Chief Justice John Roberts
September 30th, 2005 at 11:27 pm by David FarrarJohn Roberts has been confirmed by the Senate and sworn in as the 17th Chief Justice of the United States.
What I find interesting is that, according to Wikipedia, his 78-22 confirmation vote by the Senate was the highest number of votes in favour ever recorded by a Chief Justice. It really indicates that only the most partisan Senators voted against.
Related posts:
- Chief Justice Roberts
- The Press on the Chief Justice
- Chief Justice Rehnquist has died
- Justice Roberts
October 1st, 2005 at 9:07 am
Or it means that the USA has become a defacto one party state
Vote:October 1st, 2005 at 9:18 am
The TVOne news item was laughably inaccurate on this. Saying that Justice Roberts could over-rule laws etc etc. He is one Justice of 9, and it is a majority that makes the law. It was not unusual for the previous Chief Justice to be in the minority. That aside it is still a very significant appointmnet. I think he will be far less idealogical that the previous Chief. I hope he interpets the US consitution as a modern living document rather than have it in some 18th centuary time warp. Whe a Judge starts a ruling with “what the founding fathers intended” I shudder at what is coming next.
Vote:October 1st, 2005 at 9:27 am
Tim:
What I found really bizarre about the One News item was that it was another report that had to point out that Roberts is a devout Catholic. And the news value, or relevance to his new position, of his religion is?
Vote:October 1st, 2005 at 9:32 am
Craig – the left in the US are terrified that a newly conservative Supreme Court will outlaw abortion. The right are afraid the Supreme Court are plotting to abolish the death penalty. In light of this, the appointment of a devout Catholic to the position of Chief Justice is highly newsworthy.
Vote:October 1st, 2005 at 11:22 am
The list of those who voted against such a highly qualified nominee
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00245
must rank as the ultimate description of what’s sick about the “mainstream” of the American Democratic Party today. It includes John Kerry (self-made hero and marry-up artist), Ted Kennedy (well-connected Harvard expellee and junior frogman), Diane Feinstein (self-apointed women’s representative who wanted to know about “John Roberts the man”), Hillary Clinton (“we are the President” and “stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society”), Joe Biden (Neil Kinnock plagiariser for whom “Bush is brain dead”), Dick Durbin (“American soldiers = Nazis, Soviets, Pol Pot”) and even up-and-coming Barack Obama (from Illinois, the cradle of Daley vote-rigging).
Perhaps through the political hijacking of the Democrats by the nutty extremists, the USA is indeed becoming a one-party country but, as Jim Anderton once said “I didn’t leave them, they left me”. Unlike their opponents, however, the Republican Party seems capable of being a broad-based and inclusive institution.
Vote:October 1st, 2005 at 3:52 pm
Dim
Vote:a) Even if Roberts is conservative (which in itself is doubtful), he has replaced another conservative justice, so there is no chaneg to the ideological make-up of the court
b) the court cannot just ‘outlaw’ abortion whenever it feels like it
c) even if they did over turn roe v wade, it wouldn’t have that much effect as most abortion clinics are in states that have legalised it through legislation
d) Roe is a terrible decision anyway
e) Robert’s catholicism has nothing to do with the way he will rule on cases, as he consistently said throughout the confirmation hearings.
f) Roberts has a great respect for stare decisis, so the changes of Roe going are slim anyway.
October 1st, 2005 at 4:27 pm
Tony,
I think you are being a bit harsh on the Dems who voted against Roberts. His background is bullet-proof alright, and he was disciplined and professional in refusing to answer any questions that would have non-platitudinous answers during the hearings. But the latter performance while absolutely sufficient for members of the President’s party to support a nominee on the grounds that the Pres. should basically get what he wants unless there’s a big problem raised, is at best a coin toss for senators from the oposition partry who need not take such a minimal view of their advise and consent function.
The upshot is that you absolutely can’t – the American ppeople never do – hold anyone’s “no” votes against them – the “he didn’t our questions” line together with a robust interpretation of “advise and consent” gets anyone off the hook.
Schumer of NY was very eloquent about Roberts’s rope-a-dope during the hearing thereby laying the predicate for his own very respectable “No” vote:
SCHUMER: Let me just say, sir, in all due respect — and I respect your intelligence and your career and your family — this process is getting a little more absurd the further we move.
