Roberts heads to the Senate floor

September 22, 2005

As expected, John Roberts was approved by the Senate Judiciary this afternoon. The only question was how many Dems would vote against him. The answer: five.

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved John Roberts’ nomination as the next Supreme Court chief justice, virtually assuring the conservative judge confirmation by the Senate next week.

Three Democrats joined the committee’s 10 majority Republicans in a 13-5 vote to advance the nomination to the full Senate.

Five Democrats Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California, Joseph Biden of Delaware, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Charles Schumer of New York and Dick Durbin of Illinois opposed Roberts.

For those keeping score at home, there are eight Dems on the committee. The three who voted for Roberts were Sens. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.).

I’m a little surprised about Feingold. This won’t help his presidential campaign.

  • I’m a little surprised about Feingold.

    He also voted to confirm John Ashcroft as Attorney General. Feingold’s really weird with these nominations.

  • Very smart on Feingold’s part. Makes it easier for him to vote no on the next nominee.

    There was no reason to vote against Roberts beyond the fact that Bush nominated him.

    The guy is qualified. Bush won. Game over.

  • And it looks good for Feingold for 2008. I think the major issue if he wins the party nomination would be the many No votes that he has made. This would show that he only votes against things that are really a bad idea (Patriot Act). Roberts is the best that we can hope for from the likes of Bush, and is qualified for the position.

  • I agree with Chuck (3) and Frank (4). Roberts is a conservative replacing a conservative. The man is certainly intelligent (like that’s a requirement to succeed in government today) and he certainly knows the law. The fight to gear up for is the one over O’Connor’s successor. That will affect the balance of the court and that’s the one where Dumbya will try to make is mark.

  • Agreed with the others. Ultimately Roberts will probably get 70 votes in the Senate, and Russ voting for him leaves him out of the arguments that erupt over the guy when 2008 rolls around. Plus, he voted against the Patriot Act, which I’m sure he’ll play up. I like that guy — I don’t think he has a chance, but I like him a lot.

  • I’m just amazed at how many people just don’t understand the purpose of an opposition party. He lost my support.

  • It’s not something I was predicting, but Feingold’s yea does seem to be in line with his previous actions with regards to presidential nominations.

    Unless there’s compelling evidence that the nominee would be crap, he gives the President the benefit of the doubt. Seeing as a large chunk of the opposition to Roberts seems to be the lack of hard evidence either way, Feingold hasn’t shifted from his default position.

    So, if that is indeed a correct analysis, then it’s a mixed situation for him. On the one hand, he’s going to get tarred with whatever egregious decisions Roberts passes down but, on the other, he has the potential to be credited for sticking by his principles.

  • In this country we don’t have an opposition party as parliamentary systems do. Any attempt to act like one will guarantee permanent minority status. Those Americans in the center of the political spectrum will not respect those who reflexively vote against everything the opposition does. It’s just not their idea of how politics should work. To pretend otherwise in some vain hope of persuading them of your righteousness is foolish if you ever hope that the Democratic party will return to majority status or at least capture the White House.

  • I give Feingold a pass on this because he really is super-anal-retentive about Constitutional issues– that’s what drove him to be the only Senatore with the cojones to vote against the PATRIOT Act, if you remember.

    I think Roberts is dead wrong for the court, and a president with so little political capital deserves no deference, and Democrats need to oppose him in vast numbers.

    Feingold however? He made the wrong vote here but I won’t hold this against him. He’s a super-scrupulous guy, and while I disagree with him, I think his heart is in the right place. Scrupulous and anal-retentive are NOT the right things for Democrats to be in this day and age of a desperate struggle for survival against the right-wing slime machine, but I certainly aren’t going to pile on him for it.

    • Comments are closed.