Justice 0 Report post Posted September 29, 2005 Link WASHINGTON (CNN) -- John Roberts was sworn in Thursday as the 17th chief justice of the United States after winning Senate approval with a solid majority. Roberts was given the oath of office by the senior associate justice, John Paul Stevens, at a ceremony in the White House's East Room. The ceremony was witnessed by President Bush, six other justices of the Supreme Court, Roberts' wife and the couple's two children, as well as members of the Senate and other invited guests. "The Senate has confirmed a man with an astute mind and a kind heart," President Bush said before the ceremony. The Senate's 78-22 vote ended a nearly three-month roller coaster ride for the 50-year-old federal appeals court judge. Roberts watched the voting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House accompanied by staff who assisted him during the confirmation process, including former Sen. Fred Thompson. Roberts' wife watched the vote from the Senate gallery. He was originally nominated to fill the vacancy created by the pending retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. But following the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist September 3, Roberts was quickly named by President Bush to take over the court's top spot. All 55 Republicans were united in their support. They were joined by 22 Democrats and one independent senator. Twenty-two Democrats voted no. In an unusual break from tradition, senators voted from their seats as their names were called. Lawmakers usually are free to mill about the floor or leave the chamber. The vote was never in doubt, despite misgivings from some Democrats that Roberts would be too conservative. "I hope I am proven wrong about John Roberts," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, in a floor speech before the vote. "I have been proven wrong before on my confirmation votes. I regret my vote to confirm Justice Scalia, even though he, too, like Judge Roberts was a nice person and a very smart Harvard lawyer." Kennedy was also among five Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to vote against Roberts. Others voting in opposition included Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Dianne Feinstein of California and Evan Bayh from Roberts' home state of Indiana. Democrats voting yes included Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Max Baucus of Montana. "I do not know, none of us do, the mark that Chief Justice Roberts will leave on the court," said Sen. Mitch McConnell R-Kentucky. "With his many fine qualities he may be a great administrator, he may leave some great reform of our court system, he may revolutionize some area of law -- but he will be a successful leader." Next nominee With Roberts widely expected confirmation, attention on Capitol Hill shifts to the president's choice to replace retiring O'Connor. (View a gallery of possible Supreme Court nominees) At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan called on the Senate to treat Bush's next nominee in the same "civil and dignified way" Roberts was treated. "The president will nominate someone that all Americans can be proud of, someone who is highly qualified to serve on the highest court in our land," McClellan said. "While this nomination did not warrant an attempt to block this nominee on the floor of the Senate, the next one might," warned Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, in a speech Wednesday. "I hope and pray the president chooses to unite, rather than divide -- that he chooses consensus over confrontation." Democrats express concern Some Democrats complained that Roberts did not adequately answer their questions, after Roberts repeatedly deflected inquiries by insisting he could not comment on issues that might come before the high court. Because O'Connor has been a moderate swing vote on the closely divided court, the battle over her replacement could prove more contentious than the comparatively mild tussle over Roberts' confirmation. Bush administration officials close to the selection process have told CNN that Bush will announce his nominee to replace O'Connor as soon as Friday. The focus of the search process has been on women and minority candidates, Bush sources confirm, although White House advisers are holding their cards close to the vest. Roberts, a native of Buffalo, New York, grew up in Indiana before going east to Harvard for undergraduate studies and law school. A Roman Catholic, he is married with two small children. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red Baron 0 Report post Posted September 29, 2005 Why no one has posted it yet? Because we allready knew that he was going to be sworn in a few weeks ago. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted September 29, 2005 teh "nays" NAYs ---22 Akaka (D-HI) Bayh (D-IN)* Biden (D-DE)* Boxer (D-CA) Cantwell (D-WA) Clinton (D-NY)* Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA)* Lautenberg (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Obama (D-IL) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) *denotes presidential aspirant Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted September 29, 2005 Bayh (D-IN)* Biden (D-DE)* Clinton (D-NY)* Kerry (D-MA)* *denotes presidential aspirant <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "aspirant" is French for "sucking," isn't it? Sums up that ragtag bunch pretty well. 