Roberts wins Committee approval
Circuit Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., won approval of the Senate Judiciary Committee early Thursday afternoon to be Chief Justice, gaining the support of three Democrats and all Republicans on that Committee. The final vote, announced at 12:55 p.m., was 13-5.
That strongly suggested that Roberts will, as expected, win an overwhelming vote of approval by the full Senate when it votes late next week. It also indicated he may get a sizeable number of Democrats’ votes in the full Senate.
Perhaps the only surprise was the vote of Sen. Russell Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat and one of the most liberal members of the Senate. He declared his support after concluding that Roberts “will not bring an ideological agenda to the Supreme Court.” The record in the nomination proceeding, the senator said, is that of “a lawyer’s lawyer without an ideological agenda.” Feingold said that “a defining moment” for him in the proceedings was the degree to which Roberts expressed his concern about the super-secret court that grants authority for secret wiretapes to gather foreign intelligence.
Among Democrats, voting with Feingold in favor of Roberts were the Committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, and Feingold’s Wisconsin colleague, Herbert Kohl. Leahy had announced his vote on the Senate floor Wednesday. In brief remarks at Thursday’s Committee session, Sen. Kohl said that he was voting “my hopes and not my fears” about Roberts as a judge. Kohl said he chose “to take Judge Roberts at his word,” about being a modest judge. Those words, the senator said, “will bind him throughout his career.”
Lurking in the background of the strong vote for Roberts — and mentioned by several senators — is the likely fight that may unfold when President Bush makes his next nomination to the Court, to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Democrats seemed to be suggesting that the next nominee will face a more rigorous fight than Roberts did, if that nominee is a conservative more controversial than they have found Roberts to be. Democrats who voted in favor of Roberts indicated their votes were no assurance of approval of the next nominee, especially if their questions are not answered more fully.
Even Republicans conceded the next nominee “will be judged by the standard John Roberts has set.” as Sen. John Cornyn of Texas put it.
After Sen. Edward Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, asked Chairman Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, what the status of the next nominee was, Specter said that President Bush intends to await the final vote on Roberts before naming a nominee to succeed O’Connor, but will send up a name “very promptly thereafter.”
Specter said there was no timetable for the next proceeding, saying “we will take the time we need…We will take it as it comes.” But he also said there would be a thorough inquiry into any writings of the next nominee, plus a broad background investigation. He did imply that the Committee may still be working on that next process into November.
Roberts nomination is expected to go to the Senate floor on Monday, with a final vote on Thursday or Friday of next week.
Is this accurate?:
Rehnquist – nominated by Nixon – approved 68-26
Stevens – Ford – 99-0
O’ Conner – Reagan – 99-0
Scalia – Reagan – 98-0
Kennedy – Reagan – 97-0
Souter – Bush – 90-9
Thomas – Bush – 52-48
Ginsburg – Clinton – 96-3
Breyer – Clinton – 87-9
If so, what would be the justification for no votes in the full Senate.
Why would Bush be constrained on nominating a conservative to the O’Connor seat?
Comment by ChiLois — September 22, 2005 @ 1:55 pm
In my view, the five “no” votes on the committee make it a sad day for the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the country. That is more “no” votes on the committee that Ruth Bader Ginsburg got from the full Senate. What is the justification for the greater opposition? He is no less qualified. He is no less intelligent. He has no less personal integrity. He is exactly the believer in judicial restraint that President Bush promised during the campaign and the people approved by electing him.
The difference is that in 1993, the Republicans understood that the liberal candidate won the presidental election, and he was going to nominate liberal justices. As long as they were qualified and not too far out in left field, they would be, and were, confirmed with the approval of most of the Republican senators, as well as all the Democrats. The reciprocal understanding is sorely lacking on the other side of the aisle today.
Comment by Kent Scheidegger — September 22, 2005 @ 3:21 pm
As hyperbole goes, the argument that five “no” votes on committee makes it “a sad day for the country” has to rank way up there.
In 1993 and 1994, republican senators weighed the credentials of the candidates, their ideology and integrity relative to other potential candidates, the electoral consequences of voting up and voting down, the institutional consequences, etc. Most of them decided to vote “yes” but a minority decided to vote “no” (including nine on Justice Breyer).
In 2005, the Democrats are weighing the same factors. Once again, most of them will decide to vote “yes” but a minority will decide to vote “no.” How many? Ten? Fifteen? Twenty?
So, the future of the Republic turns on whether this complicated calculus produces nine or twenty no votes? Sounds like a sore winner to me.
Comment by amsiegel — September 22, 2005 @ 4:00 pm
See Senator Hatch’s explanation of the Ginsburg nomination. Note that he says he brought her name to President Clinton’s attention and contrast with the ‘consulation’ that took part in advance to Roberts’ nomination in which the President did not discuss any names with Democratic Senators and Roberts’ name was not among those suggested to him by leading Democrats.
