Judge Roberts was confirmed:
Judge John G. Roberts Jr. was confirmed as the 17th chief justice of the United States today in a formality that intensified speculation over who will be President Bush’s next Supreme Court nominee.
The Senate confirmed Judge Roberts by a vote of 78 to 22, with unanimous support from Republicans and with many Democrats voting for him as well. Judge Roberts was to be sworn in by Mr. Bush at the White House this afternoon amid expectations that the president will announce his next choice for the court very soon.
Those voting for– all 55 Republicans, 22 Democrats, and Jeffords.
Those voting against- Bayh, Biden, Boxer, Cantwell, Clinton, Corzine, Dayton, Durbin, Feinstein, Harkin, Inouye, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Mikiulski, Obama, Reed, Reid, Sarbanes, Schumer, Stabenow.
The bold names are those who are frequently mentioned as 2008 Presidential candidates. I don’t think any Democrats with publicly stated Presidential ambitions voted yes (well, Lieberman did, but I have a better chance of being the ’08 Democratic nominee than Joe Lieberman).
In my own state, Byrd and Rockefeller voted yes.
Now we shall see what happens with Bush’s next nominee. Is he going to veer right to shore up the base or will he nominate someone else like Roberts?
jobiuspublius
Lol, thx, that really is a relief.
Throw in someone that will keep the opposition busy and make them look foolish. Buy time to observe Roberts.
Steve
I know it’s fun to read the presidential tea leaves, but if the only reason these 4 people voted against Roberts was their presidential ambitions, how do you explain the other 18?
Bayh is the only one of the four whose vote could be considered surprising.
John Cole
We might as well start the thread with a strawman for ppGaz and Joe Albanese to attack me for relentlessly.
If you can show me WHERE I said the only reason they voted against him was presidential ambition, we can talk.
KoC
“Those voting against- Bayh, Biden, Boxer, Cantwell, Clinton, Corzine, Dayton, Durbin, Feinstein, Harkin, Inouye, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Mikiulski, Obama, Reed, Reid, Sarbanes, Schumer, Stabenow.
The bold names are those who are frequently mentioned as 2008 Presidential candidates. I don’t think any Democrats with publicly stated Presidential ambitions voted yes (well, Lieberman did, but I have a better chance of being the ‘08 Democratic nominee than Joe Lieberman).”
You didn’t say it directly, but you did imply that it was a major factor in their decision making.
If there’s a strawman to be burned, it’s because you put the poor bastard up.
John Cole
All I said was that those with Presidential ambition voted against. You inferred the rest.
Do I think it was a factor? Of course. Do I think it was the only factor? Of course not. Do I think there is anything wrong with that? yes and no.
I would like confirmations to be non-partisan affairs, but that is just an absurd non-starter. Likewise, I have no problem with politicians being, well, politicans.
You guys get worked up over the littlest things.
Steve
Some decisions are clearly taken with an eye towards a presidential bid, like Pataki and Romney vetoing the morning-after pill. I look at Bayh’s vote and it seems a little blatant, because he’s normally a moderate red-stater.
But are we shocked by Kerry’s vote? Like, if he wasn’t considering a 2008 run (just give it up already!), there’s a serious chance he would vote yes? Or blustery Biden, the man who knows more Constitutional law than all the members of the Supreme Court put together?
Poor Hillary, she can never win. She’s either positioning herself to the center or she’s pandering to the left wing. Because everybody knows she’s just an ambitious ice queen with no true opinions of her own, blah blah blah.
Bush is once again in a tough spot. He needs to satisfy the base, who are clamoring for him to do better than Roberts, but he’s got a lot of problems to deal with and it’s questionable whether he can afford to pick a major fight. I’d expect another blank slate, combined with a lot of nudges and winks in an attempt to reassure the base, but I don’t know if he can get away with that again. It’s a key moment in terms of assessing whether the far right has earned more than lip service.
Jackmormon
Russ Feingold voted to confirm, and I hear he’s got ambitions. Maybe his ambitions are set for 2012, though.
Rick
Let me get the gloom ball rolling for Tim or Tom or some T-name Kosbot: stand by for body cavity searches, concentration camps, pink triangles, tattooed forearms, and burning of public libraries.
Move to Canada while the border remains open!
Cordially…
docG
For someone who bitches about twisting language unfairly, you sure walk a close line. You bolded Democrats names with presidential ambitions, and pointed out their votes. If you weren’t intending to infer something directly about a connection, then why the hell did you bold the names and point to the votes in the first place? Especially since it was a completely fair and valid observation.
ppGaz
1. Roberts confirmed, good.
2. You made no assertion about why the “other” Dems voted against Roberts, so I don’t know why it’s an issue.
3. Don’t frigging lump me in with Joe Albanese. I’m not him and he is not me, in any respect. And your little bite is chickenshit. I don’t “attack you relentlessly”. The only strawman here is yours, as block quoted above. If you are being serious, then I have two words for you, and the second one is “you.” But I’ll assume that you are just being your usual chain-pulling self unless you say otherwise.
Whoever said this:
is wrong. There was no implication.
John Cole
My apologies then, PPGAZ. I never know which PPGAZ I am going to get on a daily basis (much like you never know what you are going to get here).
Mac Buckets
Mainly, they haven’t been onto a winner in so long, that they’ve forgotten how to vote for one. Specifically, off top of my head:
Akaka — slave to PC, and Roberts once wrote “illegal amigos,” which is clearly offensive, unless you know what “amigo” means
Boxer, Feinstein — San Francisco wouldn’t let them come home if they voted yes
Cantwell — ditto Seattle
Corzine — channelled the late Abby Hoffman who told him “vote no, and send weed, man”
Dayton — a twit with delusions of future power
Durbin — pure partisan hate
Harkin — sad, desperate partisan play
Inouye — can’t stand anything to do with “right wings”
Kennedy — large sections of his brain have been damaged
Lautenberg — thought his mob buddies had fixed the confirmation
Mikulski — as always, playing the race card to poor Baltimore
Osama bin Obama — future Prez run, or Oprah-esque talkshow
Reed — even he doesn’t know
Reid — hates Bush so much!
Sarbanes — Barb Mikulski told him to, or she’d take her top off
Schumer — come on, if Bush picked Solomon, he’d vote no
Stabenow — is this a joke? There’s a Senator Debbie Stabenow?
ppGaz
Neither do I!
Will I get my coffee in the morning before a cat pukes on my office rug? Will Defense Guy wallpapaer a thread and make it uninhabitable?
These things cannot be predicted.
Actually, the dirty little secret about me is, I’m very mild mannered. What you see in here is mostly theater. I’d wager that this is true for most of the “hotheads” around here. We’re an entertaining lot, though, don’t you think?
Otto Man
You know the rest of your comments were a nice mixture of third-grade humor and second-grade smarts, but this is really beyond the pale.
Mocking a man who lost his right arm in World War II? Very classy.
Blue Neponset
That is a truly asshole thing to say. If you think Inouye is a moron then say so, but don’t ridicule a Medal of Honor winner because he lost an arm defending his country.
Typical Republican slime tactics. You guys have no fucking shame.
Shygetz
I’m really curious as to what the puditocracy will be saying five years from now about Roberts. John, if you’re still blogging, you should do a retrospective on this in five years.
ppGaz
Yes, and then they do their wide-eyed look and wonder why we hate their guts.
I don’t often say this around here, but I really think the Inouye thing requires an apology.
The Disenfranchised Voter
The thing I found ironic was Spector’s speech. He went on and on about Senators being partisan and praised Democrats who were willing to go against the “party line” and vote yes.
Funny thing is, not one single Republican voted against the “party line”, and with the Democrats, there wasn’t even a “party line”. Reid voted no, but he by no means tried to pressure others to do so.
Republican hypocrisy again? Why am I not surprised.
Mac Buckets
I’m sorry, Senator Inouye! That was admittedly weak…but it’s not a “slime tactic” any more than Norm MacDonald’s “Bob Dole’s arm” jokes were on SNL. There is no negative connotation to losing an arm in a war. So keep your collective panties on, whingers.
John S.
In all fairness John, so do you.
John S.
Shorter Mac Buckets: Everyone else is an asshole, so I will be too.
tBone
Hey kettle, this is the pot. You’re black.
Blue Neponset
I would love to see you make that point at my Father’s next American Legion meeting. The sight of 74 old men kicking your ass would be a welcome one.
Mac Buckets
Obviously, you have some reading comprehension work to do. I’ll leave you to it.
Blue Neponset
I am sorry. I will be clearer.
I believe my Father and his buddies at the American Legion would see through your ‘There is no negative connotation to losing an arm in a war’ rationalization and realize you weren’t apologizing for your pathetic comments regarding Senator Inouye. As a result, they would invite you to be the guest of honor at a blanket party.
Defense Guy
You really need to let go of this obsession. It can’t be healthy and besides, I think your wife is starting to suspect something.
Mac Buckets
So because I said I was sorry, your father and his buddies would be upset. You know, forgive me for differing, but I’m betting they are smarter than that.
ppGaz
Again you talk out of your ass.
I have no obsession, I have entertainment choices. “Entourage”, or sharp stick up your exhaust pipe? Simple, easy.
And how would you know what is healthy for me? For all you know, I am an invalid, typing these miraculous posts using a stick held in my teeth. You would insult an invalid? Have you no shame?
rayabacus
This was sarcasm, right?
ppGaz
I am not a particular Biden fan, but there is this:
If SCOTUS consisted of nine Clarence Thomases, I’d say, Biden wins easily. But it doesn’t, so I don’t know enough about the others to say one way or the other.
Geek, Esq.
Bush NEEDS to nominate a rightwing idealogue to shore up his base. The hardcore social conservatives are all that he has left.
Republican turnout in ’06 is looking to be a MAJOR problem–nominating a thoughtful, principled jurist whose mission isn’t to punish homosexuals and abortionists just won’t get those people to the polls.
Steve
Hardly. I am of the firm belief that Biden is blustery.
Krista
I think most of you just enjoy being cranks. ppGaz, I know you derive great enjoyment from it, and John has admitted that he has a soft spot for cranks, being one himself. I honestly think that this site is a grown-up version of a sandbox, and you guys enjoy trying to steal each other’s Tonkas, don’t you?
ppGaz
I enjoy trying to loosen the lugnuts on DG’s tires on his Tonka truck, and then watching him when the wheels come off and the truck digs in and he pitches forward and gets a snootful of sand up his nostrils and …….
Well, you get the idea.
You are mostly right, except for one little thing: I am representing Truth, Justice and the American Way, while DG and other hapless Tonka Truckers of the rightwing persuasion are actually agents of Satan.
So you are pretty close.
Krista
Oh dear God, get me my shovel…
ppGaz
Agents of Satan, I tell you …….
Krista
Sure…yeah…(pats ppGaz on head)..okay honey. Would you like to play with your Tonkas now?
ppGaz
[ eyes narrow ]
Which one belongs to Defense Goy?
John S.
Not that I would be surprised, but how do you know for sure that DG is a goyim?
ppGaz
I don’t. I just like to tweak him. He reminds me of the ugly little dog in the neighborhood who shits on our lawns. When I get a chance, I like to get back at him if I can.
It’s a thankless job, but it has to be done.
Defense Gay cannot go unchallenged.
Narvy
Mmmm… Not really.
Narvy
I think it’s more like junior high. All that strutting bluster to prove “I’m more pubescent than you are.”
Narvy
Read your dictionary more carefully. Goyim is plural. Unless you’re implying that there is more than one Defense G_y. It’s been known to happen here.
ppGaz
You’re in a fun fuckin mood today, Narv.
Cat puke on your office rug?
narvy
No, I’m just pedantic.
What have you done with intelligent, witty ppGaz? He’s a good friend of mine.
Mike
“Blue Neponset Says:
Inouye—can’t stand anything to do with “right wings”
That is a truly asshole thing to say. If you think Inouye is a moron then say so, but don’t ridicule a Medal of Honor winner because he lost an arm defending his country.
Typical Republican slime tactics. You guys have no fucking shame.”
I think it was just a lame attempt at humor, but if it makes you feel better, go ahead let it out: Republicans bad, Democrats good, the originality is just stunning.
narvy
Actually, it was in the grand old schoolyard tradition of making fun of an infirmity. Mac, you could have three times as much fun making fun of Max Cleland.
ppGaz
Ah.
ppGaz
Ah. Right.
carpeicthus
“Osama bin Obama”?
Mac, how does it feel to be a lunatic? Are you usually happy with it? Does it eat at you? Does human feces taste as bad as the sane imagine it would?
John S.
Narvy, I regret to inform you that despite my poor choice to include the word “a”, the phrase is still appropriate in Jewish circles.
Often, an individual will be reffered to as goyim because they are seen as part of a collective. It’s sort of like saying “Defense guy is Borg.”
Mac Buckets
Ummmm, I was just quoting Teddy Kennedy. Sorry you are not as well-informed as I am.
adk46er
New York Times headline: “The sun is hot – women and children are affected the most”
Balloon-juice regulars: “Just because John Cole says the sun is hot doesn’t make it so.
I’m looking forward to the day when John writes something that’s 99.9% true and everyone resists the temptation to quibble about the real meaning of what he wrote, his motives for writing it, the difference between his actual words and what he was implying…