Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Roberts Will be Confirmed With 70+ Votes. Disagree?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:27 PM
Original message
Roberts Will be Confirmed With 70+ Votes. Disagree?
I would bet my last dollar that Judge Roberts will end up getting at least 70 votes in the Senate.

All this talk of a filibuster or even outright rejection of Roberts seems ridiculous to me.

He seems as though he is eminently qualified for the job, with service in ranking positions in the Attorney General and Solicitor General's offices in Reagan and Poppy's administrations.

Not to mention that while in private practice he argued before the Supreme Court 39 times.

He has also been serving on on 4th Circuit Court in DC (thought by many to the most important next to the SCOTUS) for two years, and was confirmed to that court by unanimous consent.

That being as it is, I see no way for us to argue in the Senate that Roberts is not qualified for the job, and all we have are ideological and philosophical differences with the man, and I don't even really believe that is a good enough reason to reject a nominee.

When speaking of blocking Roberts, remember that Scalia was confirmed by a vote of 98-0, and that Clarence Thomas won confirmation even in a Democratic Senate. Both of those justices seem to be much worse and much more ideological than Roberts is.

I see Roberts sailing through committee, some of our better senators will press him on issues such as Roe and stare decisis, but I doubt he will give much away.

Its for these reasons that I believe Roberts will get at least 70 votes for confirmation in the full Senate.

Now, does anyone have anything other than arguments based in emotion to disagree with me?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BamaLefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. He Gets 70+
Yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunny planet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #1
15. I predict 60 votes yea. Biden 'your the real deal' bankrupcy boy will be
one of them, and he thinks he's got a shot at the 2008 nomination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
2. Unless they can prove there is somethign truly wrong with the guy, I
imagine we are stuck with him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
3. Take a look, tell me what you think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:35 PM
Response to Original message
4. I suspect under 70 but he'll pass
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nite Owl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
5. Right now I would agree
that he at the least he would pass comfortably but there is more than a month until those hearings and lots of stuff that can still come out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mikosmaxairitsas Donating Member (13 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:41 PM
Response to Original message
6. He'll get 60-65.
He'll take nearly all of the Republican votes, and possibly the conservative Democratic vote. I doubt he'll hit 70, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
punpirate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
7. Thomas was confirmed, as I recall...
... by only 52 votes.

Roberts is another matter--most of his work as an assistant Solicitor General was political--and his amicus curiae briefs were highly ideological in some instances.

Smarter senators will jump on some of his comments in those--including that Rove v. Wade was "wrongly decided." His anti-environmental judgments are another place to go after him.

He's got very little time as a judge--just a smidgen over two years--even O'Connor had more time than that as an AZ state court judge.

And, probably the most obvious thing not working in his favor right now is that his first confirmation hearings in committee did not go well. As I recall, he refused to answer several questions about his prior statements, and his nomination languished for two years. He ended up being confirmed in May, 2003 on a voice vote, because some people didn't want to admit they'd voted for him.

If he pulls the same routine in committee hearings this time, yes, I think could be subject to a filibuster, but, finally, no, I don't think that will last long--especially if Frist starts screaming about the nuclear option. I don't think there's enough gumption amongst Senate Dems to stand up to Frist on that.

My guess on a final vote? Anywhere from 55-45 to 62-38 or thereabouts. Lieberman's already made up his mind in favor, and so has Reid, I think. There will be a few others.

Of course, all that will depend in part upon how much heat these people get in the next month from Planned Parenthood, NARAL and NOW.

Cheers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. The 102nd Congress had 57 Democrats
which is also something to keep in mind when speaking of Thomas' confirmation.

Aside from getting the votes from all of the Democratic "gang of 14" members and all Republicans, I see Bayh, Baucus, Johnson, and Bill Nelson definitely voting for confirmation.

And most of this group as well: Conrad Dorgan Bingaman Jeffords Lincoln Obama and Reid.

I have already heard Republicans claiming that Ginsberg set a "precedent" in 1993 by refusing to answer many questions on she might rule in specific cases, so get ready to hear a lot about that in the next few weeks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sonicx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. not sure about other issues but...
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 11:06 PM by sonicx
She (Ginsberg) explicitly said she was pro-choice in the Senate hearings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
punpirate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Well, I see a qualitative difference between...
... answering questions on a purely hypothetical basis (which can be easily distorted), and refusing to answer questions about previous statements and legal opinions (the Bork defense), although it's certain the Repugs will try to confuse the two.

