It is, for all intents and purposes, all over except the hand-wringing:
The Senate Judiciary Committee strongly endorsed Judge John G. Roberts Jr. today to be the next chief justice of the United States, sending the nomination to the full Senate for confirmation next week.
The 13-to-5 vote, with 3 Democrats joining the 10 Republicans on the committee, put Judge Roberts in line to succeed the man for whom he was once a clerk, William H. Rehnquist, who died on Sept. 3. Judge Roberts is only 50, so he could be chief justice for many years.
Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who heads the committee, said Judge Roberts “has a real sense for building consensus,” a gift that will serve him well as he takes his place on a court that has often been sharply split.
Committee Republicans heaped praise on the nominee, for his undisputed intellectual acumen and for what they see as the proper role of a jurist. “He emphasizes the importance of modesty and humility in the role of a justice,” said Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa.
The Democrats who backed Judge Roberts were generally more restrained. Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking minority member on the panel, said that despite his vote in favor of the nominee he was very disappointed in him for not being more forthcoming and with the White House for not consulting more with the Senate.
Barring something shocking, it is a done deal. Time to fret about the next pick.
STFU Leahy. I don’t want any more “Yes, but…”s from Democrats. Up or down. If he wasn’t forthcoming enough, then he didn’t earn your support. Since your vote can’t stop him anyway, vote “no.” Otherwise vote “yes” and live with it.
shouldn’t that be a GFY to Sen. Leahy, not STFU??
I don’t think 13 to 5 is a strong endorsement. The R’s would have voted for Bush’s dog, Barney if he was nominated. It says alot about our political environment when someone can claim a 37.50% showing among the D’s on the Judiciary committee is a good showing.
I understand Barney was ruled out at the last minute when he confused Barbara Bush with a bitch.
Slides fattened ego
72% is more than a supra-majority. Perhaps you would like to redefine ‘strong endorsement’.
Sure they would.
It shows more about your ability to think in a glass half full, but fully partisan way. In this climate, it’s a freaking terrific showing.
Easy enough mistake, really. It does bring a rather disturbing mental image to mind, however…
Barbara Bush IS a bitch.
Yeah, no more of this bullshit subtlety or analysis. Grunt once or twice, bang the rocks together and go home. Nuance? It’s even a fucking french WORD!
Well, I’m glad it’s over with.
That is a C minus. It is a good thing Roberts was only up for Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, if he had been defending his dissertation he might have been in trouble.
Montgomery Burns voice: “Excellent.”
Now I’m gathering up all the nation’s wire coat hangers, in order to corner the market for that vital tool of the underground abortion industry.
Boundless riches are mine, all due to Roberts!!! Bwaaa-ha-ha-ha-hah!
Can’t wait for Janice Rogers Brown. I predict Ted Kennedy’s head will finally explode.
The Lord is sending them a message, and if they approve, I predict Rita will take his wrath on our sinning…
Fix was in all the way. Now the stealth candidate will rule for 40 years. We are headed to the dark ages my friends
warrantless searches and detentions
Barring something shocking, it was a done deal three months ago when that filibuster-breaking “gang of 14” had cautiously optimistic statements about him. The discussion since then, and if anyone anywhere has said otherwise I haven’t noticed, has been whether or not the benefits of the Democrats’ voicing disapproval of Roberts (and nothing else) would be a net positive or a net negative for them.
Definitely not impressed with my Senator here. If the approve/disapprove debate has gone on three months, there’s obviously room for personal opinions in it, but really. If you think Roberts was in fact forthcoming enough, or if he wasn’t but you thought voting against would be bad tactically, fine. But if being “disappointed in him for not being more forthcoming” is not a sufficient reason to vote against Roberts, then what is? I mean, how much worse could it be than not knowing where the guy stands on basic questions of constitutional interpretation?
Heh, brilliant. Thanks, Blue.
