Roberts on Way to Senate; Focus Now on Nominee #2
by Jody Brown and Bill Fancher
September 22, 2005
(AgapePress) - Now that President Bush's pick to be the next chief justice seems assured of confirmation, attention is turning to who his next pick might be to replace the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor. Observers agree that individual could play a major role in how the high court rules for years to come.
When today's voting was done, John G. Roberts' nomination as the next chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court had been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee 13-5. His nomination now goes before the full Senate, where a vote is expected to take place on Monday. He is expected to be confirmed by the Senate.
All ten Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voted for Roberts, as did Democrats Patrick Leahy of Vermont, and Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold, both of Wisconsin. Other Democratic members, among them Senators Dianne Feinstein and Ted Kennedy, had in recent days announced their opposition to the president's pick to replace the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Joining those three in casting votes against Roberts were Joseph Biden, Charles Schumer, and Richard Durbin.
Jan LaRue with Concerned Women for America is pleased the Committee has passed Roberts on to the full Senate -- but she has some political advice for those who might be considering casting their vote against the nominee.
"Only those willing to jump off a political cliff by joining hands with the die-hard abortion, gay rights, and environmental groups can be expected to oppose this supremely qualified nominee," the CWA's chief counsel says. "Judge Roberts deserves overwhelming bi-partisan confirmation by the Senate."
LaRue believes Roberts' judicial philosophy as a strict constructionist has laid the groundwork for President Bush's next nominee. She says as soon as Roberts is confirmed by the Senate, the president should name the "best-qualified and proven constitutionalist" as O'Connor's replacement. But at least one Christian activist is less optimistic than LaRue about Roberts' performance during his confirmation hearings.
Following the strategy followed and answers given by Roberts, Rev. Rob Schenck of the National Clergy Council says he wants to see a "much stronger, much more constant, much bolder conservative" nominated by the president -- "because it's the next seat that will change the balance on the court," he points out.
Most court analysts wills say the high court currently consists of five liberals, three conservatives, and one swing vote. The next nominee will be the replacement for that swing vote, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
According to Schenck, those of the liberal persuasion say the current balance must be maintained. He finds it amusing that liberals never called for "balance" when there were seven liberal votes on the Supreme Court.
"When it comes to the liberal philosophy of controlling the courts, fairness isn't even in their vocabulary," the National Clergy Council spokesman says. "This has never been fair. What the liberals want is a legal juggernaut that will trump the will of the people every time."
Schenck says liberals want to control the court in order to get their agenda into the law without going through the legislative process -- something they have generally had difficulty in accomplishing.