I'd really like to see the pro-choice groups go after the Democrats, though. The preliminary statements on Roberts from them aren't at all kind. This is NARAL's front page today:

http://www.naral.org /

Cheers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Democrats
Then they will have to live with the consequences he will cause on the court. Oh,and Bayh can kiss the Democratic nomination goodbye
If he votes to confirm. He won't survive till Iowa when the progressives get through with him for voting for a Anti Choice,Anti
Environmental,anticivilrights Justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enough already Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 07:10 AM
Response to Reply #14
25. Any Democratic voting in favor can kiss 2008 goodbye
That means you, Hillary and Biden.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leyton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:47 PM
Response to Original message
8. I am of a similar mind.
I don't think that ideological differences - unless they are incredibly extreme, and I don't know much about Roberts yet - are enough to disqualify a nominee. And as you say he is obviously qualified.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adarling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:20 PM
Response to Original message
11. Doesn't it bother anyone that this man has NO EXPERIENCE
He was a circuit judge for two years and that was it and they are appointing him to the high court. I know i am only 22 but there is something wrong there, THIS IS ALL THEY COULD FIND!! and why are the congressional democrats deciding to bend over and take it again, are they that weak?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Earl Warren was never a judge
And he was appointed Chief Justice.

I think he was the governor of California (shudder) before that.

And IMHO he was one of the most gifted jurists of our time, giving us rulings such as Brown and several other civil rights cases.

There are several instances throughout our history of senators and other public officials that weren't judges being named to the SCOTUS, so this type of appointment is not unheard of.

I find the fact that Roberts argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court to be extraordinary, and from what I have read so far, I haven't seen anything to suggest he is not qualified for the job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike923 Donating Member (325 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #13
37. Earl Warren's background
Executive at Southern Pacific Railroad, former District Attorney, was Dewey's Vice Presidential candidate, friend of Eisenhower. He is appointed to the Supreme Court and he turns out to be the Greatest Activist Justice in history and an Icon of Liberalism.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluesplayer Donating Member (660 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 12:03 AM
Response to Original message
16. Nope
If he makes it out of committee, he'll be approved by unanimous consent, so the dems don't have to show their weakness quantitatively.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enough already Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #16
26. Can the Pukes insist on a roll call vote? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #26
38. Yes.
All one would have to do is object to the unanimous consent motion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lecky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 12:07 AM
Response to Original message
17. Unless this guy has some serious skeletons I have no doubt he will be
Just because the man is a pro-life conservative is no reason he shouldn't be confirmed.

I say this as a pro-choice liberal btw...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Singular73 Donating Member (999 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
18. The guy doesnt bother me
This is the wrong fight to pick, IMO.

We all knew that Bush would pick a conservative.

Thank your favorite invisible man it wasn't one from the Radical Christian Right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 05:45 AM
Response to Original message
19. I Suspect He Gets Eighty Plus Votes...
Scalia was confirmed 98-0....

That's all you need to know...

Clarence Thomas's confirmation is a poor guide to other confirmations....

Clarence Thomas had Anita Hill's harassment accusations hanging over his head and this gave opposing senators something to base their opposition on besides his ideology...

Thomas is the worst followed by Scalia and Rehnquist....


I think John Roberts will be like William Rehnquist with an amiable veneer....

Losing elections suck......

This is what you get....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 05:52 AM
Response to Original message
20. I think it might be a good idea to see what the hearings reveal before ...
making predictions. At this point, I do not have enough data for more than a wild assed guess with no value at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 05:54 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. I'm Willing To Go Out On A Limb ....
He was vetted by the Senate and the FBI prior to his appointment to the DC Circuit Court in 03....

I think he was confirmed by ninety plus votes or so....


So we do have some basis for making a judgement or prediction....

This is an easy one....

This is the consequences of losing elections...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 06:26 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Losing elections ...
certainly takes some options off the table.

There are several Senators I intend to watch: Kennedy, Harkin, Boxer, Schumer and Clinton. I am interested in their judgement on the nomination.

What will be even more significant is the judgements of the 7 Democratic Senators in the "Gang of 14". I have not yet heard their public pronouncements although I have heard that rat-bastard Graham from SC pule on and on and I suspect those slime-balls will not vote with the Democrats on a fillibuster because they were never sincere to begin with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. I'm Pretty Sober About This Nomination...
You or me would certainly not appoint him but unless there are major negative revelations about him I see him passing easily...

