Roberts Picks Up Democratic Support

ap on Yahoo ^ | 9/21/05 | Jesse J. Holland - ap

[popdonnelly]

Poor Norman Lear. So much money spent, so little influence.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

"Old Republicans"? Well, you've got Scalia and Thomas. Both of them have a good ten years left. You've got Souter (appointed by 41). He hasn't done us any favors recently. That leaves you with Stevens (appointed by Ford). He's got it in his will that he should be stuffed and propped into his Seat should he die before another Dem is elected Prez.

So now you're left with a guy completely unacceptable to strict constructionists on the court.

[SmithL]

Has the Hill-debeast announced her intentions, yet?

[new yorker 77]

President Bush has wanted John Roberts to be Chief Justice since he was elected in 2000. The "Teflon Bork" will be the Libs worst nightmare.

[NormsRevenge]

Not yet, but I'd bet she votes
No altho it wouldn't surprise me if she voted Yes.

[AmishDude]

I wonder what the motive here is. The best strategy is to show a united front. All the D's vote no, but no filibuster and it gives them credentials for the next one. I thought that Harry Reid's announcement was not after meeting with party leaders but as a pre-emptive strike. He was trying to make the others vote with him.

This may be Leaky's attempt at a little power struggle.

[AmishDude]

Gonzales is very unlikely to be nominated. As sitting AG, he would have to recuse himself from far too many cases.

[agrace]

"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."

You couldn't possibly be suggesting that the next nominee should be determined by the political leanings of Judge Roberts' first year rulings, could you Arlen?

[SmithL]

I'm betting she votes yes, just to prove she's not an extreme liberal.

[zendari]

Biden's a NO.

Senator Joseph Biden (D-Del.) will vote against the confirmation of John G. Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States, a source who has spoken to the senator told The Huffington Post.

Last Wednesday, Biden told Roberts, "We're rolling the dice with you, judge because you won't share your views with us. You've told me nothing in this Kabuki dance. The public has a right to know what you think."

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid announced he would vote against Robert’s confirmation yesterday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/09/21/biden-to-vote-against-rob_n_7684.html


Whatever. Its completely ridiculous how this is a 100% political process and these senators whore out their votes. No wonder it takes 3 months for nominees to get confirmed.

[MinuteGal]

It's amusing to read that these vote announcements signify a "split" or a "power struggle" in the Dim ranks.

The votes are orchestrated already. Things like the makeup of the individual senator's voting base, the safeness of his/her seat and other factors all play a part.

The leader knows what final vote pro and con among his ranks will be satisfactory for public consumption and for the strategy for the next nomination.......and 'Rat senators will play their part so the vote comes out as planned.

The votes are written in stone already by both parties.

All the breastbeating and all the pious announcements right now are beanbag.

Leni

[zendari]

Now that you're warmed up, could you tell us what you think of Ginsburg? LOL

Ginsberg was different. Oconner served on what, some state level court of appeals for 2 years before her nomination? Ginsberg was on the DC circuit for years before hers. Plus Clinton knew what he wanted when he chose RBG and got it. Reagan had no clue.

[zendari]

And Boxer too.

WASHINGTON - Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., announced Wednesday that she will oppose the nomination of John Roberts to be Supreme Court chief justice.

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/12706405.htm

[alwaysconservative]

I agree; it's pure theater which Dems will vote yes or no. The lesser Dems will do what the leadership says they can do.

[alwaysconservative]

Okay, most of the moonbats have reported that they'll vote "no". Now let's see what the "moderate" Dems are allowed to do.

[NeoCaveman]

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.

All from states that Bush carried. That is not a coincidence.

[XpandTheEkonomy]

Now that you're warmed up, could you tell us what you think of Ginsburg? LOL

Really I'd like to but the endless stream of profanity would overload the server. Think of the children.

ha ha

[alwaysconservative]

Conrad and Dorgan of ND (a true red state) will decide who is closest to election and that one will vote for what the President wants while the other will solemnly vote "his conscience" (barf). It's political calculation and cynicism at their very worst.

[Pearls Before Swine]

Plus Clinton knew what he wanted when he chose RBG and got it. Reagan had no clue.

No argument on that aspect of it. I was enjoying XpandTheEkonomy's choice words for O'Connor and hoping he'd have an equally tart and enjoyable description of RBG. She's a lot worse than O'Connor, even if Clinton knew it in advance.

[zendari]

No argument on that aspect of it. I was enjoying XpandTheEkonomy's choice words for O'Connor and hoping he'd have an equally tart and enjoyable description of RBG. She's a lot worse than O'Connor, even if Clinton knew it in advance.

I think he's right. Oconner was chosen because she was a woman. Ginsberg was chosen because she was as liberal a candidate as Clinton could easily get through the Senate under Orrin Hatch's watch without a huge fight, and happened to be a woman. With Bork and Thomas in recent past I hardly blame him. Is she worse than Oconner? Yes. But I can live with Ginsberg. She is at least honest, its traitors like Souter that really piss me off.