Vote:You agree we should be finding out your philosophy and method of legal reasoning, modesty, stability, but when we try to find out what modesty and stability mean, what your philosophy means, we don’t get any answers.
It’s as if I asked you: What kind of movies do you like? Tell me two or three good movies. And you say, “I like movies with good acting. I like movies with good directing. I like movies with good cinematography.”
And I ask you, “No, give me an example of a good movie.” You don’t name one. I say, “Give me an example of a bad movie.” You won’t name one. Then I ask you if you like “Casablanca,” and you respond by saying, “Lots of people like ‘Casablanca.’”
October 1st, 2005 at 6:31 pm
Dim:
It’s quite possible to be a religiously observant jurist, and still believe you’re there to apply the law not religious doctrine or your personal political views. Roberts has said as much until he’s blue in the face, but that seems to be a very hard concept for the loony left and the rabid right to get their heads around. They certainly seem to scared shitless of Roberts’ stated view that if he wanted to write legislation, he’d have stood for political office not become a judge.
Stephen:
With all due respect to Schumer (i.e. not very much), I’ve read most of the transcripts of the confirmation hearings and what “absurdity” there was in the process didn’t seem to be coming from Chief Justice Roberts.
Roberts wasn’t willing to play ball with hypotheticals that were tantamount to ‘have you stopped beating your wife yet?’ interview questions. Good on him, I say. His job will be to consider specific arguments in specific cases. And if Schumer et. al. couldn’t get a sense of his “judicial temperament” from thousands of pages of documents, decisions and other writings – as well as hours of oral testimony – he’s a rather dim bulb.
Vote:October 1st, 2005 at 6:33 pm
Dim:
It’s quite possible to be a religiously observant jurist, and still believe you’re there to apply the law not religious doctrine or your personal political views. Roberts has said as much until he’s blue in the face, but that seems to be a very hard concept for the loony left and the rabid right to get their heads around. They certainly seem to scared shitless of Roberts’ stated view that if he wanted to write legislation, he’d have stood for political office not become a judge.
Stephen:
With all due respect to Schumer (i.e. not very much), I’ve read most of the transcripts of the confirmation hearings and what “absurdity” there was in the process didn’t seem to be coming from Chief Justice Roberts.
Roberts wasn’t willing to play ball with hypotheticals that were tantamount to ‘have you stopped beating your wife yet?’ interview questions. Good on him, I say. His job will be to consider specific arguments in specific cases. And if Schumer et. al. couldn’t get a sense of his “judicial temperament” from thousands of pages of documents, decisions and other writings – as well as hours of oral testimony – he’s a rather dim bulb.
Vote:October 1st, 2005 at 8:21 pm
Craig you read the transcripts ?
Then you must have missed the absurdity of Roberts refusing to answer a question about the Bush v Gore case , something that will not come up again.
Of course Roberts volunteered to help Bushes brother Governor Jeb Bush ( he is the one with his kids in trouble with the law) find a way to stop Kerry getting Florida’s electoral votes if Bush lost the recount.
The real problem for Democrats was that Roberts was a highly partisan republican, and they have a history of interpreting the law to favour the GOP and its policies. As shown by Stevens and Souter who were judges appointed by republicans but were active in the GOP.
Vote:Before becoming a Justice, Justice Rehnquist was a Republican party official who campaigned for Goldwater and was a member of the Nixon Administration, Justice O’Connor was a Republican party official and legislator, Justice Thomas was a member of the Reagan and Bush Administrations, Justice Scalia was a member of the Nixon and Ford Administrations, and Justice Kennedy was a Republican lobbyist and paid consultant to Reagan.
October 1st, 2005 at 9:16 pm
Dim – the left are not terrified that the SC will outlaw abortion. There is not even a remote possibility of this. What they are afraid is that teh SC may change its mind on whether abortion is a constitutionally protected right. Even if they change their mind on that (and to be blunt the decision was manifestly wrong and I am pro-choice) then all it means is each state would determine what limits, if any, applt on abortions.
Tim – the problem with having the SC interpret it as a modern living document is you make the nine SC judges the final arbiters on every issue in society, rather than the people through their representatives.
Vote:October 1st, 2005 at 11:31 pm
Thurston:
“The real problem for Democrats was that Roberts was a highly partisan republican, and they have a history of interpreting the law to favour the GOP and its policies.”
There is no evidence whatsoever that Roberts was highly partisan.
“As shown by Stevens and Souter who were judges appointed by republicans but were active in the GOP.”
And whose judgements are noted for being consistently liberal rather than pro-republican.
“Before becoming a Justice, Justice Rehnquist was a Republican party official who campaigned for Goldwater and was a member of the Nixon Administration”
There’s no law against appointing people with political beliefs to the supreme court. Otherwise that would rule out Judges like Ginsburg (Women’s right cases, ACLU membership).
“Justice O’Connor was a Republican party official and legislator”
Except that O’Connor can hardly be said to be pro-GOP given that her judgements are notorious for being all over the place.
“Justice Thomas was a member of the Reagan and Bush Administrations, Justice Scalia was a member of the Nixon and Ford Administrations”
There are… Conservatives! in the Supreme Court!! But the fact that Scalia didn’t agree with the government in Hamdi vs Rumsfeld is a major flaw in your belief that he is consistently pro-GOP.
“Justice Kennedy was a Republican lobbyist and paid consultant to Reagan.”
Kennedy is another liberal judge. It’s been said that even if Bush appoints a conservative to fill O’Connor’s seat, nothing will change because Kennedy will become more liberal in response.
Vote:October 2nd, 2005 at 7:07 am
No evidence Roberts was higly partisan ?. I provided some, going to Florida as part of the stop the count brigade.
The issue wasnt having political beliefs but so involved in a party as to be seen as partisan .
Justice Rehnquist as a party official was involved in election day identity checks of voters. A situation often used by the GOP to discourage voters in democrat heavy areas.
The other points you have made are valid, as the US system has traditionally favoured politically active lawyers becoming judges, but the Democrats can reasonably oppose a partisan candidate, who dodged every question even though the guy may be amoung the best legal minds of his generation.
The other amazing coincidence is that David Farrar has supported Antony Scalia for CJ, Mark Blumsky for Wellington Central,Don Brash for PM all in September. Who can get a three-peat like that !
Vote:I await with bated breath his pick for new Tory party leader in the UK.
October 2nd, 2005 at 8:50 am
Skyray:
So, let’s precis your argument: Republicans are evil. And nobody could possibly believe in good faith that The Florida Supremes made a bad decision in law.
Pardon me for not actually taking seriously people who accuse others of partisan bias while peering through a highly biased filter themselves. You asserted that Justice Stevens was “active in the GOP”. That’s flat out not true, as far as I’m aware – unless registering as a Republican in the 1940′s makes you a hard core partisan.
And it’s interesting that you cite Sandra Day O’Connor – a critical swing vote over the last 24 years, who has pissed off both liberals and conservatives with monotonous regularity. She was an Arizona state senator for five years, briefly serving as majority leader. Oddly enough, that was such a barrier to the Senate in 1981 (with it’s then fillibuster-proof Democratic majority) she was confirmed 99-0.
Vote:October 2nd, 2005 at 9:11 am
skyray.
Putting a veil on a pig doesn’t make it beautiful (with apologies to all pigs). Fortunately half the Dem senators were able to see the reality of Roberts’ qualities and accept that a prospective “Supreme” shouldn’t be expected to second-guess decisions, given that s/he will almost certainly have to confront similar legal argment when confirmed (yes, even a re-run of arguments considered in Gore v Bush).
Stephen Glaister.
You call it Roberts’ “rope-a-dope”, I call it jurisprudence. The Senate’s role is to “advise and consent”. Schumer’s illogical blather about films etc was simply a cop-out by him. You’ll notice I didn’t include Schumer in the list of loonies because I have a bit more respect for him – nevertheless, his latest babble demeaned himself.
And as for the claim that appointees have participated in some form of mainstream political activity – that’s a shocker (not)! Check out the creds of the “liberal” appointees:
Vote:Breyer – Ted Kennedy’s Democratic protege; Ginsburg – ACLU Director; Stevens and O’Connor – RINOs. And then there’s Kennedy, the swinger. All of them got there through political connections.
October 2nd, 2005 at 9:23 am
Im not interested in whether O’connor was an active republican who was confirmed 99-0. That was 20 years ago. And certainly being a politician as opposed to a party hack would endear you to the senators. Dont forget she was the first woman nominated, which had a lot to do with the 99-0 result.
Just looking at the biography of Ruth bader Ginsburg, there is no record of her working for a democratic president as a political appointee, she was associated with liberal organisations such as the ACLU.
