Vote count for Mr. Roberts
 

In case you missed it, John Roberts' nomination passed out of the Judiciary Committee today by a vote of 13-5. A full Senate vote will happen in the next few weeks.

Frankly speaking, there is no possibility that Roberts will fail to be confirmed in the full Senate: the question is simply one of vote counts. Even so, Roberts' nomination will have a significant effect on the next Bush appointment. As such, the vote count is extremely important. On the one hand, Democratic support for Roberts would make it easier for them to justify opposing a Janice Brown appointment the next time around. On the other, giving Roberts a mandate might encourage court moderates (Souter, Kennedy) to move to the right enough to accomodate their new Chief Justice.

Three Democrats on the Judiciary Committee defected to support Roberts. Republicans remained unanimously behind their party's candidate. Will the trend continue on the Senate floor or will the Republican momentum stall?

Politicophile's predicted votes for John Roberts: 73
That's:
Leahy
Feingold
Stabenow
Kohl
Landrieu
Nelson, Ben
Johnson
Baucus
Conrad
Cantwell
Lieberman
Clinton (This is the hardest vote to predict!)

Also include 54 Republicans: Chaffee might bail on them.

The hard vote total comes to: 66

But I think a few more Democrats might decide to support Roberts. Hence, my 73 prediction above.

What think you?

He's going to be confirmed. I think the Dems are going to have to swallow the pill with Roberts, his career is too teflon to waste their time on objecting. They're going to save their political capital for the next one, hoping Bush tries to appoint a very conservative nominee and make a big fuss about it on the news.

I try not to be to far either way. But when the poster children of the Democrats are Fat Kennedy, Botox Kerry, Feinstein...., and Howard Dean, nothing will surprise me. On the flip repube-licans are probably not much better, they just happen to not piss me off so much.

Roberts is so legit, that it confounds how he could not get a "mandate" approval.

Politics is a pathetic game.

I think his major distraction will obvioiusly be that he refuses to admit his beliefs will influence his rulings.

The Supreme Court originally ruled 7-2 in Roe v. Wade. In the 90's as the court lurched rightward, they ruled that states could impose hurdles, as long as they are not "undue"ly difficult. Now there are 500 laws requiring teens to tell parents, pregnant women to attend lectures that tell they are killing their baby, classes etc. None of which has the court yet said, "that is unduly restrictive".

With Roberts, teflon though he may be, there is a real possibility that while Roe v. Wade will stand, it'll look pretty much like the flag over Baltimore in the war of 1812.

Whats funny is as a dentist I can't put a filling in a kids tooth without parental consent, but abortion? No, no reason for a parent to know :rolleyes:

That's something about the rulings I've never understood....that the courts can say 'I don't need to know if my daughter is getting an abortion'. :crazy:

In both of your cases, I'm betting your daughters wouldn't be in that circumstance. If they were, they'd probably tell you anyways. Why should there be a law <I>requiring</i> them to tell you?

Don't you think there are many families already in peril due to abuse, incest etc. where having to disclose this would be a bad thing?

Basically, there should be a law that requires my notification simply because my daughter is a juvenile. Hence, my responsibility.

In your hypothetical of abuse or incest, it is already a law in almost every state that requires law enforcement notification in suspected cases of abuse and if its incest then it would only be common sense to notify me as much as the authorities.

Kerry and Reid have already stated they are voting against Roberts. The strategy appears to be a message to Bush that this was not a slam-dunk appointment, and that his next pick should also be a moderate. Roberts will be confirmed, of course.

I understand your argument, and juvenile notification is not a hill I would die on for pro choice. However, I think the biggest problem is that given the choice between telling the parents and not having an abortion is that the juvenile will tell NOBODY, and will do everything in her power to miscarry. There have been some pretty horrific results in states that require notification.

It looks like the Democrats are going to have a nicely split vote, with a mixture of liberals, moderates, and conservatives voting for Roberts. That group will then have considerable influence in the next battle. If Bush nominates a radical, as I fully expect him to, we could be on hand for a full-out war.

What seems to be pissing off Kennedy, Feinstein, et. al. is that Roberts is so much smarter than they are.

He's definitely smart enough not to give them any ammunition with anything he says.

That's what I noticed. I watched some of the confirmation hearings, and he was masterful. Charles Schumer was trying to grill him about the right to privacy, and Roberts was like a matador.