Funny. It would be interesting to look at the numbers on the things in government that require a supra majority, like the amendments. In addition, I think most elections would not even be a passing grade.
slide aka Joe Albanese
As Roberts is replacing Rehnquist, I can’t see how its going to make much of an immediate difference. I dont think Roberts is going to be to the right of Rehnquist but no one can say for sure. Of course Roberts is going to be around for a long long time unless of course God hears Pat Robertson’s prayers for a vacancy on the Supreme Court and screws things up for the good Reverand.
But the next appointment is much more important. Sandra O’Connor was a swing vote on many important issues. If she is replaced with a Scalia that would make a real difference and would definitly tilt the Court in a direction that I would not want.
So, I’m more willing to give the Dems a pass then most for voting for Roberts. But they better man the barricades if Bush plans to replace O’Connor with a right wing ideologue.
Agreed. Roberts as Chief is essentially hitting “reboot” on the Rehnquist Court. The next one is what matters.
Yep. And the Constitution, too.
Rehnquist hated Bush with a passion (according to staffer rumors). Roberts will be another flunky Bush appointee with little experience and even smaller balls to stand up for the Constitution.
Been a while since college? That’s a strong B+/A-, adjusted for grade inflation/student numbers desperation.
I heard that to. That’s why he wasn’t leaving ’til they carried him out feet first. He didn’t want Bush picking his replacement.
…dark ages my friends
warrantless searches and detentions
Gee, now here I was thinking that was my hoped-for Conservative Golden Age. The winning agenda, for sure, if it includes dropping CPB and NPR subsidies.
I’d wondered about this myself. Whatever else you might say about Rhenquist, he was an old school Conservative. I found it hard to believe he would be totally comfortable with the so-called movement Conservatism spearheaded by Bush. Or he may just not have cared for sheltered, over privileged, rich boys.
slide aka Joe Albanese
When one gets a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court that immediately takes them out of the “flunky” category. He will be hiw own man, for better or worse as has many justices proved to the dismay of the President that may have appointed them.
Can you say “David Souter?”
Let the next conservative nominee come on down!
Sure Rick, just like I can say “Clarance Thomas”
And Joe, just think about Mr. Long Dong before you jump to any conclusions about Roberts. Thomas has rarely ever voted against party lines and his opinion write-ups show a limited Conservative view that is used as justification instead of as a check
slide aka Joe Albanese
Rick you may be right… but in my gut I don’t think Roberts is a Thomas.. for one, Roberts is a whole lot brighter in my estimation.
A supermajority of wingnuts think there is such a term as “supramajority”, which according to Googlefight and Webster’s, doesn’t exist.
SRV’s prediction, though vague, has gotten me thinking that we really ought to revisit doomsayers on a regular basis. When special interest groups claim that a policy or person will cause dogs and cats to sleep together and mass hysteria, we should take them at their word until they’re either vindicated by events or exposed as mere fearmongers…
Shoot, I’m hoping Roberts turns out as good as Thomas. Meaning, stay away from David “Grown in Office/Strange New Respect” Souter.
Ah, you are a literalist.
I’m just trying to get ahead of the curve here. If Katrina was the result of [insert favorite evangelical nutjob theory here], then I’m hoping Rita is the Secularists second coming:
For my bullseye nomination.
Would that it be somewhere else, as I have ties to Houston.
Re revisiting doomsayers. How about kool-aid drinkers too? I’ve asked every blogger I read to add a predictions section. But not one has taken it up. Wonder why.
Abortion will continue in California, even if it’s just me and a Handivac.
Geroge Bush needs to shove Janice Rogers Brown up your asses. We need an Ayn Rand objectivist on the court. I realize it would be ANOTHER minority in a major position in a republican government, and that we can’t discuss her philosophy, or jucdicial record or anything, but I would look forward to the hoods coming out of the cloak rooms from that fat drunk murderer you all call a lion of the senate, and of course the rest of the intellectual giants the democrats keep trotting out.
He will have to buy me a drink first.