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.
SCOTUS Nominations reduced to a sport. :-)
No Chuck...that seat serves all Americans, you puke.
Doesn't matter..the DemoDeathfreaks, can't stop
the Presidents nominee, even if he is as hard
a right-wing ideolouge as we all know allready
that the dirty rats, Shumer, Kowardly, Et Al..
will tr to smear, slander and libel him to be,
as long as Republicans stay united against
the screeching from the Demo-DeathFreakCulture-Rats.
I wish for Janice Rogers Brown.
Only thing I worry about is the courage and patience of the nominee. Estrada folded his tent (understandably), and that emboldened the Dems even more.
If the mishandling of Katrina (mostly by state and local authorities, but blamed on Bush) was supposed to mean that Bush had to cater to the liberals in the Senate by nominating a "moderate," then the competent handling of Rita should free Bush to pick someone really good.
Interesting that the Democrats keep "looking beyond" Bush's current nominees. Not long ago the Democrats said they were "looking beyond" Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor and Bush's other circuit court nominees and now they're "looking beyond" Roberts' nomination to be Chief Justice.
Perhaps the President should, for a laugh, nominate Chucky (the ideologue) for the seat? It sure would appear surreal and absurd as upChuck Schumer opposed his own nomination on ideological grounds ............
LOL!! But, I would never want to risk that his nomination will win in the Senate. :-))
There is nothing in the Constitution that says "Nine Justices shall serve on the Supreme Court; 4 of whom shall be liberals, 3 of whom shall be conservatives, and 2 of whom shall be swing votes".
Consider that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was nominated to fill the vacancy left by the retirement of Justice Byron White, who voted against Roe vs. Wade, and who was considered one of the most conservative members of the Supreme court, although he was appointed by Democrat JFK. If there had been a "White seat", considering White's opinion on Roe Vs. Wade, in addition to many other decisions, President Clinton in 1993 could not possibly have nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a clear abortion advocate and flaming liberal, to fill it.
The Democrats really have no leg to stand on with these silly arguments, and trying to do so will hurt them. Bush was elected in large part to change the ideological makeup of the Court, and that is exactly his right, and his duty.
THIS argument must be brought up. But, the reason it won't be brought up is becuase then it corners the President and Republicans to an argument that admits they are nominating a conservative.
They would rather stick to "qualifications", "ethics", "tempermant", and other intangibles. :-)
Even more absurd is that Chucky think that there was even a 'fight' on Roberts ... there wasn't. Only in upChuck's bloated hubristic self-importance was there any kind of 'fight' ... Roberts is a slam-dunk on the floor, while upChuck and his cronies 'The Swimmer' and 'Bolt Neck' Biden were mere rowdies sitting up in the cheap seats making lots of noise
hey chuckeeee, you don't warn the president. he does what he does and he will nominate whomever he wants. You think he is afraid or worried about you? Ya better take another look dude cause guess what? "He doesn't give a hoot about you."
LOL!!! On Schwuler!!
Hilarious way to spell his name!
WOW .. is that clip-on pink tie ?
The pink tie appears to double as a bondage leash.
Schumer must recuse himself from any additional SCOTUS nomination hearings. He is being criminally investigated for his role in his DSCC illegally obtaining Maryland Lieutenant Governor's credit history. Any SCOTUS nominee may eventually hear the case against Schumer. As such, Scummer has a conflict of interest in any court nomination coming up. If he refuses to recuse himself, we must put pressure on Leahy and other Democrat leaders to shut him down. Barring those two unlikely eventualities, we must put pressure on Spector and Frist to kick him off the committee.
Good thought. I did not think that far ahead.
Although, I doubt that the spineless *Republicans* will make a big fuss about this stuff.
Schwuler means Fag in German... 8^)
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.