“While leaning towards the liberal side of the Court’s political spectrum, Ginsburg has not hesitated to vote with her conservative colleagues. ” from this bio http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/legal_entity/107/biography.
If the Florida Supreme court made a bad decision the SCOTUs was even worse. Stopping the vote counting, a great way to run a democracy. Roberts role was to help the Florida governor make sure the ‘electors’ were from the GOP no matter if the final count favoured Al Gore , who remember won the most votes nationwide.
This from the Miami Herald
“When it comes to his meeting with Roberts, the governor said Roberts flew down to Tallahassee, on his own dime, to meet for 30 minutes sometime in November or December to discuss the governor’s role in certifying the election.”
If the final result for Florida didnt come up for Bush then Roberts was advising Bushes brother on how ‘certify the result’ to give it to Bush instead. As well course Roberts did a lot of work on the prep of the Bush v Gore case for SCOTUS.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/12230971.htm.
Such a partisan choice needs to answer questions to show he can be fair, which of course Roberts didnt do. Answer questions that is !!
No not all republicans are evil just the indicted ones !
Vote:Delay , maybe Frist , Rove , Libby
October 2nd, 2005 at 10:41 am
Skyray:
Election day checks of voters? We have them here in NZ. They are called scrutineers and the Labour party and the Greens have them. Do you think they are indulging in dishonest electoral patterns?
Roberts did not dodge every question that he was asked. He refused to answer many questions on the grounds that he would likely be judging a case in the SCOTUS and hence didn’t want to prejudge the issue.
So Ginsburg working for a political organization and not the democratic party excuses her from being partisan? That’s not the meaning partisan has on planet earth.
Wow. Robert’s 30 minutes alone saved Bush’s bacon in Florida in 2000! Do you actually take a moment to consider the soundness (or lack thereof) of your arguments?
More to the point, Bush versus Gore did not stop the vote counting as the votes had been counted and recounted. What the SCOTUS did was to stop a recount in three democratic counties on the grounds that it violated the equality provision of the constitution and it did so on a 7-2 margin.
Vote:October 2nd, 2005 at 1:53 pm
Hi Y’all,
Let’s have another go shall we?
You get confirmed to the SCOTUS these days by
(i) not answering questions about anything much, certainly not about any of the controversial cases or decision that are the absolute life blood of consitutional law in the US
(ii) not having much of a document trail (at least not recently)
(iii) acting deferential and inoffensive during the eharings themselves
(iii) isn’t too much of a problem – although Roberts pushed everyone to the wall with saying “humble” every five seconds (you think Peter Dunne’s bad with “common sense” – this was much worse both in itself and given the stakes)
(i) and (ii) are the heart of the matter.
(ii) means that it’s almost impossible for anyoneigenuinely interesting (at least recently) to get on the court. If you’ve recently been an academic (unless you worked on a very narrrow ares as Breyer did) then you can almost forget it. This is ridiculous. Roberts was a perfect candidate because most of his substantive writing was back in the 80′s, which he could now safely dismiss as youthful garbage if needs be etc.. Since then Roberts has mainly been an advocate and authored a relatively small pile of fairly thin – technical, miniaturist decisions from the bench. Not even close to the “thousands of pages” someone above mentioned! And, look, it’s almost impossible to understate the extent to which Amercians are super-careerists – they stuff resumes from early ages, and in the case of people who want to get on SCOTUS they’re going to do what that takes too – resume-slimming in soome respects. It’s plausible Roberts is the way he is, *precisely* to get the big chance he in fact got. Which makes him (and maybe anyone else who plays the game so well) a little scary. All of this however. puts pressure on…
(i) not answering questions. Roberts did perfect rope-a-dope on this (jurisprudence, Tony? I don’t see it) – letting blow-hard senators flail away etc. while saying almost nnothing himself. Everyone’s done this since Ruth Ginsberg. Before that people such as a dim-witted Clarence Thomas completely screwed themseves. Thomas should have been rejected by the senate, in my view, for saying in response to the inevitable Roe v. Wade question that he’s never thought about it. Ha ha. Liar liar pants on fire. Unless he’s incompetent. (Just think – no Anita Hill etc. if they had rejcted him at that point.)
OK, so now no SCOTUS nominee will answer questions at exactly the level that everybody actually conducts discussion of law in the US, and nobody who’s opined at any real length on such matters in print gets in the door.