The fact that Scalia passed 98-0 should sober anybody....


He reminds me of every Republican corporate lawyer to come down the pike....

Shallow, materialistic, and amoral....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
djg21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 07:01 AM
Response to Original message
23. I think he'll get closer to 80!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 07:16 AM
Response to Original message
27. I will be paying attention to which Democrats
vote for him, and which ones don't show up for the vote.

I've made up my mind this is the first "litmus test" for whether or not I will vote for them for President, should they be the nominee instead of Wes Clark.

If they vote YEA, or they DON'T VOTE, they are automatically excluded from my consideration. I don't care who they are or how much I like them.

We have to start drawing the line somewhere.

TC



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 07:30 AM
Response to Original message
28. Maybe, but it will be very wrong if it happens
"That being as it is, I see no way for us to argue in the Senate that Roberts is not qualified for the job, and all we have are ideological and philosophical differences with the man, and I don't even really believe that is a good enough reason to reject a nominee."

Ideological and philosophical differences of that extent are EVERY reason to oppose a nominee.

Any Democrats who are not willing to oppose this brand of pseudo-conservativism on those grounds are not worth spit.

It will be the nail in the coffin of two-party politics if Democrats quietly roll over because he is a "nice man" and qualified on paper, while overlooking the impact the Federalist Society philosophy will have on ordinary Americans and the disenfranchised.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 07:33 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. Supreme Court Nominees From The Other Party
have been getting appointed and confirmed since the beginning of the republic....


I wouldn't appoint a heartless , corporate stooge to the highest court in the land but under our constitutional framework I see no alternative...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. Times change
Edited on Thu Jul-21-05 08:07 AM by Armstead
The problem is that there is a concerted attack on EVERYTHING that has been accomplished since 1930, and part of the Republican stretegy to do that is by castrating the public's ability to protect the public interest and freedom.

If Democrats roll over for that instead of standing on principle, the whole notion of there being "another party" becomes meaningless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. I Couldn't Agree More That The Nation Is Going Backwards...
I just don't see how we can prevent this nomination...

I go back to the Scalia nomination....

He was confirmed 98-0....

We need to start winning elections ...


I think America is a center right nation and by center right I mean a nation that tips slightly to the right not far right which is the direction Bush is taking us....

I think history and social science data bears my point of view out...

For instance I believe most Americans believe in a right to privacy and would be aghast that three and now possibly four justices don't share that view....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. Even if can't prevent, should strongly oppose
I disagree with you that the nation is "center right." Such labels don't really mean much, because it depends on the issue.

It is equally true to say the nation is basically center left. Liberal policies like Social Security, minimum wage, Medicare, envornmental protection, etc. are strongly supported by the mainstream. So are things like basic abortion rights.

Individually, people are often libertarian, in the "I just want to be left alone" sense. Many liberals fall into that category too. The pro-choice position on abortion, for example, is basically libertarian.

We all have to start thinking outside of the box about these things, and find ways to make clear that liberal and progressive positions are basically mainstream. That includes using things like the Supreme Court nomination process as educational exercises to show the real right-wing agenda.

It also means we should strongly advocate for the otehr side of those issues, instead of giving them perceived legitimacy by going along with them.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. The Difference Between Center Left And Center Right Is A Small One
I think we can agree that America is more conservative than most of the western European democracies who have much more expansive welfare states...

And the concept of the "rugged individual" is much more enshrined here than in most of western Europe...

As far as the libertarian impulse I agree... I sometimes the feel the greatest right of all is to be left alone....

That being said I still don't see how we stop this appointment....


It's just a sad and unpleasant fact...

Perhaps folks will wake up and throw the theocrats out of office but I am not optimistic...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 08:21 AM
Response to Original message
31. I say 64, but yes, about right
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
election_2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 08:54 AM
Response to Original message
34. I actually think it will be 90+ votes...
I think the only Democratic defectors to vote against him will be Boxer, Leahy, Kennedy, Kerry, and possibly Durbin and Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
36. Put me down for 90+ If it was a secret ballot, 70. But once it hits 70+...
Once you get the vote up over 70, few Democratic senators are going to waste it on a protest vote. So you'll have no more than 8 senators dissenting on Roberts, whom most of them know as a nice guy. He's very well respected in Washington.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Oct 21st 2014, 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC