Law.com Blog Network

About The Bloggers

Blogroll

Roberts' lucky thirteen: Nomination goes to Senate floor

Five Democratic senators just said no, however.  The AP's Jesse Holland reports that Dianne Feinstein of California, Joseph Biden of Delaware, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Charles Schumer of New York and Dick Durbin of Illinois voted no, with Feinstein saying she knew as little about Roberts after the hearings as before.

The question facing the Senate is whether to oppose Roberts now -- or to focus on the as-yet unannounced second nomination President Bush gets to make to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Holland writes,

"The Senate's 44 Democrats seem to be split on whether they can, or should, mount even symbolic opposition to Roberts. His confirmation as the 109th Supreme Court justice is assured because most of the Senate's 55 Republicans are supporting him and Democrats have decided not to filibuster his nomination."

Here's what bloggers think: Ann Althouse announces And the Committee votes yes, as does Lyle Denniston on SCOTUSblog. Howard Bashman of course has a running list of news stories.

Wondering how other Democrats were dealing with the Roe v. Wade issue, I clicked over to Ms. Musings, where Christine Cupaiuolo pulls out Wisconsin Democrat Sen. Russ Feingold's public statement on why he voted for Roberts. She quotes Feingold's statement as saying, "Judge Roberts did not expressly say how he would rule if asked to overturn <i>Roe v. Wade</i>. But if Judge Roberts abides by what he said about how he would approach the question of stare decisis, I think he should vote to uphold <i>Roe</i>. He certainly left some wiggle room ..." Cupaiuolo responds, "Er, yeah." 

The Volokh Conspiracy has nothing on the nomination yet, but I'll use Orin Kerr's post, "I'm sure Karl Rove is listening," to transition to the politicking around the next nominee. Prof. Marci Hamilton, blogging on the LA Times' Live Current blog, wonders why the big silence within the beltway:

"The vital question is who will replace Justice O'Connor, if one wants to chart the Court's future. It has been disappointing that the White House has focused on such a small number of women, as though there are not enough qualified Republican women out there. Once Roberts' confirmation was a fait accompli, one would have thought there would have been a lengthy list of distinguished Republican women to consider. In the absence of such public speculation, one can only wonder if the list of white males under consideration for the Roberts nomination is still in play. Female or male, this is the seat that could cause a dramatic change in the Court if an ideologue is nominated."

Over on Postcards from Metroburbia, I was interested to read John Kerry speaks out on Judge John Roberts nomination (includes copy of Kerry "campaign" e-mail). Joe Trippi, in Roberts a Dangerous Bet, quotes Ralph Neas, President of People for the American Way. UCLA law prof Steve Bainbridge has a rather different take in What Expertise Should O'Connor's Replacement Have.

More later ...

Posted by Laurel Newby on September 22, 2005 at 03:06 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cce2453ef00d83554e18669e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Roberts' lucky thirteen: Nomination goes to Senate floor:

 
 
 
About ALM  |  About Law.com  |  Customer Support  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms & Conditions