'cept Evan Bayh. I thought he was a reasonable man. What's he doing among Teddy and Hillary? EDIT: no wait, it's just "aspiring." I was thinking it was related to "aspirateur," which is "vacuum cleaner." Well, in that case, they're more like a bunch of aspirateurs. EDIT: Dang I speaked French I must be a liberal Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2GOLD 0 Report post Posted September 29, 2005 Glad to see the vote was based on qualifications and had nothing to do with his party association. Our government politicians are more childish than any pre-school on the god damn planet. Democrats and Republicans would vote for Satan as long as he had the right letter by his name. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted September 29, 2005 Glad to see the vote was based on qualifications and had nothing to do with his party association. Our government politicians are more childish than any pre-school on the god damn planet. Democrats and Republicans would vote for Satan as long as he had the right letter by his name. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> NO!!! You don't understand!!! They didn't get enough information about him!!! Ruth Bader Ginsburg, yeah, we got the gist of her, but this guy is so secretive!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2GOLD 0 Report post Posted September 29, 2005 Glad to see the vote was based on qualifications and had nothing to do with his party association. Our government politicians are more childish than any pre-school on the god damn planet. Democrats and Republicans would vote for Satan as long as he had the right letter by his name. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> NO!!! You don't understand!!! They didn't get enough information about him!!! Ruth Bader Ginsburg, yeah, we got the gist of her, but this guy is so secretive!!!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This guy could have been a fucking judge for 15 years with awesome qualifications and no indication that his party has anything to do with his decisions and the vote still would have been split. It's petty and pathetic on the part of both sides. If the person is right for the job, the person is right for the job. Getting to the point where you expect people to get hired and fired depending on their politics outside of Washington. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
therealworldschampion 0 Report post Posted September 29, 2005 I am just SHOCKED that Corzine voted against him. I bet if Roberts had slipped Corzine $5,000 he would've voted for him... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted September 29, 2005 Glad to see the vote was based on qualifications and had nothing to do with his party association. Our government politicians are more childish than any pre-school on the god damn planet. Democrats and Republicans would vote for Satan as long as he had the right letter by his name. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> NO!!! You don't understand!!! They didn't get enough information about him!!! Ruth Bader Ginsburg, yeah, we got the gist of her, but this guy is so secretive!!!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This guy could have been a fucking judge for 15 years with awesome qualifications and no indication that his party has anything to do with his decisions and the vote still would have been split. It's petty and pathetic on the part of both sides. If the person is right for the job, the person is right for the job. Getting to the point where you expect people to get hired and fired depending on their politics outside of Washington. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ...but there are things we don't know!! WE MUST KNOW ALL WE ARE THE MIGHTY-ALBEIT-STEADILY-SHRINKING SENATE MINORITY Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Justice 0 Report post Posted September 29, 2005 Oh God, I can't wait for Stabenow to get thrown out on her ass. And Obama isn't under Presidential Aspirant? I know he's young, but he's like the one guy everyone in the party likes to talk about. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted September 30, 2005 *amateur listmaker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted September 30, 2005 And Obama isn't under Presidential Aspirant? I know he's young, but he's like the one guy everyone in the party likes to talk about. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I meant for '08. I doubt anybody will care about his Roberts vote by ought 12 or '16. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted September 30, 2005 YOU HEARD ME Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted September 30, 2005 NO!!! You don't understand!!! They didn't get enough information about him!!! Ruth Bader Ginsburg, yeah, we got the gist of her, but this guy is so secretive!!!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ginsburg actually said she approved of what he did. The complaint isn't so much about saying nothing, because other nominees, before Ginsberg, have done that. It's that he's saying nothing AND a complete lock that made people frustrated. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Art Sandusky 0 Report post Posted September 30, 2005 Glad to see the vote was based on qualifications and had nothing to do with his party association. Our government politicians are more childish than any pre-school on the god damn planet. Democrats and Republicans would vote for Satan as long as he had the right letter by his name. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> NO!!! You don't understand!!! They didn't get enough information about him!!! Ruth Bader Ginsburg, yeah, we got the gist of her, but this guy is so secretive!!!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hey, this one's not worth the overblown ridicule. I'll probably end up disliking how he votes over time, but I'd rather have someone qualified than someone with less judicial ability voting as I would every time. I'm saving all of my piss and vinegar for the unfrozen country lawyer from 1920s Kansas's nomination. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Robfather 0 Report post Posted September 30, 2005 Jack Roberts is a well behaved kid... But even he feels the need to DANCE after yesterday! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BruiserKC 0 Report post Posted October 1, 2005 This wasn't as earth-shattering as everyone was making it out to be. Rehnquist's death made it a no-brainer and a no-stresser really...a conservative for a conservative. The main event is coming folks...when O'Connor's replacement is named by the Dubya. That's when the blood and the partisanship flows as that will be the one that shapes the court for the next generation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted October 1, 2005 I find it amusing that CNN's got a chart denoting which people voting against him might be running for president, as if people who give a shit about this don't already know who conventional wisdom says the potential candidates are. Let me just point out that 4 years ago, everyone was saying the 2004 Democratic nominee would either be Gore, Liebermann, or Hillary Clinton. The media has a long history of being wrong about who the candidates will be. Mario Cuomo, Colin Powell, and Dan Quayle can all verify this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted October 1, 2005 Dan Quayle can all verify this. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Dan Quayle can't verify what he had for breakfast in the morning Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2GOLD 0 Report post Posted October 1, 2005 What morons in the media picked Dan Quayle to ever be in the running for his party nomination? Quayle couldn't have won a high school student election after his brillance as VP. Also, Hillary Clinton is satan. She just is. Her and Joe scare me more and more everyday. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted October 1, 2005 Hillary Clinton is satan. She just is. Her and Joe scare me more and more everyday. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2GOLD 0 Report post Posted October 1, 2005 SEE! She has that "smiling cause they haven't checked the crawl space" look on her face. That woman is pure evil. And stupid. Evil and stupid. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted October 1, 2005 Someone here needs help... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted October 1, 2005 What morons in the media picked Dan Quayle to ever be in the running for his party nomination? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Apparently you didn't follow politics back in 1995. There was actually talk of a Quayle/Powell ticket for a while. No, really. Quayle, Bob Dole, and Phil Gramm were considered the early frontrunners for the 1996 nomination, when the media wasn't hyping the Colin Powell run that never happened. And yes, my whole premise was that political pundits in the media are kind of stupid. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Edwin MacPhisto 0 Report post Posted October 3, 2005 So, who the fuck is Harriet Miers? Seems to be the question on everyone's mind. I'm not terribly sure how I feel about a supreme court justice who's never been a judge before. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Robfather 0 Report post Posted October 3, 2005 The Miers pick is cronyism on parade. I supported the Roberts nod, but I do not support this one. Very disappointing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted October 3, 2005 NEVER BEEN A JUDGE?!?! The fuck? Cronyism AND affirmative action at once, this is fuckin' great. Feel free to block this, Democrats. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2GOLD 0 Report post Posted October 3, 2005 That's actually crafty. Throw out the worst possible candiate and let the opponent waste their ammo on the decoy. And it's not like they can let him slide in with an approval either. It's crafty and fucking backhanded to waste everyone's time and money....so good politics. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BX 0 Report post Posted October 3, 2005 The folks at Free Republic are pulling their hair out right now. I love it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Celtic Guardian 0 Report post Posted October 3, 2005 The folks at Free Republic are pulling their hair out right now. I love it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A lot of conservatives seem more upset at this Miers court selection than the liberals. What a strange and curious turn of events. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
