It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Democrats Split on Roberts Nomination

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   
The confirmation of John Roberts seems almost certain today, as the Democratic ranking member of the Judiciary Committee said he would vote to confirm him as U.S. Chief Justice. Yesterday, however, the Senate minority leader Harry Reid announced plans to vote against confirmation, but said he wouldn't try to organize a filibuster or persuade other Democrats to vote against him. Given the Republican Senate majority and some Democratic support, he is expected to sail through barring any last minute new revelations.
 



www.nytimes.com
WASHINGTON, Sept. 21 - The ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee said today that he would vote to confirm Judge John G. Roberts Jr. as the 17th chief justice of the United States, having concluded that the nominee is "a man of integrity" who is not shackled to an "ideological agenda."

Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont announced his intention on the Senate floor, less than 24 hours after the Democratic minority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, said he would vote against Judge Roberts. Mr. Leahy's support diminished what little suspense remains over Judge Roberts's prospects.

Mr. Leahy, in words not unlike those of Mr. Reid, said the nomination "presents a close question and one that each senator must carefully weigh and decide."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I think this vote will show who among the Democrats are just ideologues and who can actually make a fair decision. Roberts is clearly an absolutely brilliant lawyer and a mainstream conservative. I think having him as Chief Justice of the United States will be a big plus for the country.

[edit on 9/21/2005 by djohnsto77]




posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   


I think this vote will show who among the Democrats are just ideologues and who can actually make a fair decision. Roberts is clearly an absolutely brilliant lawyer and a mainstream conservative.


Yes, because voting for a man just because he has been approved by the top Republican dog isn't idealogical.


And, hey, I guess it's not possible for a Democrat to make an honest decision to vote against Roberts.

I don't really think this is important news anyway, why don't we just until the actual results.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   
If the democrats cannot block his nomination, then there is no sense in teh democrats continuing to exist. If their party leader, Dean, wants to do everyone a favour, he'll dissolve the party if this happens, and the two sides will go their seperate ones, one joing the republicans, the other forming a third party. Its patently clear that electing Roberts mean the removal of a woman's right to abortion.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   
I may be beyond child bearing, so I should not even worry about abortion.

But that is not what is all about, I will be darn the day I given the rights to my body for, politicians, religious groups and Chief justice anti women rights Robert to decide for me.


marg.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
If the democrats cannot block his nomination, then there is no sense in teh democrats continuing to exist.


Why block him, he is a good choice! I am sure if he was not they could have dug some dirt on him if they wanted.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   
While the Republicans are far from thinking for themselves, a vote for Roberts is a smart vote, and this will definitely reveal who's thinking and who's following. Both parties will have their leaders, and both will have the insufferable sheep blindly following them. It's not the best example of political service, but at least there are enough people doing things right.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Roberts is a brilliant question avoider, thats what he is....as for whether he is qualified to be Chief Justise, that is another matter since he won't answer any questions in a substanive manner, we just do not know....and personally it doesn't matter what their political leanings are, if they refuse to give a substancial accounting of themselves and their views, they should be rejected. And, from the polls I have seen most Americans agree.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Roberts is a brilliant question avoider, thats what he is.....


Bingo!!!!! all charming, poised, groomed and roasted to perfection, he did what he was advise to do. . .not to open his mouth and stick his foot in it.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan Its patently clear that electing Roberts mean the removal of a woman's right to abortion.


I'm not sure that's true. At best (worst depending upon your view) the Supremes could potentially rule to leave it up to the states to regulate.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright
I'm not sure that's true. At best (worst depending upon your view) the Supremes could potentially rule to leave it up to the states to regulate.


Overturning Roe would return the issue to the state legislatures, it wouldn't make it illegal, the Supreme Court doesn't have the power to do that.

I'm not sure he'll vote to do it, but if he does (and I do hope he does), it still won't really change anything -- he's replacing Rehnquist who always voted to overturn it anyway. If the next Justice (replacing O'Connor) is willing to overturn Roe, I think we'll start seeing a chipping away at it, but I think yet another Justice to replace one of the pro-abortion Justices would be needed to see it outrightly overturned.

[edit on 9/21/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 03:06 PM
link   
As an outsider I suggest Robert's will most certainly vote to the Neg of past USC decision: Roe V. Wade.

He's Catholic.

