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.
Gonzalez??? NO!!!!
We need a Judge with a real track record of conservative Jurisprudence ... Gonzalez is not it.
Michael Luttig, Edith Jones, Janice Rogers Brown, etc. are it.
If Conzalez is nominated, the conservative base would be so dissappointed it could demolish Bush's core base of support.
Just say no to moderate/liberal picks.
I think this is great! I would have never imagined an 'unknown' could become chief justice. He is so squeaky clean they cannot mount any meaningful opposition. Appears our President has done his homework!
On another thread, there are reports of 'signals' already sent by Republicans that they will seek to expose the Dems' internal memos regarding any strategies to derail the next nominee. It is a great tactic, and sends a clear shot across the bow.
"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."
Brilliant Comment ... People forget the obvious rule of Democrats - if they could get away with it, they would try to do it!
It also tells us that Bush could do one thing to ensure a Hillary victory in 2008 ... disappoint the cultural conservatives on Supreme Court nominations.
Roberts IMHO could be a home run for Bush ... if he rules like Rehnquist.
Bush needs to nominate someone like Michael Luttig. Either Luttig himself or someone like him. Judge Williams is conservative and a women, Judge Garza is conservative and Hispanic; he can pander if he wishes but he MUST nominate a judicial Conservative!.
Sen. Boxer to oppose Supreme Court nominee Roberts
The Associated Press
http://www.bakersfield.com/state_wire/story/5604945p-5585368c.html
WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., announced Wednesday that she will oppose the nomination of John Roberts to be Supreme Court chief justice.
"I said I could only vote for a nominee who would protect the rights and the freedoms of the people that I represent ... This nominee fails that bar," Boxer said on the Senate floor.
"I don't buy into this reasoning either: Let's support this nominee because the next one might be worse," she said.
The announcement by California's junior senator, a liberal who opposes many Bush nominees, was not a surprise. Still unknown is how the state's senior senator, Dianne Feinstein, will vote when the Judiciary Committee convenes Thursday to decide on the nominee.
Feinstein, a moderate, is the only woman on the Judiciary Committee.
Boxer's announcement came as a number of other Democrats were revealing their decisions on the nominee to replace Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
The Senate Judiciary Committee's senior Democrat, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, announced his endorsement for Roberts. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, liberal stalwart Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and former presidential candidate John Kerry of Massachusetts decided, like Boxer, to vote no.
Boxer said she was concerned about the views Roberts expressed in memos written while a lawyer in the Reagan administration, and about his failure to assist in the release of his writings from his years in the solicitor general's office under the first President Bush.
"With so many of our fundamental rights hanging in the balance, it is not good enough, in my view, to simply roll the dice, hoping a nominee will change his past views," Boxer said.
I don't know that Al Gonzales will be in our favor at all.
Of course!
Plus she'll add some 'qualifiers' as reasons for her vote (unite the country types of things after our divisions over the divided two-party debacle in New Orleans).
I'm interested in your analysis. I suspect there are a lot of registered Democrats who are leftover from the days when a significant number of Dems were conservative. These voters just never bothered to change parties.
I'm not sure I agree that Democratic Senators are too frightened of their own voters to filibuster Roberts. They won't filibuster because the Republicans are united for him, which looks bad; Roberts hasn't given them enough reason through the years to pin him down ideologically; and finally Roberts doesn't tip the balance of the court because he's replacing Rehnquist.
I would not have picked Roberts, but Bush's political instincts were tuned to perfection here. Roberts has spent his life saying as little as possible about anything. This makes him perfect. Bush's enemies can't get a read on him, and his friends can't complain too much about anything.
Of course we'll all know in another year or two whether this was a good choice or a mar on his legacy.
Stevens is 85, O'Connor is 75, Scalia is 69, Kennedy is 69, Souter is 66, and Thomas is 57.
Stevens is the only possibility.
Anyone got a line on his health? I can't find it online.
That makes sense, but this is an unusual circumstance.
STevens needs to take one for the team.
I hadn't heard anything.
Very interesting post.....Think I'll save it and share it.
The DUmmies are going to be pretty mad at anyone who votes for Roberts. Can't wait for it!
WASHINGTON - Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., announced Wednesday that she will oppose the nomination of John Roberts to be Supreme Court chief justice.
Of course! She's a bitter anti-catholic biggot!
You're damn right on that one! For many, these religious cultural concerns are the ONLY reason why they're Republican. Take these away and Republicans will have nothing to offer them.
It's nothing but pro-abortion lip service from Arlen.
Meanwhile Roberts goes through and in short time, following the Roberts template so will another.
Keep yammering Arlen.
Did that come out at her confirmation hearings?
I find this despicable..she has said that she wants to be with her husband, obviously his health is not good.
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.