Posted on 09/24/2005 5:50:47 PM PDT by indianrightwinger
Updated: 07:14 AM EDT Spotlight Turns to Next Court Nominee Democrats Split as Roberts Nomination Heads to Full Senate By DEB RIECHMANN, AP
WASHINGTON (Sept. 23) - Republicans and Democrats alike are looking beyond John Roberts' virtually certain confirmation as the nation's 17th chief justice to President Bush's next nominee to the Supreme Court, expecting a quick announcement from the White House and a much tougher confirmation fight.
Three Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee sided with the panel's 10 Republicans on Thursday in a 13-5 vote to endorse Roberts, sending his nomination to the floor of the Senate for a confirmation vote no later than next Thursday.
Alex Wong, Getty Images John Roberts, seen here at his confirmation hearing last week, is in line to become the next chief justice of the Supreme Court.
Talk About It: Post Thoughts
With little suspense left in Roberts' climb to the Supreme Court, speculation focused on whether the support from three Democrats gives Bush any more or less leeway to nominate someone more conservative than Roberts to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
"I think there were people in the White House who hoped the Democrats would all vote for him and show that Roberts was a high-quality nominee," said Stephen Wermiel, an American University law professor. "There were other people in the White House who hoped the Democrats would all vote against him, thinking that would help the president feel liberated to do whatever he wanted to do next."
Regardless of their motives, it was clear the Judiciary Committee members were eyeing Bush's next pick for the court.
"I think that some of the voting today was calculated to impact on the next nomination," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the committee. Some senators believed that backing Roberts puts them in a better position to oppose the next Bush nominee, while others thought that opposing him puts the president on notice that he had better put someone up who was acceptable to a broad spectrum of senators.
Norm Ornstein, a political analyst with the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, said anyone familiar with the Bush White House knows that a strong Democratic vote against Roberts would convince Bush that Democrats would reject anyone he'd nominate "so why bother nominating anyone but a fire-breathing conservative."
The White House, which has been keeping details of Bush's selection process secret, said only that the president planned to nominate a highly qualified candidate whom Americans can be proud to have on the court.
"The historic standard, particularly with recent nominees, has been based on qualifications," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "Judge Roberts clearly has far exceeded that standard, and earned broad-based support. The Senate has traditionally joined together in support of those nominees who were well-qualified to sit on the court, and avoided becoming beholden to partisan interest groups."
Some lawmakers and legal analysts claimed the three Democrats _ Sens. Patrick Leahy, Russ Feingold and Herbert Kohl _ likely supported Roberts so they would not be cast as obstructionists.
"If the Roberts' confirmation is a foregone conclusion, why look like a knee-jerk obstructionist?" asked Brad Berenson, formerly a lawyer in the Bush White House. "It's far better to preserve the appearance of being fair-minded and try to convince the president he has a chance to get your vote if he nominates someone to your liking. It also gives you the ability to oppose the next nominee with greater credibility."
The idea of using the Roberts vote to position oneself for the next confirmation hearing was rejected by David Carle, a spokesman for Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.
"For Democratic senators this is a vote of conscience, not a chess game," Carle said. "That's why Democratic senators are not voting in lockstep, unlike some partisans who cheerlead for anyone the White House picks, even before hearings are held."
Lynn Becker, a spokesman for Kohl, D-Wis., said the senator considers every nominee based on his or her merits and casts his vote accordingly. And Feingold, also a Democrat from Wisconsin, hinted that while he voted for Roberts, he might not be willing to embrace a conservative federal appellate judge like Janice Rogers Brown, who has been mentioned as a possible replacement for O'Connor, the swing vote on issues including affirmative action, abortion, discrimination and death penalty cases.
The Democratic support for Roberts, however, marked a stinging defeat for the liberal groups that are lobbying energetically against his confirmation.
"The vote shows that a strong, unapologetic, judicial conservative in the mold of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas can not only be confirmed without filibuster but can actually pick up Democrat votes," said Wendy Long, counsel for the Judicial Confirmation Network.
