Roberts confirmed, 78-22

[scaeagles]

Just heard.

A couple quotes from people who voted against him:

"I hope I am proved wrong about John Roberts," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., the Senate's longtime liberal stalwart. "I have been proved wrong before on my confirmation votes. I regret my vote to confirm Justice Scalia, even though he, too, like Judge Roberts, was a nice person and a smart Harvard lawyer."

"I decided that while there was a very good chance that Judge Roberts would be a mainstream, very conservative but mainstream justice without an ideological agenda, that he was not convincing enough," added Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "And the downside, even a minority downside that he would be a justice in the mold of Scalia and Thomas was too great to risk, and so I will vote no. But no matter how we vote, today we all share a fervent hope that Justice Roberts becomes a great jurist and serves our nation well."

To these leftists (and I make absolutely no apology about calling Schumer and Kennedy leftists), it isn't whether or not he is qualified, it's that he may not rule in the way they think he should.

Roberts (not to mention Scalia) makes these men look like the mental midgets that they are. They do not care if he rules on the Constitution, about which I have no doubt he is more scholarly than they are. They care if he will vote on cases that is more in line with their agenda, and I find that sad. Ginsberg was confirmed with a near majority, because though she was clearly left leaning, she was clearly qualified. Schumer and Kennedy make me ill.

Granted, it's early, but I haven't found one quote from anyone who voted "no" that can justify their position with anything other than "He's too conservative", which is one flimsy reason to vote against him.

[Prudence]

Shouldn't they all have an ideological agenda to uphold the Constitution?

[innerSpaceman]

I don't doubt that most no-voters feel that Roberts won't rule on matters the way they want matters ruled on, but couldn't you find some quotes that actually indicate that? I don't think those Kennedy and Schumer quotes indicate any such thing.

Can we find anyone among the 22 no-voters who says that Roberts, with a 2-year federal bench history, simply wasn't qualified? Or that they voted no based on his absolute refusal to answer questions during the confirmination hearings? There's plenty to vote no upon without resorting to political considerations.

[scaeagles]

I don't doubt that most no-voters feel that Roberts won't rule on matters the way they want matters ruled on, but couldn't you find some quotes that actually indicate that? I don't think those Kennedy and Schumer quotes indicate any such thing.

I completely disagree.

Kennedy says he regrets his vote to confirm Scalia. Is it that Scalia is unqualified? Agree or disagree with Scalia's votes, the man is brilliant and is most certainly a constitutional scholar. To make a comparison in his no vote on Roberts to his regret of voting for Scalia would most certainly seem to say that Scalia is too conservative, so I fear Roberts will be the same. Where is his statement about why Roberts is unqualified?

Schumer goes a step further - saying he is too afraid that Roberts will be like Thomas and Scalia. Does this make him unqualified? Not in the least. He also states that he wasn't convinced that Roberts would have no conservative agenda. Sorry - but hearings are to discover if a man is qualified, not to try to discover if someone shares your political views and would therefore vote the way you see fit.

Kennedy and Schumer say nothing about why they think he is unqualified. Only that they are afraid he'll be too conservative, or too much like Scalia. While they can vote however they wish, their statements show his qualifications played no role whatsoever in their vote.

I saw no absolute refusal to answer questions. In other thread I posted what I thought were incredibly insightful answers to questions. He did, and should have, refused to answer questions about hypothical cases that could come before the court. Why do that and be forced to recuse yourself?

And yes, Prudence, they should all have an ideological agenda to uphold the Constitution.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I don't get it. If they feel that the nominee will vote on the court based on their agenda rather than interpretation of the Constitution, doesn't that make them unqualified?

[scaeagles]

If that was the standard, every confirmation vote would be within one or two of a perfect party line split.

The standard is if the nominee is qualified to rule on the Constitution.

Do you think all Republican members of the Senate were under the impression that an ACLU lawyer Ginsberg would rule on the Constitutional in an impartial fashion, without being colored by her ACLU days and ACLU agenda? The issue was she was qualified as a judge to hold the position.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Don't kid yourself. The issue was whether voting her in was a good political move or not. Or, rather, would voting against her lose more political points for the party/individual delegates than it would win.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Truthfully, the way I see it, someone who consistently and substantially comes up with interpretations of the Constitution that are opposed to mine isn't qualified. They clearly don't know what they're reading.

