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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

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.