September 27, 2005

Where the Roberts Vote Stands on 9/27

On Thursday Judge John Roberts of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals will be confirmed as the new Chief Justice of the United States. All that's unknown now is the final vote tally. It's looking increasingly likely that Roberts will be confirmed with the support of 3/4's of the Senate. As of this morning, this is where the various Democrats in the Senate who've announced their intention stand (all Republicans will vote for Roberts).

13 for Roberts: Max Baucus of Montana, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Ken Salazar of Colorado.

16 against Roberts: Evan Bayh of Indiana, Joseph Biden of Delaware, Barbara Boxer of California, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Jon Corzine of New Jersey, Mark Dayton of Minnesota, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Dianne Feinstein of California, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, John Kerry of Massachusetts, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, Barack Obama of Illinois, Harry Reid of Nevada, Charles Schumer of New York and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.

Posted by armand at September 27, 2005 12:55 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Law and the Courts


You can add Levin of Michigan and Dodd and Lieberman of Connecticut to the "pro-Roberts" voting bloc.

Posted by: Armand at September 27, 2005 04:52 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, Byron Dorgan of North Dakota is also going to support Roberts.

Posted by: Armand at September 27, 2005 04:54 PM | PERMALINK

Would Lieberman just freaking switch parties alread? Really, don't you think we could trade him for Olympia Snowe or something?

Posted by: binky at September 27, 2005 06:00 PM | PERMALINK

Well, the big problem with Lieberman is that he seems to want to be everyone's rabbi and lecture us for the next few eternities about his moral beliefs - but that said, he still votes like a Democrat most of the time. His NARAL rating last year - 100 (in contrast, John McCain got a 0); his National Right to Life rating - 0. His last ACLU rating was an 83 (though that is unusually high for him; McCain got a 22). Human Rights Campaign - 88 (McCain 25). Christian Coalition and Family Research Council - 0 (Snowe 50 and 29; McCain 83 and 67). AFL-CIO - 83 (Snowe - 67). And yeah, his last Chamber of Commerce rating was a 79, but his Business-Industry Political Action Committee Rating was only a 5 (Snowe was 47).

So when it comes to his votes, they're not often as unfortunate as what comes out of his mouth. For some reason he just can't help sounding like a right-wing "family values" Republican a lot of the time.

Posted by: Armand at September 28, 2005 08:59 AM | PERMALINK

I know, but I was judging on the annoy-o-meter.

Posted by: binky at September 28, 2005 09:13 AM | PERMALINK

Jack Reed of Rhode Island will be a no vote. So, right now, to my knowledge, it's 17 Dems in favor and 17 opposed - with 10 still remaining to decide.

Posted by: Armand at September 28, 2005 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

one has to credit the GOP's party unity. based on rhetoric, and given at least 17 dem yes votes, you'd think a couple of the senators farthest to the right would vote no because roberts refused to declare a position on roe. in the press, they've acted as though it's a sine qua non.

and the interesting thing is that they can get away with this because by and large their base forgives them. contrast that with all the rhetoric in the linked Times article in which the leftward interest groups bitched and moaned about, e.g., feingold's perceived defection. you don't see the FRC doing that a propos coburn, for example, when the chips are down.

anyway, hatch is right: the fun is yet to come. although he failed to note the corollary regarding bush and bullying: on this one, he'll neither be bullied by the right or left. which is why i think it's going to be gonzalez. and why i think the left will discover in the near to mid-term that it dodged a serious bullet. i'll take gonzalez and his unknowns over priscilla owens, luttig, wilkerson, hell maybe even alito (though i think he's a good jurist) any day.

Posted by: joshua at September 28, 2005 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

Over Luttig, Wilkerson and Owen - I'd take Gonzalez too, no question. He's a cipher - but when the others are truly scary - go with the possible scary. Which means I guess I'd possibly be ok with Alito too.

Of course in my heart of hearts, I wish it was Janice Brown or Alex Kozinski for the entertainment value that their hearings would have. Plus of course they might actually respect principle over simple-minded right-wing dogma - so they don't have a shot at all at getting picked.

Posted by: Armand at September 28, 2005 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

re principle over ideology, i imagine clement, a hard-core fourth amendment libertarian (which in result tends to look very liberal), also is out. i've just got this idea that al gonzalez, moreso than roberts, is a souter waiting to happen. and i think the right shares my concerns; their no fans of him at all.

Posted by: joshua at September 28, 2005 12:21 PM | PERMALINK


And yes, it wouldn't shock me if Clement is out too on those grounds.

I think your point though about Republican unity is spot on - if Bush does indeed want to nominate Gonzalez, he will. Brownback and a few others might have a cow, but Rove/Bush do an awfully good job of keeping Republicans in line with the president's actions.

Posted by: Armand at September 28, 2005 02:38 PM | PERMALINK

party unity must be nice.

Posted by: joshua at September 29, 2005 10:55 AM | PERMALINK
Post a comment

Remember personal info?