[Nephythys]

heh- what a shame that I think you really mean that.

[Ghoulish Delight]

heh- what a shame that I think you really mean that.
What other conclusion is there? I'm not talking about someone with whom I disagree with ocassionally. It's a complex document wrapped in the complex historical era in which it was written. Obviously no two people are ever going to come out with an identical interpretation. But if an individual consistently has interpretations diametrically opposed to my interpretations nearly across the board, there's no way I can consider that person a good candidate to be part of those kinds of decissions for the country.

Is Roberts one of those people? I honestly have no clue. Most likely not because, fortunately for my own sanity, when it comes to Constitutional law I tend to stradle the ideological line. But then again, if it turns out that I mostly agree with him in his interpretation but those points I happen to disagree with him on are ones that make it to the court and/or result in rulings that I consider wrong and damaging to the nation, I ain't exactly going to be too thrilled that all we got was someone who is qualified on paper.

[Nephythys]

and how about the possibility that you are the one who is wrong?

[Ghoulish Delight]

and how about the possibility that you are the one who is wrong?
Yup, possible. But 1) like I said, people who I find that objectionable are few and far between, so I'm pretty confident I'm right, and 2) It is my belief that I'm right, so how can I possibly be happy with someone that I think will do the wrong thing?

[innerSpaceman]

Yes, it's possible. But GD was, I believe, speaking as a hypothetical voter on the confirmation of Roberts. If such a Senator Delight was of the opinion that the candidate for confirmation was reading the Constitution all wrong, it would be incumbant upon Senator Delight to vote "NO" based on the candidate being unqualified to do the job.

It goes without saying that Senator Delight MUST hold his own opinions on reading the Constitution to be the correct opinions, for one cannot have opinions which one considers wrong. The objective possibility may be that Delight is wrong and Roberts is right, but it's impossible for Senator Delight to have that view, and thus his vote must be "Nay."



Edited to add: I wasn't quick enough to say longwindedly what GD said quite sucinctly. But I like mine better, cause I love the concept of "Senator Delight."

[Ghoulish Delight]

Edited to add: I wasn't quick enough to say longwindedly what GD said quite sucinctly. But I like mine better, cause I love the concept of "Senator Delight."And thus a status line is born.

And I like your explanation better anyway. If I'm way off base with my interpretation, and everyone else in the Senate voted with the same guidelines as me (i.e., does the candidate interperet the Constitution substantially in a manner that I deem correct), then he'll be confirmed anyway. But that wouldn't change my vote.

[scaeagles]

It is my belief that I'm right, so how can I possibly be happy with someone that I think will do the wrong thing?

Isn't that the height of arrogance, though? Not to try to harp on Ginsberg, but she's one of the last two that has gone through this process. Are you meaning to say that you think the republicans should have voted her down simply because they thought she would interpret the Constitution differently than they would?

Again, then EVERY confirmation vote is going to come down to party line. We'd have never filled seats vacated when Clinton was in office (because, if I recall, both Breyer and Ginsberg were confirmed with Republican senate majorities).

It is the right of the sitting President to nominate, and the job of the Senate to "advise and consent". If you want to appoint someone who shares your view of the Constitution and your interpretation, then win the Presidency. The job of the Senate is to make sure the nominee is qualified, but I don't think qualification means you must agree with me on my interpretation of the Constitution.

I am an opinionated individual, but am certainly willing to admit that there are opinions other than mine that have great validity.

[Nephythys]

So the message here is- you must agree with MY idealogy (as a voting Senator) or you will not get my vote- no matter your qualifications.

[innerSpaceman]

How could I possibly think that someone who can't understand the Constitution is qualified for the job?

Sorry, but - hubris or not - if I were elected to be one of the hundred U.S. Senators governing the millions upon millions of Americans, I would most certainly be assuming that MY interpretation of the Constitution was the correct one, and that anyone interpreting it differently would be inadequate to competently interpret the Constitution.

It may be a catch-22, but it exists.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Again, then EVERY confirmation vote is going to come down to party line. Really? Do you honestly believe every member of the Senate in either party shares precisely the same personal ideology? "We are Deomcrat, resistance is futile."

