The W
Views: 98543270
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
30.8.07 1140
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Roberts confirmed, 78-22 Register and log in to post!
(218 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (15 total)
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 212

Posts: 6901/16172
EXP: 140190559
For next: 845227

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 9 hours
Last activity: 9 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#1 Posted on 29.9.05 1249.35
Reposted on: 29.9.12 1249.38
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/ROBERTS?SITE=RANDOM&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&SECTION=HOME


    Sep 29, 1:11 PM EDT
    Senate Confirms Roberts As Chief Justice


    By JESSE J. HOLLAND
    Associated Press Writer


    WASHINGTON (AP) -- John Glover Roberts Jr. won confirmation as the 17th chief justice of the United States on Thursday, charged by the Senate with the responsibility of leading the Supreme Court through turbulent social issues for generations to come.

    He was being sworn-in at the White House later in the day by Justice John Paul Stevens, the court's senior member and acting chief justice since the death of William H. Rehnquist.

    The Senate voted 78-22 to confirm Roberts - a 50-year-old U.S. appeals judge from the Washington suburb of Chevy Chase, Md. - as Rehnquist's successor. All 55 of the Senate's majority Republicans, and half of the Democrats, voted for Roberts.

    [MORE]


Wanna know who the 22 Democrats are? Here's the roll call vote (senate.gov). I'll spare you some suspense by saying that yes, two of the Nays were the fine senators from California.
Promote this thread!
Lord of the Manor
Chourico
Level: 36

Posts: 180/280
EXP: 303813
For next: 4300

Since: 24.2.03
From: London, United Kingdom

Since last post: 550 days
Last activity: 472 days
#2 Posted on 29.9.05 1328.56
Reposted on: 29.9.12 1329.01
The "beauty" of it is that yes, all 22 nay votes were from Dems. So somehow not a single Rep actual found Roberts to be unsuitable for the position? Talk about partisan voting. And talk about the Dems being too weak to try and stick it to their opposition. This is why the Dems are in such trouble. They're too dumb to stick together and the Republicans are too sleazy to think for themselves. Though, we do see which deficiency is best for holding power.
Boston Idol
Blutwurst
Level: -1

Posts: 212/257
EXP: -732604
For next: 1012542

Since: 17.2.03
From: San Jose, CA

Since last post: 2815 days
Last activity: 2608 days
#3 Posted on 29.9.05 1335.54
Reposted on: 29.9.12 1341.07
Republicans didn't come out for Stanford economist
Tom Campbell because he failed their abortion litmus
test, so they've got only themselves to blame for
village idiot Barbara Boxer still being in Congress.
Dianne Feinstein plays to smark voters by pretending
to consider an issue before she votes the party line,
but Boxer plays to rube liberals by instantly falling
in step behind the left wing of the party. I wonder
if she has a schoolgirl crush on that idiot Schumer?

Frank

"You're looking at a very busy woman!"
- Barbara Boxer on why she bounced over a hundred checks during what became known as the "House Banking Scandal"

ShotGunShep
Frankfurter
Level: 58

Posts: 689/836
EXP: 1568128
For next: 9427

Since: 20.2.03

Since last post: 2483 days
Last activity: 2370 days
#4 Posted on 29.9.05 1342.47
Reposted on: 29.9.12 1342.50
Lord, look up past votes. 4 members of the court, Stevens, Kenndedy, O'Conner, and Scalia(the most conservative voice on the court) were all unanimously confirmed.

spf
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 3319/5402
EXP: 26994517
For next: 137487

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 31 days
Last activity: 5 days
AIM:  
#5 Posted on 29.9.05 1351.36
Reposted on: 29.9.12 1352.35
Welcome to the new world. It started with Bork, it intensified with the GOP takeover in 1994 and the subsequent dicking around with Clinton's nominations, and it will be this way for a very long time. It used to be that court nominations were done in a very genteel manner. But now, things have pretty much changed for good.
BigSteve
Pepperoni
Level: 64

Posts: 804/1091
EXP: 2188914
For next: 25195

Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2787 days
Last activity: 2515 days
#6 Posted on 29.9.05 1419.19
Reposted on: 29.9.12 1420.35
    Originally posted by Lord of the Manor
    The "beauty" of it is that yes, all 22 nay votes were from Dems. So somehow not a single Rep actual found Roberts to be unsuitable for the position? Talk about partisan voting. And talk about the Dems being too weak to try and stick it to their opposition. This is why the Dems are in such trouble. They're too dumb to stick together and the Republicans are too sleazy to think for themselves. Though, we do see which deficiency is best for holding power.


You think the partisan voting was on the Republicans' side? How's that?