Dallas



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I think the real issue is selecting someone who will not try to write laws from the court. We all elect congress to write laws and a president to administer those laws. I think Roberts is a good choice from that point of view.
Also just in case anyone has not looked at the constitution lately the comformation process is now about how the person will vote but whether they can do the job. As a matter of record Justice's tend not to blindly follow the party lines of the president who appointed them. A true justice will vote based on the arguememts presented by the two parties. It seems to me that Roberts is just such a person.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright
I'm not sure that's true. At best (worst depending upon your view) the Supremes could potentially rule to leave it up to the states to regulate.

Precisely, they're remove it as something that is protected by the constitution, judicial activism along radical partylines. Roberts can't actually review RvW and undo it, the majority that ruled for it are still there, but what he can and will do as Cheif Justice is choose to have the court rule on a number of other cases that will efectively undo it, and eventually the makeup of the court will be made up such that they can overturn it.

I'm not sure he'll vote to do it,

I think we all have to use some common sense here, the man's wife is on a political committee that is trying to outlaw abortion, he's about to join the sole group in the nation that can actually accomplish that. Lets not kid ourselves into thinking that his wife is married to a guy who is neutral on abortion, most people that are anti-abortion can't stand pro-choice people at all, let alone marry and have kids with them. He'll do what he can to over turn it, to make it difficult-to-imppossible to get things like the morning after pill and RU486, and generally roll-back that right.

He's Catholic.

Thats pretty irrelevant. Lots of catholics are pro-iraqwar, but the papacy is absolutely against that. JFK was a catholic but I suspect he wouldn't've made such a ruling, and hell John Kerry is a catholic and that hasn't influenced his decision on the matter. I had assumed that roberts was some sort of protestant, intersting to see that he is catholic. Are there other catholics on the scotus, scalia perhaps??

innerwitness
I think Roberts is a good choice from that point of view.

Why? He's a judicial activist, just from the right of the political spectrum.

but whether they can do the job.

All that is really required is that they be approved by a majority of congress. How that majority is reached the constitution is sensibly silent.

As a matter of record Justice's tend not to blindly follow the party lines of the president who appointed them.

Roberts is clearly a political appointee who's beign patronized by the president, similar to the hacks that were put into FEMA. Bush isn't going to appoint an ideological moderate. One would have to think that the man is an idiot to think that he can't select someone that will in general do what he wants, roll back abortion, break down the barrier between church and state, rule favourably for the government in terror cases, etc etc.

A true justice will vote based on the arguememts presented by the two parties. It seems to me that Roberts is just such a person.

WTF are you basing this on? His records are practically mute.

[edit on 21-9-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Are there other catholics on the scotus, scalia perhaps??


Scalia, Kennedy & Thomas are Catholic. Breyer & Ginsburg are Jewish. Souter's Episcopalian.
www.adherents.com...
[Edit to add link]

[edit on 9/21/2005 by yeahright]



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
WTF are you basing this on? His records are practically mute.


History Nygdan History!

In truth you can only partly judge a man by his words, hundreds have lied before congress and hundreds will follow, but a man's actions will find him out.
All of Roberts decisions are a matter of public record, his history proves that he does not legislate from the bench and that he does not always swing right.
History also confirms that once sworn in Justices seldom follow the line of the party that appointed them. The court is and enity onto itself and the new justices tend to fall into that mentality. Our founding fathers were pretty smart people and they knew the system they devised would give the Justices the freedom to act independent of the party system, which history shows they often do.

[edited 9/22/05 by Innerwitness]



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Roberts was voted out of committee today 13 - 5, with all Republicans plus 3 Democrats voting for him.



FOX News
WASHINGTON — The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13-5 on Thursday to confirm John Roberts to be the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court. The full Senate will vote on the nomination on Monday.

Roberts won the support of all 10 Republicans on the committee and three Democrats -- Ranking Minority Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold, both of Wisconsin.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   
He's a done deal and we'll all be the better for it. I don't think he'll be the toady his critics expect him to be. There have been plenty of justices who turned out much differently than the POTUS who nominated them expected.If Leahy and Feingold could vote for him, he's no wingnut.

I'd much rather have an intelligent, competent man of integrity that I disagreed with than the other way around. And the Dems are smart enough to realize they'll never get Bush to appoint a better candidate than Roberts.
Plus, He's a HOOSIER



new topics




 
1

log in

join