Who Voted Against John Roberts?

Any Surprises?

Published on September 30, 2005 By Dr Guy In Politics

Here is a list of the Senators that voted against John Roberts? Can you find any surprises?

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)

Nope, no Surprises. Except maybe Leahy's absense. Nice round up of the loony left leadership there.

Comments

Dr Guy

on Sep 30, 2005

Notice the only red state Democrat who voted against him is Harkin? Seems it is true. He is playing to the loony base for 08!

Island Dog

on Sep 30, 2005

They still can't come up with a good reason why he shouldn't be on the court.

Texas Wahine

on Sep 30, 2005

Yep. Both of ours voted no. Despite the fact that we have a Republican governor, Hawaii is a very blue state.

bakerstreet

on Sep 30, 2005

The sad part is, their excuse for voting no is the fact he is doing what he is supposed to do; staying neutral and not allowing his personal feelings to sway him to vocally support either side of an issue.

Deference

on Sep 30, 2005

The only reason the above voted against Roberts was because they believed him to lack a (in their view) vital ingredient in a Supreme Court Justice - a progressive stance.

Read 'Men in Black' by Mark Levin, definently skip the forward, but it should provide an interesting yet basic explorative in to the history of the Supreme Court.

Robert Bork's ~1996 book "Slouching Towards Gommorrah" is another interesting view on the lack of originalism within the court as it's history has shown (Bork also made a great speech on C-Span in regards to Robert's senate hearings which basically went over the basic points in his book).

I'm still making up my mind on the issue, progressivisim or originalism?

Normally I'd say orginalistic candidates would be best suited for the U.S. Supreme Court, but with increasing federalism coming from the executive branch with it's executive orders and apathy coming from the American people combined with corruption from our representatives, I may have to look forward to only welcoming so-called progressive or even activist judges simply to keep balance in the U.S. .

bakerstreet

on Sep 30, 2005

"a progressive stance" could mean anything, Deference. The evolution of a society isn't on rails like most activists think it is. To many, what I would consider the natural progression of this society would be devolution.

Deference

on Sep 30, 2005

Bakerstreet, I've heard that argument before from you (society on rails) and do agree with you, when I'm talking about a progressive judge you understand I am referring to one overturning current legislature with a new precedent when that precedent is not explicitly supported by any statute or writing found within the constitution or bill of rights.

Dr Guy

on Oct 12, 2005

They still can't come up with a good reason why he shouldn't be on the court.

I heard they came up with the fact that he had a brain and was breathing.

Dr Guy

on Oct 12, 2005

Yep. Both of ours voted no. Despite the fact that we have a Republican governor, Hawaii is a very blue state.

I am sorry. Maybe we can send you Giggles the clown to cheer you up?

Dr Guy

on Oct 12, 2005

Of course! The old baffle them with the truth strategy!

Dr Guy

on Oct 12, 2005

Read 'Men in Black' by Mark Levin, definently skip the forward, but it should provide an interesting yet basic explorative in to the history of the Supreme Court.

You do know who Mark Levin is dont you?

Dr Guy

on Oct 12, 2005

a progressive stance" could mean anything, Deference

In their case I think it means he was not willing to legislate from the bench.

Dr Guy

on Oct 12, 2005

when I'm talking about a progressive judge you understand I am referring to one overturning current legislature with a new precedent when that precedent is not explicitly supported by any statute or writing found within the constitution or bill of rights.

Damn I am good! I wrote my previous answer before I read yours!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!