|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:37
|
|
13-5 vote. I don't think there is any doubt that Roberts gets confirmed (unless a bombshell news story comes out).
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/22/p...artner=homepage
quote:
September 22, 2005
Senate Panel Endorses Roberts's Nomination as Chief Justice
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON, Sept. 22 - The Senate Judiciary Committee strongly endorsed Judge John G. Roberts Jr. today to be the next chief justice of the United States, sending the nomination to the full Senate for confirmation next week.
The 13-to-5 vote, with 3 Democrats joining the 10 Republicans on the committee, put Judge Roberts in line to succeed the man for whom he was once a clerk, the late William H. Rehnquist. Judge Roberts is only 50, so he could be chief justice for many years.
Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who heads the committee, said Judge Roberts "has a real sense for building consensus," a gift that will serve him well as he takes his place on a court that has often been sharply split.
Committee Republicans heaped praise on the nominee, for his undisputed intellectual acumen and for what they see as the proper role of a jurist. "He emphasizes the importance of modesty and humility in the role of a justice," said Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa.
The Democrats who backed Judge Roberts were generally more restrained. Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking minority member on the panel, said that despite his vote in favor of the nominee he was very disappointed in him for not being more forthcoming and with the White House for not consulting more with the Senate.
Another Democrat who voted "yes," Senator Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, said he had been persuaded because of the nominee's "sterling reputation as a lawyer and a judge" and was therefore voting with "my hopes, not my fears." Senator Russell D. Feingold, a Democrat also from Wisconsin, said he was voting yes because he considered the nominee "a lawyer's lawyer," not an ideologue.
Judge Roberts has "a record that few could top," Mr. Feingold said. But the senator said he still differed with some of the judge's views, and that the judge was not as frank with the committee as he should have been.
Voting against Judge Roberts were Senators Dianne Feinstein of California, Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, Joseph R. Biden of Delaware, Charles E. Schumer of New York and Richard J. Durbin of Illinois..
Senator Feinstein, who supports abortion rights, said the nominee had not provided enough information on how he feels about important issues. "I cannot in good conscious cast a 'yea' vote," she said.
Mr. Kennedy said Judge Roberts had displayed "a cramped, narrow view" of civil rights law and had declined repeated opportunities to clarify his views on the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which Mr. Kennedy said the Reagan White House tried to weaken when the nominee was a young lawyer in the administration.
Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, sharply disagreed with Mr. Kennedy and said any objective look at the transcripts of the hearing would show how wrong Mr. Kennedy was. The judge "richly deserves" confirmation, Mr. Kyl said.
Mr. Biden said he had agonized over his decision, which he called "a very close call, a very close call." The senator said he had not been persuaded that Judge Roberts was sufficiently committed to rights of privacy, particularly on "right to die" issues. "I must regretfully vote no," Mr. Biden said.
Mr. Schumer said he, too, regretted that he had to vote no. The senator said the nominee had failed to answer the most vital question of all - "Who is Judge Roberts?" - and that there was "a reasonable danger" Judge Roberts could become a jurist bent on changing America through the courts, as conservative Republicans have been intent on doing, in Mr. Schumer's view.
Mr. Durbin said he had given the nominee "a clean slate." But, the senator said, "At the end of the process, sadly, it was mostly an empty slate." The judge had failed to allay concerns on how he would rule on workers' rights, women's rights, environmental issues and other crucial matters, Mr. Durbin said.
Republicans on and off the Judiciary Committee have been unanimous in calling the nominee a brilliant jurist. That description has also been embraced by Democrats, even those who oppose him because, they say, he was not candid enough in committee hearings and had shown an insensitivity to civil rights issues as a young lawyer in the Reagan administration.
The remaining Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are Senators Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John Cornyn of Texas, Sam Brownback of Kansas and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.
Because there are 55 Republicans in the Senate, and several Democrats not on the Judiciary Committee have either said they will vote for Judge Roberts or are leaning that way, confirmation is assured. Judge Roberts, who now sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, will sit as chief justice when the Supreme Court reconvenes in early October. But whether he will preside over a full court is still not clear.
President Bush originally nominated Judge Roberts to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has announced her retirement. But when Chief Justice Rehnquist died on Sept. 3, the president renominated Judge Roberts to be chief justice.
Chief Justice Rehnquist was a conservative jurist. Judge Roberts is also a conservative, so his elevation to the Supreme Court will not change the tribunal's balance. But Justice O'Connor was regarded as a "swing" justice, between the court's conservative and liberal blocks, so whoever is nominated to succeed her will draw intense scrutiny - and no doubt opposition from some Democrats who do not want the court to turn to the right. |
|
22-09-2005 22:41
|
|