|
Gifts for all occasions in the Galleria! The "What is the Deal?" Deal-of-the-Week: Please donate to the Salvation Army for hurricane relief. September 25, 2005 Mr. Roberts Goes to Washington By Jan A. Larson With the approval by the Senate Judiciary Committee of the nomination of Judge John Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, it is a foregone conclusion that Roberts will be confirmed by the full Senate. Considering that Roberts was a generally non-controversial nominee and did not have a long record of opinions that could be attacked by opponents, all in all his nomination process was mostly uneventful. Although several Democrats on the committee complained that he did not adequately answer their questions, Roberts did not present himself as confrontational and did not give opponents ammunition to justify an unequivocal no vote. Given the inevitability of confirmation and an almost certain unanimous approval by Senate Republicans, the only remaining issue of interest is the political positioning of Democrats that will be signaled by their votes. For Senators such as Ted Kennedy, there is nothing to be signaled. Kennedy voted against Roberts in committee, will vote against him again in the Senate vote and will likely vote against every Supreme Court nominee that the President would submit for consideration regardless of that nominee's qualifications. On the other hand, Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) indicated that he would vote for confirmation. Nelson, representing a heavily Republican state, knows where his bread is buttered. Any Kennedyesque tendencies by Nelson would earn him an early retirement after the next election. Some pundits have expressed surprise that Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) voted for confirmation. Leahy, commenting on his decision to support Roberts said that Roberts was a "man of integrity" and does not have an "ideological agenda." That sounds well reasoned and logical. Could it be that Leahy decided to set aside partisan differences? The cynic would say that Leahy, accepting the inevitability of Roberts' confirmation is merely positioning himself as "reasonable and logical" in advance of the confirmation hearings for the replacement for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) voted against Roberts' confirmation. Schumer, appearing on The O'Reilly Factor on September 15, made one comment that was very revealing about the views that many Democrats have with respect to so-called "judicial activism." Schumer, commenting about Justices Scalia and Thomas, called them "ideologues" and claimed that they "hate the federal government." He referred to the Constitution's commerce clause while claiming that Thomas' position is that "if the item itself doesn't cross into state lines you can't regulate it." For the record, the text of the Constitution's commerce clause (Article I, section 8) states, "The Congress shall have the power ... to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." For Schumer and other like-minded senators, the plain language of the Constitution is apparently little more than a suggestion and demonstrates that for Schumer one man's "constitutional constructionist" is another man's "ideologue." Senators Biden (D-DE), Feinstein (D-CA) and Durbin (D-IL) - to no one's surprise - also took the party line and opposed Roberts' confirmation. Like Kennedy, it goes against the nature of all three to go along with anything that the President supports. Finally, Hillary Clinton announced that she would also vote against Roberts' confirmation. Clinton claimed that Roberts' positions on "fundamental women's rights" (among others) were not "presented with enough clarity" in order for her to cast a vote in Roberts' favor. The translation is that Clinton really believes that Roberts would not stand in sufficient opposition to any attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade. It would be political suicide for her to support anyone that isn't an avowed supporter of Roe if she is to be the Democrat presidential nominee in 2008. Considering that the confirmation of Roberts to what is arguably the most powerful position in the country was relatively civil, primarily due to the fact that he is to replace conservative Justice William Renquist, there should be no illusions that the next Supreme Court nominee will coast through the process as easily. Make no mistake; the confirmation hearings for the nominee to replace the "moderate" Sandra Day O'Connor will make the Roberts hearings look like a garden party. -- Send feedback to the author. The "What is the Deal?" column will appears weekly on the Pie of Knowledge website. Guest submissions are welcome and encouraged. To submit an article to "What is the Deal?" click here. To subscribe to the "What is the Deal?" mailing list and receive early notification when a new column is available, click here. The Pie of Knowledge will never, ever divulge email addresses to any third party for any reason unless so ordered by a court of law. Contributions to the Pie of Knowledge are greatly appreciated. 
Visitors:
|
|||||||||||||