Imagine how it is to be a Schumer – almost *everybody* you ever meet talks your ear off about cases from Marbury v. Madison forward, and regale you with their latest squaring of the circle on, say, Equal protection clause constitutional jurisprudence… (hey – I do it!). Suddenly you’re confronted with a nominee for the SCOTUS and *they’re* all clammed up like they’re conducting diplomacy with a foreign power. Too bizarre. I’m not sure *I* could stand it, in fact I’d be hard-pressed not to put a gun to somebody’s head and say “For God’s sake, just tell us what you think”. [joke]
And it’s *that* person who’s following these crazy prescriptions to the hilt both in their career overall and in front of you now, who’s going to be in control of the longest time scale branch of government for the next 30 or more years? Jesus, saying “no” is a perfectly respectable option at that point. (And of course 25 or so Dem senators did vote *for* Roberts – what more does the right want? Is this the Wall Street Journal Taliban? Jesus, talk about glasses half full…)
I should add, that the general problems with SCOTUS confirmation hearings these days are pretty sobering overall. A beautiful piece of institutional design in a great democracy can be gamed to within an inch of its life and made almost useless by, well, nothing less than the full force of democratic process itself being brought to bear on it. (“Democracy metasticized” was a phrase that popped into my head.) It appears to be true that were hearings, final votes, and maybe even the Senate’s vote done in closed sessions/secret ballots of various sorts, better candidates would be nominated and thence confirmed.
In sum, there’s much for thoughtful Americans to think about in the wake of these hearings, but whether Schumer et al. voted “No” isn’t part of that.
Vote:October 2nd, 2005 at 2:30 pm
Sorry Peter but Roberts 30 min with the Governor was about Jeb Bushes NOT certifying the vote if Gore won. This approach was never used as the counts they stopped had Bush ahead. Notice it was on his own bat, pro bono
The Florida legislature also convened in order to assign the electors to Bush which was another approach that did happen but in the end wasnt necesary as Jeb Bush and Harris had certified the aborted count.
Here is the time line
November 7: Election Day, as designated by Congress in Title 3, U.S. Code, Section 1.
November 8: About 3 a.m. EST, Vice President and Democratic Party candidate Al Gore telephones Texas Gov. and Republican Party candidate George W. Bush to concede. About an hour later, Gore retracts the concession because Bush’s margin of victory in Florida is slim enough to trigger an automatic recount under 102.141(4) of the Florida Election Code (the Florida Division of Elections reported that the Republican Party presidential ticket received 2,909,135 (48.8%) votes and the Democratic Party presidential ticket received 2,907,351 (48.8%) votes; other candidates on the presidential ballot in Florida received a total of 139,616 votes). The automatic recount further reduces the vote margin. The first lawsuit is filed challenging Palm Beach’s “butterfly ballot.”
November 9: Manual recounts are requested by or on behalf of the Gore campaign under 102.166 in Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, and Volusia counties.
November 11: Bush and several voters commence federal lawsuit (Siegel v. LePore) to halt manual recounts because of alleged equal protection and other constitutional violations.
November 12: Palm Beach County manual recount begins.
November 13: U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks rejects Bush’s plea in Siegel for an order barring hand recounts of ballots. Volusia County sues to complete manual recount notwithstanding the November 14 “deadline” for county Canvassing Boards to file election returns (one week after general election) set in 102.112(1).
November 14: Circuit Judge Terry Lewis rules in McDermott v. Harris that Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris may enforce a statutory 5 p.m. deadline for county reporting of returns, but that she may not arbitrarily refuse to include late-filed returns
November 15: After considering submissions from counties still conducting recounts, Secretary of State Harris indicates that she will not consider further returns from those counties.
November 17: Deadline for receipt of overseas absentee ballots under Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 1S-2.013(7). Judge Terry Lewis refuses to compel Secretary Harris to consider late returns. On appeal, Florida Supreme Court prohibits Secretary Harris from certifying the election results – as she had planned to do November 18 – until further notice from the court. In Seminole County, local Democrats sue the Seminole County Canvassing Board for including certain absentee ballots in the vote totals that did not satisfy the provisions of 101.62(1)(b) of the Florida Election Code, requiring that a person requesting an absentee ballot provide the elector’s registration number on their application. In Siegel and an associated case (Touchston v. Sheppard), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit refuses to block manual recounts in Broward and Palm Beach counties.