I'm guessing that no Republicans found John Roberts unsuitable to be a Supreme Court Justice becuase he is overwhelmingly qualified for the position. Not one Democratic senator gave a clear reason why John Roberts should not be confirmed unless you count their belief that Roe v Wade is settled law and must never be touched because we know that the Court has never been wrong in history.

All they gave was soundbites about rolling back rights and not being sensitive enough (I'm looking at you Senator Feinstein) while giving red herrings about not having the documents that no one outside of some Senate Democrats thought they had a right to see.

And too weak to stick it to the Republicans? They had no chance to stop the confirmation and made no case about why he shouldn't be confirmed. Luckily for them, 23 Dems were pragmatic enough to realize that instead of falling into knee jerk partisanship. Now when they pull the same act when Bush nominates O'Connor's replacement, they'll have even less credibility because of their sily opposition to Roberts.

    Originally posted by spf
    It started with Bork, it intensified with the GOP takeover in 1994 and the subsequent dicking around with Clinton's nominations, and it will be this way for a very long time.


Were the Republicans dicking around with Clinton's nominees when they voted 32 to 9 to confirm Breyer and 42 to 3 to confirm Ginsburg? I'd love for Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer or Feinstein to say why they feel that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is more qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice than John Roberts is.
Boston Idol
Blutwurst
Level: -1

Posts: 213/257
EXP: -732604
For next: 1012542

Since: 17.2.03
From: San Jose, CA

Since last post: 2815 days
Last activity: 2608 days
#7 Posted on 29.9.05 1426.31
Reposted on: 29.9.12 1426.41
What reason was there to vote against Roberts? He was
qualified. The Supreme Court is not supposed to be an
ideological body. Nominees who are qualified should be
confirmed, just as Clinton's nominees were confirmed.

Liberals whined and moaned about Souter too, so they don't
have much credibility when it comes to prejudging nominees.
Unless you can come up with a good reason to vote against
Roberts, charges of groupthink taste like sour grapes.

Basically Democrats hate Republicans, conservatives, and
people who believe in God too openly. They've isolated
themselves to an utterly negative position with no agenda.

Think "Contract with America" and then ask your Democratic
heroes why they don't get their asses engaged in drafting
an alternative policy agenda rather than mindlessly griping
about whatever position Republicans have chosen to take.

Being the party of complaint isn't drawing many votes.

Frank

"Now get busy!"
- Dr. Gene Scott
spf
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 3320/5402
EXP: 26994517
For next: 137487

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 31 days
Last activity: 5 days
AIM:  
#8 Posted on 29.9.05 1434.23
Reposted on: 29.9.12 1438.12
    Originally posted by BigSteve
      Originally posted by Lord of the Manor
      The "beauty" of it is that yes, all 22 nay votes were from Dems. So somehow not a single Rep actual found Roberts to be unsuitable for the position? Talk about partisan voting. And talk about the Dems being too weak to try and stick it to their opposition. This is why the Dems are in such trouble. They're too dumb to stick together and the Republicans are too sleazy to think for themselves. Though, we do see which deficiency is best for holding power.


    You think the partisan voting was on the Republicans' side? How's that?

    I'm guessing that no Republicans found John Roberts unsuitable to be a Supreme Court Justice becuase he is overwhelmingly qualified for the position. Not one Democratic senator gave a clear reason why John Roberts should not be confirmed unless you count their belief that Roe v Wade is settled law and must never be touched because we know that the Court has never been wrong in history.

    All they gave was soundbites about rolling back rights and not being sensitive enough (I'm looking at you Senator Feinstein) while giving red herrings about not having the documents that no one outside of some Senate Democrats thought they had a right to see.

    And too weak to stick it to the Republicans? They had no chance to stop the confirmation and made no case about why he shouldn't be confirmed. Luckily for them, 23 Dems were pragmatic enough to realize that instead of falling into knee jerk partisanship. Now when they pull the same act when Bush nominates O'Connor's replacement, they'll have even less credibility because of their sily opposition to Roberts.

      Originally posted by spf
      It started with Bork, it intensified with the GOP takeover in 1994 and the subsequent dicking around with Clinton's nominations, and it will be this way for a very long time.


    Were the Republicans dicking around with Clinton's nominees when they voted 32 to 9 to confirm Breyer and 42 to 3 to confirm Ginsburg? I'd love for Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer or Feinstein to say why they feel that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is more qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice than John Roberts is.

My quote was in response to circuit court nominees, not the Supreme Court nominees.
BigSteve
Pepperoni
Level: 64

Posts: 805/1091
EXP: 2188914
For next: 25195

Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2787 days
Last activity: 2515 days
#9 Posted on 29.9.05 1511.49
Reposted on: 29.9.12 1512.31
    Originally posted by spf

    My quote was in response to circuit court nominees, not the Supreme Court nominees.


