« Reality in Iraq | Main | Miller agrees to testify - so soon! »
September 29, 2005
We have a Chief Justice
From the New York Times.
The Senate confirmed Judge Roberts by a vote of 78 to 22, with unanimous support from Republicans and with many Democrats voting for him as well. Judge Roberts was to be sworn in by Mr. Bush at the White House this afternoon amid expectations that the president will announce his next choice for the court very soon.
Afterthought: The headline on this story is "Roberts Overwhelmingly Approved as Next Chief Justice". At first I thought, how bizarre they would call it overwhelming approval when 22 Senators voted against. When Justice Ginsburg was confirmed by a 96 to 3 vote, opposition by 22 Senators would have been considered extraordinary. But in the context of the Times' position on Supreme Court appointments, the headline makes sense. With Republicans in the majority, the Times hopes to impose a new standard for Supreme Court confirmation battles. With Republicans in the majority they'd like such opposition to be considered normal, making it easier for moderate Senators to vote no.
Michelle Malkin has the list of Democrats who voted for and against confirmation.
Posted by Tom Bowler at 12:47 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ece669e200d83423dedf53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference We have a Chief Justice:
» Roberts: 78-22. Next one, please from The Right Nation
John Roberts is the 17th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. After Senate’s confirmation, with 78 votes in favour and 22 against, Roberts sworn in at the White House and became, at 50 years of age, the youngest Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in t... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 30, 2005 8:37:34 PM
Comments
Now I can't wait for the next nomination. Does the Prez have the cajones and political capital to do what he has always said he would do - nominate another Scalia or Thomas?
Posted by: GSR | Oct 1, 2005 2:51:06 PM
I certainly hope so too, and I'm fairly confident he will. The Roberts nomination was beauty from a tactical standpoint, and probably in the long term. The Dems were stymied over it and could never mount a credible attack. He's got them working overtime trying to dig up controversy over every possible candidate they can think of, and he's wearing them thin. It's going to be ugly but the Democrats are going to wind up looking like... well, just what they are.
Posted by: Tom Bowler | Oct 1, 2005 5:17:35 PM
I'm not sure he has the backbone to nominate a constitution respecting conservative. He has a tendency to support the liberal Republican when challenged by a conservative. Plus that, Roberts is too new to rate. Let's hope for the best though. He should make the Democrats look even more silly to the nation.
Posted by: Ol' BC | Oct 2, 2005 9:52:53 PM
I don't have any doubts about his backbone. I think he picks his fights knowing he can't win all of them, or even afford to expend the effort fighting some of them. This gets interpreted as having no backbone. I'd say he's shown enough strength on other issues, like Iraq, to prove he's got the courage to fight. It's a question of whether or not to fight for something of minor importance or save it for the important things. The next Supreme Court nomination is one of the important things.
I agree that Roberts is too new to rate, but it's hard to imagine he'll turn out to be a liberal activist justice, based on what we know.
Posted by: Tom Bowler | Oct 3, 2005 6:16:22 AM
