Join us Thursday at 9:30 am ET as we cover the Senate Judiciary Committee vote on whether to confirm John Roberts as the next Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.
You can watch or listen online at C-SPAN.
Only two Democrats on the committee have publicly announced how they will vote: Kennedy (D-MA) is opposed and Leahy (D-VT) will vote for Roberts.
Roberts will be confirmed by the committee and by the full senate next week. The only question left to be answered is how many Democrats will oppose his confirmation. So far, along with Kennedy, Corzine, Lautenberg, Boxer, Reid, and Kerry have stated they’ll vote against Roberts. Obama will decide by the end of the week. Baucus and Johnson (SD) have said they will vote for confirmation.
It’s all over but the counting. Hopefully, the other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee will follow Kennedy’s lead. We’ll see what happens.
(Please don’t post pics. Thanks.)
Democrats:
Leahy – yes
Feinstein – no
Kennedy – no
Biden – no
Kohl – yes
Feingold – yes
Schumer – no
Durbin – no
Republicans:
Specter – yes
Hatch – yes
Grassley – yes
Kyl – yes
DeWine – yes
Sessions – yes
Graham – yes
Cornyn – yes
Brownback – yes
Biden? Haven’t heard . curious.
Biden, in his Bidenesque fashion, hasn’t announced how he’ll vote. He got into some tough questioning of Roberts, but I’m not sure enough about his position to say he’ll oppose.
You never can tell with Mr. talk one way, vote another.
BTW thanks for doing this catnip 😀
There are a few votes on the senate floor this morning that may cause the committee to adjourn before all votes re Roberts are in. I’ll keep you informed.
Specter starting off by thanking Leahy for supporting Roberts’ nomination.
(day of full senate vote)
blabbering on about how wonderful Roberts is…
There’s a woman with very white hair sitting behind Specter and when he sits in just the right position, he looks like he has this blob of white hair right on top of his head. 🙂
(speeches limited to 10 minutes each)
sounds like she’s voting no
asks for some committment to (protect rights)…says she listened with concern to what Specter said (re his praise of Roberts)…going over his record…notes he opposed fundamental rights as a young lawyer and how, despite how Roberts said he was just doing his job for the Reagan admin, he hasn’t distanced himself from those positions…
yup…looks like she’s voting no
hasn’t said anything yet that indicates she’s voting yes…hold your breath…here it comes…
is definitely voting no…yay!
Contact her here.
From this article:
In trying to answer the “who is more pathetic?” question, we can look no further than the to-do over Supreme Court nominee John Roberts for clues. The media is breathlessly discussing how Democrats – especially 2008 presidential hopefuls – supposedly have a big choice to make in their vote on Roberts: whether to vote no to supposedly pander to the Democratic base, or vote yes and supposedly play to “centrist” voters. Here’s the third-grade-level question that the Ivy Leaguers in the Beltway media can’t seem to even fathom, much less consider: what is “appealing” to centrists about voting for a guy as extreme as John Roberts?
read on…
thank you for doing this catnip — I’ll be checking in through out the morning!
You rock, m’lady!
I changed my strategery – no line by line transcription – just summaries.
Kyl says he’ll be brief.
Hatch is up (yawn).
if he could, but he’s from Utah.
Dressed appropriately, Roberts could totally pass as a woman and then Hatch could just add to his harem.
(Apologies to any cross-dressers, Mormons, or Mormon cross-dressers whom I may have offended with this borderline sketchy joke.)
blah blah blah…will vote yes
Here is Leahy’s statement, released on Wednesday.
here
Grassley said that Dems have become more beholding to special interest groups and that Repubs have not. Leahy called bullshit and said they should keep the discussion to the merits of Roberts’ nomination.
begins by talking about civil rights and the ‘march of progress’…
here’s Kennedy’s floor statement made on Wednesday in which he announced he would vote against his nomination…
317 Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510
202/224-4543 FAX: 202/224-2417
2400 JFK Building,
Boston, MA 02203
617/565-3170
senator@kennedy.senate.gov
Quoting from editorials in 3 “relatively liberal” newspapers – Chicago Tribune, LA Times and the Washington Post supporting Roberts.
Tribune and LAT are “liberal”?
LOL …
speaking about the right to privacy (which he covered in his opening statement at the beginning of the hearings)…believes this is a very close call…respects those voting for and against because it is so close…says he’s not sure tehse hearings are the best way to make these decisions…maybe they should go back pre 1925 and just look at the nominees’ writings…doubts that Roberts will be like Suter…
WILL VOTE NO!
today with people and something about the look on Joe’s face told me that he had gotten a whiff of the scent on the wind and he knew better than to not vote no. You gotta give Joe credit for one thing, he’s pretty damn good at figuring out what he can get away with.
“I will vote my hopes and not my fears”.
Contact Kohl here.
boy, is he worthless.
They vote their fucking hopes and not their fears every single time and we get fucked. Have they bothered to notice or are they starting to enjoy it?
It’d be nice if they’d vote on facts – not hopes.
…has decided to adopt Roberts and will make him the new family pet.
votes yes
Contact him here.
oh no! Why?
Well, one of the main points I picked up was that, due to Roberts testimony, he believed Roberts would not overturn Roe v Wade. However, he also went on to express how disappointed he would be if he did. Feingold really did not have a forceful argument for voting to confirm. It’s based more on hope, like Kohl.
