the Democrats who applied for tickets. Think about it.. In THE bellweather county of ohio, one out of every eight attendees to a Bush rally was a Democrat.
The Democrats who attended gave us 3 reasons for supporting President Bush. About a third supported President Bush becuase of the war in IRAQ. But 2/3 of those 2500 Democrats were supporting President Bush because of gay rights and/or abortion. They voted for Bush to change the direction of the supreme court. They were well aware that the only thing a president could do on those two issues was appoint people to the supreme court.
Natioal Democrats are not stupid.. If they fillibuster the bush supreme court nominees, they will convert somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 to 14 million registered Democrats into Registered Republicans.
Democrats can't afford to do that. They now know that defeating Bush Surpreme Court nominees can cost them the presidency again in 2008, and remove any chance of winning the senate or the house.
People who think that Democrats are saving up to bork the next nominee are mistaken. If the political cost were not so steep they would have borked Roberts. They dare not do so... The problem is far too many Registered Democrats do not believe in abortion and do not believe in gay rights. Even the most rabid democratic senators do not want to remove all chances for the Democrats to regain political power.
Democrats like Ried are playing to the Democratic base. But they are not playing real loud. Several Democrat Senators in states where all the Democrat votes are needed to win, Democratic Senators will vote for Roberts.
Karl Rove, I know, had the Ohio organization and perhaps several other state organizations actively going after the religious right. What most people don't understand is that half of the religious right are Registered Democrats. When Bush volunteers contacted chruch members we did not even ask party affiliation. Rove's research showed that 70 percent of church members would vote for Bush, but less than 50 percent of them were Republicans.
Two thousand five hundred Registered Democrats showed up for a week day Bush rally in Ross County Ohio. I was held about 3 weeks before the election. I know how many because we checked voter registration on every person that got at ticket to the rally. Every Democrat that got tickets to that rally, was asked why they wanted to attend a Bush Rally. I was one of two people interviewing the Democrats who applied for tickets. Think about it.. In THE bellweather county of ohio, one out of every eight attendees to a Bush rally was a Democrat.
The Democrats who attended gave us 3 reasons for supporting President Bush. About a third supported President Bush becuase of the war in IRAQ. But 2/3 of those 2500 Democrats were supporting President Bush because of gay rights and/or abortion. They voted for Bush to change the direction of the supreme court. They were well aware that the only thing a president could do on those two issues was appoint people to the supreme court.
Natioal Democrats are not stupid.. If they fillibuster the bush supreme court nominees, they will convert somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 to 14 million registered Democrats into Registered Republicans.
Democrats can't afford to do that. They now know that defeating Bush Surpreme Court nominees can cost them the presidency again in 2008, and remove any chance of winning the senate or the house.
People who think that Democrats are saving up to bork the next nominee are mistaken. If the political cost were not so steep they would have borked Roberts. They dare not do so... The problem is far too many Registered Democrats do not believe in abortion and do not believe in gay rights. Even the most rabid democratic senators do not want to remove all chances for the Democrats to regain political power.
Democrats like Ried are playing to the Democratic base. But they are not playing real loud. Several Democrat Senators in states where all the Democrat votes are needed to win, Democratic Senators will vote for Roberts.
What a life.
All I could think of when I read this post was some twisted version of the "Bad Idea Jeans" sketch on SNL.
Guy #1: "Well, he's an ex free-base addict, and he's trying to turn around, and he needs a place to stay for a couple of months.
BAD IDEA
Guy #2: Normally I wear protection, but then I thought, "When am I gonna make it back to Haiti?"
BAD IDEA
G.W. Bush: I think I'll nominate Alberto Gonzales to the Surpreme Court. He should provide a reliable conservative vote on the Surpreme Court for years to come.
BAD IDEA
I had seen Sept 29th somehwere but don't quote me..
----
Considering they hold a majority of the MSM talk and print puppet strings, They may be fools but they aren't all DUmmies. ;-)
btw , Good info re: dem turnout at President Bush's events, Thanks.
Brown or Owens, and let the radical left implode...
Shhhh... If you go around spouting off the strategy, the Dems might be able to defend themselves.
Or maybe they won't because they think they're smarter than Bush.
Ok, per Leahy's inference, does Leahy mean there are 3 or 5 justices with a leftist ideological agenda?
save you popcorn, I expect they will fillibuster O'Conner's replacement... and fail holding in it.
But isn't that exactly what they will do? After all, they have no respect for the constitution, do they?
Reid, Kennedy and Kerry are shown to be the horses a##es they are.
Now that you're warmed up, could you tell us what you think of Ginsburg? LOL
I still say, if Roberts gets the 66 votes of approval that Justice Rehnquist received in his floor vote for Chief, it will be a significant success. Rehnquist garnered 67 votes back in 1972 in his first set of hearings.
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.