But despite being on the losing side of the vote, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., issued this warning to the White House:
"Please send us a moderate, but if you send someone who is very ideological there'll be a much bigger fight than on Roberts because this is for the O'Connor seat and that's the swing vote on the court."
9/23/2005 05:56:11
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
Chuckie is the senior senator from New York.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
After Roberts was passed in the Judiciary Committee all the senators against him immediately went before the cameras...except Chuck Schumer. He obviously didn't want to chance having to answer questions about two of his flunkies illegally obtaining the credit records of the Maryland Lt. Gov.
I don't know much about Schumer except that
he's a nitwit Senator from New York. So, what
is Schumer's "orientation"?
Chuckie and his democrat FRiends went stupid a long time ago.
I hope they stay stupid.
We'll all be better off.
Eventually.
Perhaps a woman as conservative as Ruthie is liberal.
Janice Rogers Brown!
I was told (although have not much personal studied knowledge) that Edith Jones comes close.
I did not know that. Now, it is even more funny.
I thought it meant some communist/socialist. :-)
Chuckie you better take your blood pressure medicine because the next pick is gonna burst a blood vessel in your head. Game on.
i've never seen his wife. but then again, she might just be his beard...
We can only hope that DubYah makes yet another great decision such as Janice Rogers Brown!
Chuckie and his LIEberal/Socialist/Marxist Bastard cronies will self-destruct. And I am going to enjoy every minute of it!
That said, Ann is right: DubYah should pick the best qualified, without respect to race or gender.
I agree.
I don't think the lying smear job the Dims
and the lying MSM about th Katrina response
is gonna stick..as a matter of fact, it's
allready falling apart all over the place
as it is becoming quite obvious that any
slowness of esponse on FEMAs part, was as a direct
result of the abysmal incompetance and petty
ego problems of Nagin & Blanco....I don't blame
Nagin as much as thinking him incompetant,..but
Blanco...much of the fault lies with her, and
the rest of the Democrooked Machinery down
there...Landrieu & Family being right in the
thick of the in the swill of "misdirected" funds.
Only in his mind! I know he is the "Senior" Senator, however, he doesn't have seniority over Hillary. Not even her Billy does! /sarcasm
The whole game is so transparent that it staggers the mind that so many pundits amd "analysts" seem to be straining their brain muscles trying to figure out what the Democrats' strategy is. Gimme a break - - the Democrats stayed mostly civil with Roberts only so they can appear to be righteously indignant when they freak out about the next nominee.
The rats have cornered themselves with the amazing "Gang of Fourteen" deal and their only loophole can work only if they can mobilize their allies in the liberal newsrooms to help them convince the ignorant rabble that, despite what the Republicans are claiming about the Democrats breaking their promise not to filibuster, the "extraordinary circumstances" threshhold has "clearly been breached with this nominee" (whoever the nominee is - - it really doesn't matter).
Bush may as well go for it, big time, with a selection along the line of Janice Rogers Brown. Let the scumbag Democrats go bonkers and try to pressure five of the seven Democrat members of the "Gang of Fourteen" to break their promise and join them in their filibuster, and then let the Republicans go nuclear. Let's just be done with it. The Supreme Court is simply too important to give away so much as an inch.
We may be looking at the last best chance we will ever have to save America from the ravages of the Euro-style secular socialism that the Democrats are determined to foist on the nation.
Who voted Chuck Schumer President? Who put him on the cabinet?
No one...so pay him ZERO attention Mr. President!
There are NO...I repeat NO...moderate seats on the SCOTUS. The President gets to nominate his conscience and convictions EVERY TIME, even if all nine are killed in a tragic plane crash or something.
Strict constructionist, originalist!!!!!!!! All the way!!!
Now...that is an idea I would like...but the President would not have the patience for it I am afraid.
You said it right baby!
Let's just be done with it. The Supreme Court is simply too important to give away so much as an inch.
Not even a micromillimeter!
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.