John Roberts' Confirmation to the Supreme Court

[Frodo]

Imagine yourselves in the position of those Senators who are to decide whether or not to confirm Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court -how would you vote? 

[Jake]

I would have to listen to his hearings to make sure he didn't hide something outrageous, but as I know him now he seems like a solid conservative and a strong supporter of property rights. I'd say Yes.

[KEmperor]

I like him so far.

[Colin]

He seems to be a solid choice. As long as their aren't any skeletons in the closet, so to speak, he sounds like he would be a capable justice.

[opebo]

Good heavens no!  If I were a Democratic Senator I would never vote yes on any Republican appointee.

Why on earth would one do that?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Good heavens no!  If I were a Democratic Senator I would never vote yes on any Republican appointee.

Why on earth would one do that?

Arlen Specter would get the easiest 100-0 confirmation you ever saw.

[opebo]

Good heavens no!  If I were a Democratic Senator I would never vote yes on any Republican appointee.

Why on earth would one do that?

Arlen Specter would get the easiest 100-0 confirmation you ever saw.

Well, sure.  But I still think that party members should always vote against the opposing party's nominees, on principle. 

[DanielX]

Good heavens no!  If I were a Democratic Senator I would never vote yes on any Republican appointee.

Why on earth would one do that?

Arlen Specter would get the easiest 100-0 confirmation you ever saw.

Well, sure.  But I still think that party members should always vote against the opposing party's nominees, on principle. 

That's not 'on principle', you know. Voting 'on principle' would mean voting for a qualified candidate regardless of affiliation.

[opebo]

Good heavens no!  If I were a Democratic Senator I would never vote yes on any Republican appointee.

Why on earth would one do that?

Arlen Specter would get the easiest 100-0 confirmation you ever saw.

Well, sure.  But I still think that party members should always vote against the opposing party's nominees, on principle. 

That's not 'on principle', you know. Voting 'on principle' would mean voting for a qualified candidate regardless of affiliation.

No, that would be failing ones constitutents.  One should only vote for a nominee that is in agreement with them.

[DanielX]

Good heavens no!  If I were a Democratic Senator I would never vote yes on any Republican appointee.

Why on earth would one do that?

Arlen Specter would get the easiest 100-0 confirmation you ever saw.

Well, sure.  But I still think that party members should always vote against the opposing party's nominees, on principle. 

That's not 'on principle', you know. Voting 'on principle' would mean voting for a qualified candidate regardless of affiliation.

No, that would be failing ones constitutents.  One should only vote for a nominee that is in agreement with them.

Uhm... wouldn't one's constituents want a qualified candidate first? And would they rather have a vacancy, or a long battle?

[Emsworth]

Yes

[Sam Spade]

Yes.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm a bit worried about his position on habeus corpus given his rulings in Fletcher v. District of Columbia.  However, he wasn't alone in his position on the District Court, so while I would closely question him concerning the issue, I likely would vote to confirm him.

[nini2287]

Yes-for now.  I would still listen with open ears during his hearings and examine his record very closely.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No. If I were a Senator I would never vote to confirm any conservative, I would only confirm judges that agree with me.

[opebo]

Good heavens no!  If I were a Democratic Senator I would never vote yes on any Republican appointee.

Why on earth would one do that?

Arlen Specter would get the easiest 100-0 confirmation you ever saw.

Well, sure.  But I still think that party members should always vote against the opposing party's nominees, on principle. 

That's not 'on principle', you know. Voting 'on principle' would mean voting for a qualified candidate regardless of affiliation.

No, that would be failing ones constitutents.  One should only vote for a nominee that is in agreement with them.

Uhm... wouldn't one's constituents want a qualified candidate first? And would they rather have a vacancy, or a long battle?

If one is a liberal, and therefore one's constitutents are liberals, then obviously they would rather have a vacancy or a long battle than a religious 'conservative'.

[Brandon H]

Scalia, probably the most conservative, and Ginsburg, probably the most liberal, were both confirmed with 90+ votes. I know Ginsburg was with a Democratic Senate and I think Scalia was as well.

[nini2287]

Scalia, probably the most conservative, and Ginsburg, probably the most liberal, were both confirmed with 90+ votes. I know Ginsburg was with a Democratic Senate and I think Scalia was as well.

Scalia was helped by the fact that he was better than guy who was put up to a vote before him (Bork).

[AuH2O]

Incorrect. Scalia predated Bork.

Kennedy was the one that went into the final spot instead of Bork.

[nini2287]

Incorrect. Scalia predated Bork.

Kennedy was the one that went into the final spot instead of Bork.

Ah ok.  I wasn't born quite yet.

[The Duke]

Scalia, probably the most conservative, and Ginsburg, probably the most liberal, were both confirmed with 90+ votes. I know Ginsburg was with a Democratic Senate and I think Scalia was as well.

Scalia was helped by the fact that he was better than guy who was put up to a vote before him (Bork).

Scalia was helped by the Rehnuqist cofirmation for Chief, which happenned at the same time.

Burger retired, and Scalia was tapped to fill the vacancy while Rehnquist was elevated from Associate to fill the spot as Chief.  Most of the fire went to Rehnquist.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I never understood why who is Chief Justice is such a big deal. The CJ has hardly any more power than the other justices, in the end he's basically just 1 vote of 9.

[The Duke]

I never understood why who is Chief Justice is such a big deal. The CJ has hardly any more power than the other justices, in the end he's basically just 1 vote of 9.

A Chief like Warren or Marshall can shape the direction of the Court by control over who writes the opinions.

[Snefix]

Yeah, he's qualified.  That's what matters.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

He seems reasonable enough