November 19: Miami-Dade County begins manual recount.
November 20: Oral argument before Florida Supreme Court in Palm Beach Canvassing Board v. Harris. In Palm Beach County, Judge Jorge Labarga rules that he has no constitutional authority to order a re-vote due to use of the butterfly ballot.
November 21: Florida Supreme Court rules that manual recounts may continue and that the totals must be included in the final results. Court sets November 26-27 as deadline for certifying the election.
November 22: Bush files petition for certiorari in United States Supreme Court, asking for review of Florida Supreme Court ruling. Judge Jorge Labarga rules that so-called “dimpled chads” cannot be summarily excluded from the Palm Beach manual recount.
November 23: Miami-Dade County suspends its manual recount; Florida Supreme Court rejects Gore request to require resumption.
November 24: U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear Bush’s appeal on the legality of the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to allow recounts and extend state deadline for certification.
November 26: Secretary Harris certifies election results, giving Bush a 537-vote victory over Gore. Governor Jeb Bush signs Certificate of Ascertainment designating 25 Florida electors pledged to George W. Bush and transmits to National Archives as required by Title 3, U.S. Code, Section 6.
November 27: Gore files election contest action under Election Code section 102.168, challenging vote counts in Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, and Nassau counties; case is assigned to Judge Sanders Sauls.
November 28: Judge Sanders Sauls orders about 14,000 disputed ballots from Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties brought to him in Tallahassee.
November 30: A Florida legislative committee recommends a special session to name the state’s 25 representatives to the Electoral College, which elects the president.
December 1: U.S. Supreme Court hears oral argument on Bush’s appeal of November 21 Florida Supreme Court ruling (Bush v. Palm Beach Canvassing Board). Florida Supreme Court refuses Gore’s appeal to immediately start recounting ballots in his election contest. Florida Supreme Court upholds Judge Jorge Labarga’s rejection of suits challenging Palm Beach “butterfly ballot”. Texas federal District Court Judge Sidney Fitzwater rejects voter suit arguing that Dick Cheney is an inhabitant of Texas and thus ineligible to receive votes of Texas electors (Jones v. Bush).
December 2-3: Trial held in Gore’s election contest [see transcript Part I, II, III, IV].
December 4: U.S. Supreme Court rules in Bush v. Palm Beach Canvassing Board, vacating order of Florida Supreme Court and remanding for clarification the Florida Supreme Court’s November 21 decision on recount deadlines. Judge Sauls rejects Gore’s election challenge.
December 6: Separate trials on the Seminole County [transcript Part I, II, III] and Martin County [transcript Part I, II, III] absentee ballot application cases begin in Leon County Circuit Court. Florida’s Republican legislative leaders call for special session to consider whether to appoint Florida’s 25 electors.
December 7: Florida Supreme Court hears Gore’s appeal of Judge Sauls’ rejection of election contest. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit orally affirms dismissal of challenge to Cheney’s residency (Jones v. Bush). A formal proclamation is issued calling the Florida Legislature for a special session commencing December 8.
December 8: In 4-3 split decision, Florida Supreme Court rules for Gore, ordering a statewide manual recount of undervotes to begin and adding 383 votes to his total. Bush seeks stays before the Florida Supreme Court, the 11th Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court and additionally petitions the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari. Leon County Circuit Court Judges Terry Lewis and Nikki Clark refuse to throw out any of the 25,000 absentee ballots challenged in Martin and Seminole counties. In Bush v. Hillsborough County Canvassing Board, federal District Court Judge Lacey Collier rules that overseas absentee ballots can be counted even though they lack a postmark required by 101.62(7)(c) of the Florida Election Code. Florida Legislature meets in special session and adjourns with plans to convene again December 12.
December 9: The Florida Supreme Court denies Bush’s application for stay. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta similarly denies Bush’s emergency motion to stop the recount, but orders Florida officials not to change his previously certified 537-vote lead. Minutes later, the U.S. Supreme Court, divided 5-4, issues a stay in Gore v. Bush to stop the manual recounts. Federal District Court Judge Maurice Paul denies request to throw out overseas absentee ballots not received by Election Day (Harris, Medina v. Florida Elections Canvassing Commission).