So in other words he is very qualified and anyone who doesn't vote for him is doing so based solely on their political leanings.

I saw some of Schumer's questioning Roberts and I thought at the time that inspite of his "oh, I really want sooo much to vote for you" crocodile tears, he would never vote for him in a million years, regardless of what he (Roberts) said.

I also would have laid money down in Vegas (assuming I could have found a bookie stupid enough to take the bet) that Kennedy and Feinstein would vote no out of political spite.

I'm not sure that "political spite" is the best term to use. I think of it as political realism, the understanding that Supreme Court appointments are political decisions whether it should be that way or not.

From a proscriptive standpoint, the judiciary should be independent of politics. However, the reality of the situation is that Democrats have a stake in preventing reasonable conservative nominees from being confirmed.

I understand what you are saying and agree. Unfortunately as we both acknowledge, there are political realities involved. As I see it, the three's 'No' vote is just grandstanding for political purposes, not based on anything as silly as the man's qualifications.

I don't think anyone questions Roberts' qualifications, because he is superbly qualified. The political reality of greatest import is not "grandstanding" as you suggest, but attempting to determine where Roberts will take the court over the next 30 years. Had his opinions and writings from the first Bush administration been relinquished, we would know a great deal more about how he views the law.

That is true. However, the members of the judiciary committee knew enough about Roberts' record to know:

a. that he is qualified for the job
b. that he will uphold the constitution

The problem is that they also know they will disagree with Roberts' judicial philosophy. Thus, this is not a matter of the Democrats thinking that Roberts won't do his job on the bench: they just think he will vote the wrong way and thus oppose him on pragmatic, political, and inappropriate grounds.

Exactly. Once again, we agree on all counts. :)

I think it needs to be looked at on a more compromising level. As far as Roberts goes, he's not nearly as bad as a nomination could be. He's far more centerd than I thought that Bush's nomination would be. He's no Earl Warren, but I don't think the US is in for any dire circumstances, yet.

What? You so crazy. Is it really "common sense" to you to notify suspected assailants of incest and abuse so they can further manipulate the lives of their victims, their "responsibility?" I wish I had the password to fantasyland like you and ustwo.

See, like most typical kneejerk reactionists, you are automatically assuming that I am the assailant and not some uncle/brother/grandfather.

Which takes us straight back to fantasyland where apparently it's inconceivable that a father could impregnate his daughter or have an extremely violent reaction to learning his daughter is pregnant. Or in the scenarios you introduce, that parents would look the other way to protect familial bonds as is often the case (e.g. Theo Van Gogh's Submission part 1).

note 1: No where did I assume we were talking about the actual relationship between you and your daughter.

note 2: "Reactionary" refers only to an extreme conservative.

nowhere did I say that father/daugher abuse/incest was inconceivable nor did I say that all fathers should have violent reactions to hearing the daughter is pregnant. Both of those are assumptions on your part, not a rationalization of facts.

I did not intimate that you were specifically referring to MY family, I simply used myself as the example to show how the law should work. You can substitute 'father' with 'parent' if you wish.

congratulations for adding a new sphere to the reference.

Lets not go any further in the direction this is headed....OK

78-22: an easy win for the Republicans...

22 Democrats (exactly 50%) voted against Roberts, which is puzzling considering that there was absolutely nothing in his record that should have prompted those votes. Ah, partisanship.

Hillary Clinton voted "no", presumably in an effort to appeal to the Democratic Primary base. We'll find out in just over two years if it worked.

Anybody else excited for all the fun that's going to ensue when the democrats start kicking and screaming at Shrubs next appointment? Dean is already telling them to gear up for filibuster. Should get even more interesting when the Repubelicans throw the nuclear option out there, which in this case will be warranted.

How do you know what's in his record? No one had acces to it except for a very limited amount of information. Plus, he wouldn't talk.

1. Lack of experience on the bench. He's got a lot of experience as an attorney, but very little experience on the bench. And, yet, he's nominated for the highest judicial position in the nation.

2. At least one instance of questionable ethics. John Roberts interviewed with the White House for the SCOTUS job (at the time, O'Connor's seat) at the same time that he was deciding an important case for the White House. Whether or not any impropriety occured is irrelevant, as legal ethics require that a judge fastidiously avoid even the appearance of impropriety. (http://www.slate.com/id/2124603)

Are all these politicians..eh I mean judges starting to look alike or what????