Roberts confirmed, 78-22

[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.