Comment by denominator — September 22, 2005 @ 7:47 pm
I hope amsiegel is right that most of the Democrats in the full Senate will vote yes, but given that 5 of 8 (62.5%) on the committee voted no and 7 not on the committee have already declared opposition, I consider that highly unlikely.
Does the future of the Republic turn on it? Of course not. Is it an indicator of an unhealthy trend? Yes, IMHO.
Comment by Kent Scheidegger — September 22, 2005 @ 8:48 pm
Joining in my “hyperbole” is that well-known right-wing organ of Republican propaganda, the Los Angeles Times:
“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. As last week’s confirmation hearings made clear, Roberts is an exceptionally qualified nominee, well within the mainstream of American legal thought, who deserves broad bipartisan support. If a majority of Democrats in the Senate vote against Roberts, they will reveal themselves as nothing more than self-defeating obstructionists.” (Editorial, Sept. 20, 2005)
Comment by Kent Scheidegger — September 23, 2005 @ 2:05 pm
I agree with Kent. It is a further indicator of an “unhealthy trend” — A tendency to cast a vote (or voice an opinion) not based a nominee’s objectively analyzed qualifications and track record as a jurist, but rather upon a prediction as to how a nominee will decide particular constitutional issues that might come before the Court.
The vote is “outcome driven,” in the same way a justice who adheres to a strict belief in a “living constitution” and concepts such as “evolving standards of decency” will not be constrained to reach the “outcome” he or she desires in a particular case.
I suspect the senators who cast a “no” vote were receiving tremendous pressure from particular politically powerful groups — organizations who want to see particular “outcomes” in cases that might come before the Court, regardless of the constitutional merit of those “outcomes.”
I wouldn’t classify the “no” senators as “self-defeating obstructionists,” as the LA Times has done. Rather, in my view, they are “self-preserving pragmatists” who don’t want to offend particular special-interest groups and thereby risk, I dare say, re-election!
Comment by paul — September 23, 2005 @ 5:39 pm
I guess I’m in the minority here, but I just don’t think that there is much difference in the way in which republican and democratic senators views their roles or that their has been much of an evolotion on such roles over the course of American history. Senators of all parties have in most eras reviewed candidates for the supreme court in a complicated holistic calculation that takes into account their brains, their views, their trust in the president, the politics of the situation, and the likelihood of getting a nominee they prefer. Sometimes the calculus says hold your nose and vote for a nominee you wouldn’t have picked yourself; sometimes it says to vote no.
Saying that the Republicans applied a different standard to Ginsburg or Breyer than the Democrats are applying to Roberts is like saying that someone doesn’t believe in the right to free speech b/c/ they keep quiet.
That having been said, I think I would vote for Roberts, because of the particular strength of his credentials, the sober lawyerly manner he has cultivated over the last decade, and the list of folks waiting in the wings. In casting that vote, however, I would be employing a consequentialist analysis that I assume would frustrate the folks on this thread.
Comment by amsiegel — September 27, 2005 @ 1:50 pm
How about when GOPers filibustered Abe Fortas (giving Johnson’s appointment to Nixon), and blocked Lani Guinire for her support of affirmative action, and blocked Hormel as ambassador simply on account of him being gay? Sure, Roberts is qualified. But if the Constitution wanted to require the Senate to approve all qualified nominees, then it could say so: “Nominees being rejected by the Senate for due cause …” But it doesn’t. I think the Dems can block Roberts for the sole reason that they, like the founders, value checks and balances. Although the country is split between Dems of GOPERS, the GOP controls the Presidency, both houses of Congress, a majority of governorships, and they have appointed all but two of the USSC. The Dems voting ‘NO’ on another arch-conservative in order to demand a balance is a reason not unprecedented, and not forbidden by common sense or the Constitution.
Comment by vance2020 — September 27, 2005 @ 6:01 pm
How about when GOPers filibustered Abe Fortas (giving Johnson’s appointment to Nixon), and blocked Lani Guinire for her support of affirmative action, and blocked Hormel as ambassador simply on account of him being gay? Sure, Roberts is qualified. But if the Constitution wanted to require the Senate to approve all qualified nominees, then it could say so: “Nominees being rejected by the Senate for due cause …” But it doesn’t. I think the Dems can block Roberts for the sole reason that they, like the founders, value checks and balances. Although the country is split between Dems of GOPERS, the GOP controls the Presidency, both houses of Congress, a majority of governorships, and they have appointed all but two of the USSC. The Dems voting ‘NO’ on another arch-conservative in order to demand a balance is a reason not unprecedented, and not forbidden by common sense or the Constitution.
Comment by vance2020 — September 27, 2005 @ 6:02 pm