What’s with this “hope” crap? It’s as bad as substituting “prayer” for policy and decision-making!
So, is it:
Hope > Prayer
or
Prayer > Hope
Pretty much what we’re down to — a hope and a prayer. Which holds the most promise? </rant>
He said that if the admin decides not to release documents on further nominees, he will not support them. He’s chastising Roberts for not renouncing positions he took as Reagan’s counsel. I don’t know – he seems awfully confused and has more reasons for voting against him.
the message I just sent off to the Senator:
Durbin and Schumer
4 Repubs left: Cornyn, Brownback, Graham and Coburn.
What the hell is up with Feingold voting yes?? Great liberal hope my ass.
Scratch that name from the list, we have given enough wussies the nomination!
Roberts is just too dang cute – ’nuff said.
for politics:
Feingold, Leahy & Kohl folded.
Bushy is on CNN talking about the war on terra with Cheney, Rummy, Condi et al in tow.
He’s also talking about Rita: “this is a big storm”. Well, duh!
you Canucks must just laugh and laugh at what dumbasses we Americans are … I know I would.
I’m just wondering what the hell he’s doing on TV talking about the war on terra when there’s a huge catastrophe about to strike the US again. Who cares about the WoT right now??
because he’s using the disasters as an excuse to militarize American cities more easily:
Remember, a lot of the brass from Bush Sr’s regime has retired or been driven out. This is just a new conflation of different issues to push his anti-democratic agenda, as the WOT was used to make possible his illegal war crime in Iraq.
He sure has a lot of brown spots on his face…
“We’re now in the process of inventoring”.
huh?
Your efforts are much appreciated. My Senators’ are not. I’m in Wisconsin, and now I have to go write a couple of very disappointed notes. I let them know beforehand that as far as this WI voter was concerned a yes would be both bad policy and bad politics, and I’ll let them hear it again now. I wish I didn’t have to. Sigh. I’m particularly disappointed in Feingold. He should know better, even without a bunch of his constituents screaming bloody murder. Kohl should too, but he’s just not up to the same standard as Feingold normally is.
Bleah! Bleah! Bleah!
You and me both. I’m a huge Feingold fan, but I can’t help but be disgusted with this.
talking about how Bush said he’d nominate Supremes in the mold of Thomas and Scalia…there is a certain presumption then that Bush would send nominees to us in that mold…that presumption could have been rebutted by testimony and the provision of documents…(that hasn’t happened)…
sounds like he’s voting against Roberts…
Contact him here.
would like to dress Roberts up and put makeup on him – just like a porcelain doll.
Cornyn is the thrid one to refer to newspaper editorials that support Roberts. Who cares? Can’t they make up their own minds? Do they have to use editorials to back up their positions?
on the guy Catnip.
lol! too true…
I must say that feinstein surprised me the most. She usually has a way of doing that. When you really think she’ll vote one way she flips. I did call he roffice several times this week though. Being the only woman on the committee I guess she had to vote no.
committee vote at 12:40 pm ET
Coburn won’t speak
Durbin is up
sounds like he is voting no…
Here’s one model for a letter of disapproval for Dems who vote yes. Feel free to use any or all of it:
Dear Senator Feingold,
I am deeply disappointed in your yes vote for John Roberts. It is both bad policy and bad politics. It is possible that Roberts is a moderate as he made himself out to be in his hearings. But there is no evidence to support that position. He dodged all the hard questions, using the same playbook as Clarence Thomas, and we all know how moderate he turned out to be. Further, the Bush administration suppressed thousands of documents relevant to Roberts judicial philosophy. By voting for Roberts, you are voting for that precedent, saying in essence, that the President can deny the Senate the tools it needs to assess his candidates without any penalty. That’s bad for the country and bad for the traditional power and prestige of the senate.
A yes vote is bad for America–you just bought us a pig in a poke. It is bad for the Democratic party–if Roberts turns out to be an ideologue on the order of Thomas or Scalia, how will Democrats be able to honestly take him to task when so many of our own voted for him. It is bad for the Senate–eroding the traditional powers of the body. And it is bad for the American political process–shifting more power to the president at the same time that it reduces executive accountability to the legislative branch.
This is a profound failure of responsibility on your part, and I am deeply saddened by it.
Sorry but I have no totally polite way to state my rage. It wasn’t all swearing, just a few choice words like “are you being paid off” and “how could you have more hopes than fears considering the corruption of this administration and no paper trail on Roberts, I think you may have a mental disability”.
Thank you for this diary! I’m running in and out this morning so this was the first I heard that Schumer voted no! I’m seriously liking that man! Thanks for all the hard work!
Contact him here.
At this point, the only interesting development will be the explosion of the blogosphere if Hillary votes ‘yes’.
Specter blabbered on for a few minutes while waiting for Feinstein to return from the senate floor. Now Leahy is blabbering a bit too…
Thanks to all of you who partcipated in the discussion! I really appreciate it. Now go and make some noise before the full senate meets next week to confirm Roberts.
Catnip is right. we need to fax all of our Senators, including the wingnuts starting today. Anyone have that handy dandy link to all the numbers in DC?
Here’s one list.
Thank you Catnip!!!