I'm not talking party ideology. Personal ideology. To me, that's the only valid voting basis. I honestly believe that if our representatives actually started voting based on their personal ideology, party-line voting would disappear because the most confirmable candidates would be the ones whose ideology intersects with the most people. Especially when we're talking Constitution. I think there is a lot more crossing of party lines with personal Constitutional ideology than with anything else because Constitutional interpretation is such a fundemental thing that no amount of party affinity is really going to change your mind if you disagree.

But that's not how it works. You can trot Ginsberg out all you want, but the fact is she was voted in because it was politically advantageous for the Republicans to do so. It had nothing to do with whether or not she was the most qualified individual for the job. Same with Roberts, the Democrats didn't oppose the nomination not because they thought he was the most qualified, but because it was the poitically advantageous thing to do.

As an aside, what's your definition of "qualified"? Because if does not involve at least in some part an examination of the person's ideology, then all I see is hard facts such as time served and education history. And if that's the case, why bother having hearings and a vote. Just feed the resume into Monster, put the "Supreme Court Justice" filter on, and see if it fits the bill.

[Gemini Cricket]

I have no opinion on Roberts yet. But we get him as CJ no matter what. My concern is about the O'Connor replacement.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Veering back to the OP for a moment, I have no problems with those statements, even not taking into accont my little side-bar up there. Those senators simply state that they worry that he will not interpret the Constitution and come up with decissions, rather that he will come up with interpretations of the Constitution that fit his ideology. Whether they are right or wrong about Roberts doing that remains to be seen, but I see that as a perfectly valid reason to vote against.

[Prudence]

Also, as O'Connor and other swing votes have proven, it is possible to share a general ideology and yet differ in one's application to a particular set of facts. That's my problem with these hearings. They don't ask what a general ideology is, they ask "what would you do with these facts?" It's difficult to address that sort of hypothetical, stripped of all context. Also, judicial rulings aren't quiz shows; once presented with a detailed set of facts, complete with context, clerks scurry around reviewing past case law and justices negotiate amongst themselves, and eventually an opinion (or several) is produced.

And the opinion is really the important part anyhow. No because. Yes because. What makes A different from B?

Nonetheless, the hearings were a quiz show. The next ones will likely be worse. Feh.

[€uroMeinke]

Why are we so surprised that there is politics in our politics?

[scaeagles]

You can trot Ginsberg out all you want, but the fact is she was voted in because it was politically advantageous for the Republicans to do so. It had nothing to do with whether or not she was the most qualified individual for the job.

Wow - once again we disagree.

Most Americans view the ACLU as a leftist organization. It is not very popular. It would have been very easy to score HUGE political points nation wide, with both their base and many, many middle of the road people who don't like the ACLU, by opposing her and opposing her loudly.

How can you ever find "the most" qualified for any job? I don't think you can. You just find someone who is qualified.

My definition of qualified? I don't know if that can be quantified, but in this case, I would guess it is that the nominee has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to present cogent and articulate opinions of law and of the Constitution as related to legal matters.

Opinions vary widely on the Constitution between great legal minds. I think Scalia is brilliant, but couldn't have disagreed more with him than on his vote related to the recent marijuana and interstate commerce case. Does this mean he is unqualified because he interpretted something differently than I would have? Or than Thomas and Rehnquist did?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Does this mean he is unqualified because he interpretted something differently than I would have? Or than Thomas and Rehnquist did?

Based on one or two rulings? No. But if they demonstrate an overriding tendency and philosophy in interpreting the Constitution (e.g., "originalism") that is anathema to what I hold as a view of the Constitution that is healthy for this country, then I, as Senator Delight, could not in good conscience vote to confirm them.

And I just want to make clear that when I'm talking about matching my "ideology", I'm making a clear distinction between political ideology vs. Constitutional ideology. I don't believe I have to agree with someone's politiclal ideology for me to feel they are a good SC candidate, as long as I'm comfotable with their Constitutional ideology and that their political ideology won't intrude on that. Like I said before, you'll see far more crossing of party lines (if you can even define party lines) when it comes to Constitutional questions than anywhere else.