I figured that, but the Bork Nomination and what I mentioned are much more analogous to what is happening with the SCOTUS nominations. And yeah, blocking the lower court judges was, in general, wrong then and it's wrong now regardless of party affiliation.

(edited by BigSteve on 29.9.05 1612)
messenoir
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 404/449
EXP: 643421
For next: 16748

Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 492 days
Last activity: 358 days
AIM:  
#10 Posted on 29.9.05 1725.23
Reposted on: 29.9.12 1728.02
Roberts has been and will be an activist. That flies against everything the Republicans supposedly stand for.

Also, when someone is going to be a lifetime Supreme Court Justice, there should be absolutely no secrecy involved. Roberts and Bush were playing games with the process, and that is a disturbing harbinger for things to come.
Boston Idol
Blutwurst
Level: -1

Posts: 214/257
EXP: -732604
For next: 1012542

Since: 17.2.03
From: San Jose, CA

Since last post: 2815 days
Last activity: 2608 days
#11 Posted on 29.9.05 1846.01
Reposted on: 29.9.12 1848.09
"Activism" is an abused concept. Roe v Wade was activism,
creating a right where no right explicitly existed, yet to
overturn Roe v Wade would also be activism, repealing a
right that has existed for decades, precedent be damned.

And while good people of conscience can disagree on the
issue of abortion, to borrow Bush's kayfabe catchphrase,
it was also judicial activism alone that put an end to
the unfair "separate but equal" policies in the south.

Congress would not have had the will to ban "separate but
equal" policies and neither would the average voter, if
we lived in a true democracy with direct initiatives on
a national level. Only the court could right that wrong.

It's easy these days to get caught up in single issue
politics. Political groups, desperate for money and
power, use the simplest tactics to appeal to the masses,
but judicial activism is not a simple, soundbyte concept.

Judicial activism isn't necessarily good or evil, and
therefore it should not be blindly opposed or applauded.
Likewise one should not focus solely on achieving a
desired outcome, as many lawmakers do, for it is the
strength of our process that determines our success,
not our dogmatic loyalty to any particular viewpoint.

I hope that Roberts, having argued before the court on
many occaisions, will do as he says and judge the arguments
set before him rather than shaping decisions to get the
"right" result, a practice that should be abhored equally
by both Republicans and Democrats, regardless of results.

Frank

(edited by Boston Idol on 29.9.05 1715)
BigSteve
Pepperoni
Level: 64

Posts: 806/1091
EXP: 2188914
For next: 25195

Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2787 days
Last activity: 2515 days
#12 Posted on 29.9.05 2019.10
Reposted on: 29.9.12 2019.12
    Originally posted by messenoir
    Roberts has been and will be an activist. That flies against everything the Republicans supposedly stand for.

    Also, when someone is going to be a lifetime Supreme Court Justice, there should be absolutely no secrecy involved. Roberts and Bush were playing games with the process, and that is a disturbing harbinger for things to come.


In what cases specifically has Roberts been an activist?

How have Bush and Roberts specifically played games with the process other than to refuse to release memos that the Senate had no right to see?


(edited by BigSteve on 29.9.05 2119)
ShotGunShep
Frankfurter
Level: 58

Posts: 690/836
EXP: 1568128
For next: 9427

Since: 20.2.03

Since last post: 2483 days
Last activity: 2370 days
#13 Posted on 29.9.05 2308.20
Reposted on: 29.9.12 2309.01
    Originally posted by messenoir
    Roberts has been and will be an activist. That flies against everything the Republicans supposedly stand for.

    Also, when someone is going to be a lifetime Supreme Court Justice, there should be absolutely no secrecy involved. Roberts and Bush were playing games with the process, and that is a disturbing harbinger for things to come.


Is that why Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that Roberts was undeniably correct in not giving opinions on possible future cases?
General Zod
Italian
Level: 33

Posts: 1/237
EXP: 208174
For next: 21008

Since: 1.10.05
From: Mesa, Arizona

Since last post: 784 days
Last activity: 5 days
#14 Posted on 1.10.05 0119.30
Reposted on: 1.10.12 0122.21
This is most bothersome
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 212

Posts: 6914/16172
EXP: 140190559
For next: 845227

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 9 hours
Last activity: 9 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#15 Posted on 1.10.05 1253.39
Reposted on: 1.10.12 1253.55
    Originally posted by General Zod
    This is most bothersome
What, trying to link to HTML for your graphic instead of the JPG? Definitely.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: Those pictures of Anne Hathaway's breasts that apparently everyone is frantically searching the web
Next thread: Bali suffers terrorist bombing...again
Previous thread: DeLay Indicted
(218 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Roberts confirmed, 78-22Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.21 seconds.