Who Voted Against John Roberts?

Any Surprises?

from JoeUser Forums

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.
politics
4,154 views 13 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
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!
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
They still can't come up with a good reason why he shouldn't be on the court.
CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yep. Both of ours voted no. Despite the fact that we have a Republican governor, Hawaii is a very blue state.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
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. .
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
"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.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

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?

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.

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

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

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?

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

a progressive stance" could mean anything, Deference

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

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

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!