Confirmed

rollhead · September-29th-2005, 11:45 AM

John Roberts Has Been Confirmed As 17th Chief Justice Of The United States

jesus marion joseph · September-29th-2005, 12:19 PM

No big surprise there. I was a little surprised, however, to hear Justice Ginsburg opine that she felt Roberts was correct to dodge questions about specifics in his confirmation hearings. Maybe I shouldn't be, but I was.

LennyH · September-29th-2005, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

No big surprise there. I was a little surprised, however, to hear Justice Ginsburg opine that she felt Roberts was correct to dodge questions about specifics in his confirmation hearings. Maybe I shouldn't be, but I was.

Good for her for actually speaking her mind.

The Dems, on the other hand, continue to disappoint me. But I guess it depends on perspective. The Roberts nomination didn't happen in a vacuum: It happened while the Republicans control the whitehouse and congress. So they obviously have to be realistic about the potential nominees and it seems silly, at first glance at least, to take a stand against a nominee that appears to be a best case scenario.

But many of them probably felt it was good strategy to vote against Roberts. They knew this canidate was a sure thing and were probably just trying to send a message about the next canidate.

rollhead · September-29th-2005, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LennyH

... it seems silly, at first glance at least, to take a stand against a nominee that appears to be a best case scenario.

Agreed, it would only make Democrats look more (than they already are) like sore losers and partisan hacks.

Monte Smith · September-29th-2005, 01:32 PM

The vote was 78-22 (versus the Alley poll that stood at 21 votes for (72.41%) and 8 votes against (27.59%) at the time this news came down). That means more Democrats voted for Roberts than against him by one measly vote (23-22).

And it means that not a single Republican voted against Roberts, as I predicted, so I won't have to streak the Senate as I promised.

Gordon B · September-29th-2005, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

The vote was 78-22 (versus the Alley poll that stood at 21 votes for (72.41%) and 8 votes against (27.59%) at the time this news came down). That means more Democrats voted for Roberts than against him by one measly vote (23-22).

And it means that not a single Republican voted against Roberts, as I predicted, so I won't have to streak the Senate as I promised.

Monte, I predicted 77-23. Not bad.

Monte Smith · September-29th-2005, 01:57 PM

I've erred in saying the Dems broke 23-22 in favor of Roberts. It was actually a 22-22 tie if you consider Jim Jeffords (who voted yes) an independent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordon B

Monte, I predicted 77-23. Not bad.

Not bad at all. Do you know who you were wrong about?

Chris D · September-29th-2005, 02:17 PM

They're saving their bullets for the O'Connor replacement. Duh.

Gordon B · September-29th-2005, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

I've erred in saying the Dems broke 23-22 in favor of Roberts. It was actually a 22-22 tie if you consider Jim Jeffords (who voted yes) an independent.

Not bad at all. Do you know who you were wrong about?

I didn't do a Senator by Senator statistical analysis- it was a prediction based on gut feel. Jon Abbey will be horrified if he finds out

Monte Smith · September-29th-2005, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordon B

I didn't do a Senator by Senator statistical analysis- it was a prediction based on gut feel. Jon Abbey will be horrified if he finds out

I figured you did things different from me, Gordon. I figured you either used a complicated statistical model based on past voting records and probability--or guessed. Me, I count actual votes in the time-honored partisan manner. You'll notice I didn't make any sort of prediction, except for for the Republican caucus.

Monte Smith · September-29th-2005, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris D

They're saving their bullets for the O'Connor replacement.

Good luck to 'em. Their mission just got a little more difficult, though, since Ruth Ginsburg spoke yesterday at Wake Forest University and said that Roberts, refusing to answer questions on cases that may come before his court, was "unquestionably right" to do so. And so he was. That sustains the precedent for the next nominee, certainly. From a Dem point of view, Ginsburg missed (as Chirac once famously said about the New Europe) a perfect opportunity to shut up.

LennyH · September-29th-2005, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Good luck to 'em. Their mission just got a little more difficult, though, since Ruth Ginsburg spoke yesterday at Wake Forest University and said that Roberts, refusing to answer questions on cases that may come before his court, was "unquestionably right" to do so. And so he was. That sustains the precedent for the next nominee, certainly. From a Dem point of view, Ginsburg missed (as Chirac once famously said about the New Europe) a perfect opportunity to shut up.

What difference does it make whether RBG said it? There was already a precedent. The next nominee, if they have half a brain, will do their best Roberts impression.

Monte Smith · September-29th-2005, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LennyH

What difference does it make whether RBG said it? There was already a precedent. The next nominee, if they have half a brain, will do their best Roberts impression.

It makes political difference. The Democrats can hardly say "Roberts answered no questions, so we have to be tougher on the next nominee" now that RBG has said it is proper that nominees do as Roberts does. You'll see the RBG statement references, I assure you. But yes, it was precedent--something that doesn't have the wait in the legislature that it has in the judiciary.

Slurpy · September-30th-2005, 08:43 AM

So, I look at the front page of the local fish-wrap this am and I see a pix of Roberts being sworn in and half awake I wonder "who's that old guy next to him?" It was Dubya. Is it me or does it appear Bush has aged about 15 - 20 years in the past 5?? His appearance was almost shocking.

Dr Dave · September-30th-2005, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slurpy

So, I look at the front page of the local fish-wrap this am and I see a pix of Roberts being sworn in and half awake I wonder "who's that old guy next to him?" It was Dubya. Is it me or does it appear Bush has aged about 15 - 20 years in the past 5?? His appearance was almost shocking.

All this to-and-fro-ing to Louisiana has deprived him of his usual 10 hours a night, and probably cut into his exercise time. Poor guy. Back to Crawford!

Slurpy · September-30th-2005, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

All this to-and-fro-ing to Louisiana has deprived him of his usual 10 hours a night, and probably cut into his exercise time. Poor guy. Back to Crawford!

Yeah, it's been a couple weeks since Dubya's last vacation but I figured it might just be the stress of repressing all his pent-up moral turpitude.
Time to invade another sovereign nation and release God's and Dubya's wrath, I'm afraid.

jesus marion joseph · September-30th-2005, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slurpy

So, I look at the front page of the local fish-wrap this am and I see a pix of Roberts being sworn in and half awake I wonder "who's that old guy next to him?" It was Dubya. Is it me or does it appear Bush has aged about 15 - 20 years in the past 5?? His appearance was almost shocking.

If you look at before-and-after pics of Clinton, you see the same thing. Reagan and Bush I looked pretty much the same, but Ronnie was all makeup and pomade anyway, and GHW was already old when he took the helm. Carter didn't appear to age the same way, but he barely looks his age now, so he must be a genetic freak or something.

GoodSpeak · October-2nd-2005, 11:45 PM