Committee Confirmation Vote
[Posted by The Angry Clam]
You know, I’m listening to Senator Leahy’s speech, and he mentioned that he was encouraged that Roberts indicated that he would defer to Congress in commerce clause and spending clause cases.
Anyone want to bet that Leahy signs on to a public statement condemning the Supreme Court when it upholds the Solomon Amendment later this year, with Roberts’ vote?
UPDATE BY PATTERICO: Looks like part of my prediction is going down in flames. Several Democrat Senators on the Judiciary Committee are voting for Roberts. But Feinstein, Schumer, and Biden are all voting against Roberts. I gave them too much credit for being politically savvy, and I’ve never been so happy to be wrong. Some of these people might have had some credibility with fair-minded people who just weren’t paying close attention until now. A vote against Roberts destroys that credibility. Excellent. Bring on Luttig!
UPDATE x2 BY PATTERICO: Here is the transcript.
UPDATE x3 BY PATTERICO: And here is the final vote tally: 13-5.
I see it differently, Patterico.
Note that all the Democrats that voted yes made a big deal to emphasize that “fair-minded” people can disagree.
This is more a set up for “we didn’t just vote on qualifications, and we voted our consciences both ways. Screw this guy, here’s a filibuster.”
Also, Judge Luttig’s clerks are kind of goofy. They will all be working for the Supreme Court next year. Just FYI.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 9/22/2005 @ 10:05 amMaddened Mollusk,
Have I got you right? You think the D’s will filibuster Roberts anyway?
If true, then should Bush wait before nominating the next candidate, thereby ensuring that the filibuster is over Roberts, now a hardened target? Or should he name SDO’s replacement before that, knowing that the next target may be more politically vulnerable to a FB than is JR, potentially moving the FB fight onto ground more suitable to the D’s?
I mean, if you’re right, it seems to me that Bush couldn’t pick a better candidate than Roberts for breaking a filibuster.
ras (f9de13) — 9/22/2005 @ 10:59 amThe current Democratic Party is driven by interior players with very myopic views. The WI Senators fell out for Roberts as their seats are not so secure. Leahy is something of a Specter collegue. He may be playing the game Patterico suggested.
I wouldn’t be so hard on yourself at this point. In any case, the next pick looks like a filibuster followed by the nuke. We should have that wager settled either way.
Bush didn’t gain any confidence with his base on Roberts. He needs to do better next time. It should be a brutal fight.
Advice to Bush: Pick someone that can clearly defend a strong position–not a stealth candidate. Don’t expect to be treated kindly.
Paul Deignan (9e57a7) — 9/22/2005 @ 12:46 pmras-
Nope. Next nominee, regardless of who it is. Therefore, let’s make it a good one, and put Luttig up.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 9/22/2005 @ 12:55 pmWhat the Democrats think they are saying is “This far and no further.” What they are saying is “We have utterly no idea where the mainstream is, except that we are increasingly not part of it.”
No matter who Bush puts up next will be pilloried as a troglodyte hater of all things good. The next candidate will be filibustered and the Republicans will let them get away with it. Senator Specter all but signed off on it himself.
So, who gets sacrificed and who goes third. The Dems can’t filibuster twice without admitting that their values are out of touch.
Kevin Murphy (9982dd) — 9/22/2005 @ 1:08 pmClam,
Thx for the reply. But why do I have this oh-so weird feeling that there’s a surprise still in store: e.g. Ginsburg resigns and Bush nominates Clement to replace her alongside, say, Luttig for SDO, hearings held simultaneously.
OK, weird dream. I must be channeling again. But still, there’s just this feeling…. Am I the only one who senses that there’s still a big twist or turn of some kind, just down the road and not on anyone’s map yet?
Interesting times.
ras (f9de13) — 9/22/2005 @ 3:14 pmHere’s the punchline: Roberts is Souter x2. Bush puts up someone equally crappy for SDO, and then Stevens dies or leaves, and we get Gonzales there.
The Roberts Court becomes the new Warren court.
Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 9/22/2005 @ 3:17 pmAC,
At some point one must ask if their desire for a cetain type of nominee is rooted in the Constitution or in ideology. Roberts demonstrates again and again that he is a strict constructionalist. What more could you want?
Roberts is fine. Souter was a leap of misplaced faith annoited by political expediency and christened by wishful thinking. Gonzales is a known problem, readily identified by this time.
Don’t let your imagination run away with you.
Paul Deignan (9e57a7) — 9/22/2005 @ 5:16 pmClam, Roberts was pick no. 1, not third choice. We’re going to be ok on this one. He’s savvy enough to avoid a Borking. I’m not worried about his own voting, and he might be someone who can lead at least one of the other Justices back to the straight and narrow. But maybe that’s just my optimism speaking (what do you expect from a Reagan Republican?).
Luttig would be a good choice for O’Connor’s seat. There are a few others, as well. If the Dems filibuster, well, say goodbye to the filibuster for judicial nominations. They’ve taken yet another figurative ride in fat Ted Kennedy’s Olds (with Feinstein all but passed out in the back, and Biden et al. fighting over who gets to ride shotgun); the real question is which of them doesn’t make it out when they hit the water that will be the confirmation process of the next highly qualified nominee (optimism again — see Reagan Republicanism, above).
TNugent (6128b4) — 9/22/2005 @ 7:16 pmI am for making them do a physical filibuster none of this filibuster on the record, everything else goes on as usual.
I want the American People to see them acting like the fools they are, then the reaction to kicking the practice of the Filibuster out will be greeted with a sigh of relief and disgust
Dan Kauffman (0cf47b) — 9/22/2005 @ 8:10 pmhttp://www.cato.org/dailys/07-16-03.html