« Hurricane refugee update | Main | Poor liberal thinking »

Roberts Given the Wave

Overshadowed by the literal waves being made by Rita is the fact that Judge John Roberts has just been given a recommendation by the Senate Judiciary Committee, 13-5. The anti-Roberts votes were Democrats, as expected:

Senator Dianne Feinstein of California was the first to vote against Roberts this morning, followed by Senators Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, Joseph Biden of Delaware and Charles Schumer of New York.

I think they would have been my guesses after applying the crazy-meter to their lines of questioning. That number, by the way, is larger than the number of senators who opposed Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Senate-wide. Here's the transcript of the confirmation debate.

Leahy, Kohl and Feingold backed the nominee. Most around here think the Democrats are trying to act reasonable in the Roberts process so that they get a pass on being completely unreasonable when Bush's second nominee comes to the plate. I think that's also what's going on with editorial pages all over the country endorsing Roberts, especially the LAT:

"It will be a damning indictment of petty partisanship in Washington if an overwhelming majority of the Senate does not vote to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. to be the next Chief Justice of the United States."

My co-worker Tim says Bush's next nominee likely won't come until Roberts is confirmed by the whole Senate next week (floor debate will start Friday). The name may even come after the October recess, which would be mid- to late-October.

As for SCOTUS speculation, Tim notes that Alice Batchelder (6th Circuit Court) had a meeting at the White House this week. Erick at RedState has heard talk of Luttig , Edith Jones and Larry Thompson.

Paul at PowerLine has a point about this committee vote:

A majority of the Committee's Dems now has effectively endorsed the notion that it is proper for a Senator to vote against a supremely qualified conservative nominee, who receives top marks from the ABA and is backed by such liberal organs as the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, unless the nominee promises to decide issues the way the Senator desires. If a majority of Democrats vote that way on the Senate floor, then it seems to me that Republicans will have the right to apply this same concept when Democratic presidents nominate liberal judges in the future.

Noted. Harry Reid has said he won't vote for Roberts, but South Dakota Politics notes that Daschle has thrown Reid under the bus.

I'm hearing estimates of 63 or 64 votes on the floor for Roberts.

UPDATE: I noticed some questions about my status at Wizbang the last time I posted here and forgot to answer them. Kevin's letting me post occasionally on the Roberts nomination while everyone is distracted by Katrina/Rita, Survivor babes, and politics of the great Northeast. I've been gone for the last week because things were slow on the SCOTUS front and I didn't want to overstay my welcome (plus I was distracted by tailgating and Georgia football this weekend) So, long story short, you'll see me around here every once in a while. Thanks for having me!


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Roberts Given the Wave:

» Reaganites Unite! linked with Time To Impeach that Female Ichabod Craine!

» Conservative Outpost linked with Sheehan and the MSM

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Sen. Leahy to back Roberts as chief justice

» Scared Monkeys linked with The ABA Official Report on John Roberts

» Joust The Facts linked with One Down, One To Go

Comments (7)

Quite a gang of dissenters ... (Below threshold)

Quite a gang of dissenters we got here: kennedy, biden, fienstein, et al. What risk takers!! They showed us...OOOOHH!!! You wonder if any of them could count their balls and come up with the same number twice....

Interesting, that Feinstein... (Below threshold)

Interesting, that Feinstein rush to be first with the negative.

I wrote early on to her (she's among the two Senators representing my state), expressing my interest in her supporting Roberts and I THOUGHT her response was odd, moreso than ever before about other issues...she explained with great hesitation the significance of the vote and the position and on and on but nothing about her opinion about Roberts. While I would not have taken the time to write to her/any Senator about my opinion about an issue had I not already comprehended the seriousness of the issue itself (no extensive explanation to me was necessary, is my point, about this issue, as to what it means, why it's important, etc.), she took great pains to avoid revealing directly that she opposed Roberts.

However, by her elaborate explanations about everything about the appointment and nothing about Roberts and her opinion of him, I knew early on she was the stonewall involved here. Her preposterously tangential comments about the shoes of the suffering in WWII Germany was enough to drive the point home.

Did anyone actually comprehend her point, by the way, about those statements made during the course of the Senate Hearings about this very important issue? Meaning, yes, it's an important issue, yes the Hearings are important, but to spend what limited time she had therein talking on as she did and about what, it did make Feinstein appear nuts.

And, Feinstein wrote to me ... (Below threshold)

And, Feinstein wrote to me early on last year in asking people to support and vote for John Kerry, so there's THAT. She was among his most early and ardent enthusiasts. Up to that point, I'd had confidence in her but afterward...

Party loyalists to this degree always come up confounding at times of individual choice (to use a liberal favored term, but in a different context) and I do find that true, also, about those in the GOP who likewise continue to support and enthuse over issues and persons despite respective, obvious discrepancies.

California, at this moment, is undergoing that very thing...we have diversions toward extremes in both parties and efforts by both to discredit anyone who doesn't tow the party lines in either direction. It's tough surviving their suppressive politics.

You're kidding!! She was t... (Below threshold)

You're kidding!! She was talking about shoes of suffering in Eastern Europe? WTF?? Wait a minute!! Her great-grandfather Victor created a man with really bad platform shoes...maybe that's what she was getting at...

I tried googling 'John Robe... (Below threshold)

I tried googling 'John Roberts' on Google Images, and no pictures of him came up. What's up with that? A google conspiracy?

I'm not surprised that Robe... (Below threshold)

I'm not surprised that Roberts will be confirmed, of course, and I accept that it's one of the rewards the Republicans get for controlling the government. I just don't get these continuing references to him as "supremely qualified." I'm not saying he's unqualified, but I'm curious what makes him "supremely" qualified. He has essentially no judicial record to go on, will reveal very little about his view on anything when questioned, and has written opinions on legal matters that the administration won't release. Don't you think it takes more than being a successful, politically connected lawyer to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? Again, I'm not saying he's not qualified. How could I? We don't know anything about the guy. This notion that the Senate Democrats are insulting him by daring to question him before giving him a lifetime appointment to arguably the most important job in the country is ridiculous.I kmnow you'd prefer a total Republican dictatorship, but sorry, we're not there yet.

I can't believe conservatives aren't nervous about this guy (actually, I think many are.) He could just as easily be a Souter as a Scalia.

How about that reccommendat... (Below threshold)
D. Doré:

How about that reccommendation of Ann Coulter? I say President Bush should give her a recess appointment! After pushing the envelope that far Feinstein / Biden / Pelosi and Hillary would be a little more open to almost any other candidate he could nominate for an appointment. As a bonus just think of how much we could get accomplished without S.D.OConner mucking things up!






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy