September 22, 2005
And the Committee votes yes.
It's a 13-5 vote for John Roberts, with both Wisconsin Senators, Feingold and Kohl, doing the right thing. The noes are: Dianne Feinstein of California, Joseph Biden of Delaware, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Charles Schumer of New York and Dick Durbin of Illinois.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
"Nos" would look funny too -- like a bobbed "Nose."
Biden is running for president, which immediately casts suspicion of calculation on everything he does. He's been playing to the Dem base ever since he decided to run, when if anything at all was appealing about him before he decided to run, it was his relative independence and moderation. What a whore.
Feinstein, Kennedy, Schumer, and Durbin are just being predictably themselves.
As someone from Illinois I find Durbin's vote predictable, but surprising after hearing a radio interview he did on WGN in Chicago last Thursday morning where he had mostly positive things to say about John Roberts.
Schumer was talking for days like he'd vote for Roberts. I heard lots of praise and attempts to sound supportive from Schumer, which made me think, "Wow! He might vote yes!" So, I was annoyed when he voted 'no', but I guess it is just Schumer being Schumer. Lehey, on the other hand, is a real laugher. Is he the only one who's concerned about preserving credibility for later, when he wants to vote against another nominee? And Feingold? He spends half his time criticizing Roberts and then votes for him! They're so conflicted it's hilarious. And Feinstein wants to know what kind of father or husband Roberts would be! I wonder what the feminists would have said if someone had asked Judge Ginsburg what kind of mother she is.
"[T]hat would have emboldened Bush to shove another originalist down their throats"
Uh - Another one? So far, he's 0 for 1. I can quite easily see him leaving office 0 for 3.
Paul Mirengoff at Power Line seems to have the best perspective on this.
The five Democrats on the Committee who voted against Roberts are already greater in number than the number of Republicans who voted against Justice Ginsberg in the full Senate. She was comfirmed 96-3.
I blame Bush. If he hadn't claimed to be a "uniter not a divider" the Democrats wouldn't be so fervently determined to prove that they are more divided than ever (from their sanity, that is).
Does anyone else think this is going to come back and bite the GOP in in the ass? I have to admit that I'm increasingly pursuaded by what I understand to be Mark Tushnet's argument recently, that the folks who got it wrong were the GOP in letting Ginsburg / Breyer through, not the Democrats today with Roberts. In an era where the court has been used as a shock troop to push a certain agenda, surely the judicial philosophy of the nominee is entirely relevant? It seems to me as if we're make believing as if Footnote Four, the Warren Court and all that came after it had never happened. The assumption that judicial philosophy doesn't matter seems ill-matched to an era when the court's role seems far from settled.
I haven't had a chance to read Justice Breyer's new book, but I assume it says nothing so different to Ginsburg's desire to use the court to "expand civil rights" - which is to say, pursue whichever policy agenda can command a majority at any given time. What liberals have not realized is the danger of creating such tools if one cannot be sure that one can keep hold of them. Likewise, I think that the GOP - filled with hubris and the short-sightedness of the 24 hour news cycle, has forgotten that one day, there will be another Democratic President (or whichever party plays the whigs to the democrats' federalists), and when that day comes, the GOP may even be in a minority in the Senate. The court will still need defending, but we will have taken down the castle walls, cut the drawbridge chains and sold the portcullis for scrap.
I really think it is both humorous and annoying when people make comments about books they've not read.
I personally think Sen. Feingold is to be respected for both his votes for Roberts and Ashcroft. The difficulty in this confirmation is the fact that Roberts is clearly qualified and brilliant, nonetheless, the Democrats are rightly concerned about rights they (and perhaps more importantly, their constituents) think are going to be lost with an "originalist" court. If the confirmation hearings are held simply to determine if the nominee is reasonably intelligent and not insane, then then the nominee's judicial philosophy and application of it to prior cases is unimportant. I just do not think the vote is as easy as most bloggers here think.
With regard to Breyer's book and judicial philosophy, at least he is willing to argue for it and against the originalists, who I think have a judicial philosophy that is easy to comprehend but not exactly easy to apply. My 2 cents.
"And the Committee votes Yes"
----------
"And the Kick is ... Good!"
Is it just me, or is this the Althouse equivalent of a big sports headline?
*back from comment retirement
Mary: Good one!
Post a Comment