December 11: U.S. Supreme Court hears oral argument in Gore v. Bush. Florida Supreme Court issues a 6-1 clarifying Opinion on remand from U.S. Supreme Court in Palm Beach Canvassing Board v. Harris. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirms dismissal of Harris, Medina case challenging inclusion of overseas absentee ballots. Committees in both houses of the Florida Legislature approve resolutions appointing 25 electors pledged to Bush.
December 12: Deadline for resolution of elector controversies to qualify for “conclusive” protection under Title 3, U.S. Code, Section 5. Florida House of Representatives passes resolution appointing 25 electors. Florida Supreme Court upholds dismissal of Seminole and Martin county absentee ballot application challenges. At about 10 p.m. EST, U.S. Supreme Court issues 5-4 decision in Gore v. Bush reversing Florida Supreme Court and ruling that manual recounts cannot be conducted in a constitutional manner in the time remaining.
December 13: Seeing no legal recourse from the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Gore concedes.
December 14: Florida Supreme Court dismisses Gore v. Harris on remand. JURIST concludes expanded coverage of the Florida recount.
From http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electiontime.htm
Vote:October 2nd, 2005 at 3:49 pm
Skyray:
“Sorry Peter but Roberts 30 min with the Governor was about Jeb Bushes NOT certifying the vote if Gore won. This approach was never used as the counts they stopped had Bush ahead.”
In other words, Roberts was consulted for half an hour on a legal point that wasn’t pursued? You don’t even know whether Roberts told Jeb whether there was a case to argue or not.
Moreover in your vast irrelevant screen dump (people with half a brain could have just provided the link but you had to quote the entirety), you are still revealing your ignorance of what happened. Jeb Bush could _not_ certify the vote count even if he wanted to as certification was the sole perogative of the Floridan Secretary of State Katherine Harris.
On a positive note, I presume from the sole focus upon Bush versus Gore, you have conceded that your other arguments against Roberts are without merit?
Vote:October 2nd, 2005 at 3:54 pm
Why Stephen Glaister and skyray, thanks for telling us what you think.
Shame you’re not nominees yourselves, because then you have to confront reality. The situation remains – there’s a reason that nominees don’t discuss cases, whether actual or hypothetical. that’s because “misunderstandings” can occur (imagine a stupid senator – and there are plenty of them – saying “when I asked you about e.g. Roe v Wade you told me that you would have acted no differently. Now you’ve issued a decision on a similar case and changed your mind. You must have been a liar then or a shyster now”).
Great position to put an eminent jurist into (not!) – having their own words twisted against them by a sneaky pollie. And have a guess why the sneaky pollie would be doing that – plain and simple playing to the electoral gallery.
So, how about coming off the high-horse and start talking plain horse-sense (for a change)?
Why Schumer wanted to know Roberts’ view on cases and Feinstein wanted to know about Roberts “the man” – is because they didn’t have the decency to simply say “you’re a Bush nominee and so I’m going to oppose you, regardless of how good a jurist you are”.
Advise and consent is the Senate’s role. When Senators want to stack the Supreme Court with their nominees, they first need to win a presidential election. Thank goodness Senator (flip flop) Kerry was a total failure at that, despite the best efforts of the mainstream media. Kerry didn’t even have the integrity of his running mate John Edwards and state that he wanted to be President or nothing. Edwards resigned his Senate seat to run for the VP’s job – Kerry remains a conceited disaster in the Senate.
Vote:October 2nd, 2005 at 5:01 pm
One last quick note. Tony, I think you and I may ultimately agree about more than we disagree. The senate SCOTUS confirmation process has become a bit of a disaster. Ruth Ginberg pioneered the Roberts approach to confirmation hearings. She was a more stellar candidate than Roberts is; and yet masses of Republican senators voted against her. So, insofar as you are right about Schumer/Feinstein etc., to that extent what you say is true all over I think. It’s not reallly a problem with Dem. senators lacking guts etc.
I’d like to believe that had Roberts been more forthright that he’d still have got through just fine – people would have taken their licks but finally have had to back down because his views would have hung together in a sensible way. In a way, my hope here is similar to the thought one often has about politicians – perhaps particualrly in the US – that they shouldn’t sugar-coat so much and that the people would repect them more if they’d just give it to them straight, treat them like adults, etc.. But, pious hopes are one thing… giving it to people straight is a high risk strategy for politicians, and, latterly, for SCOTUS nominees too.
It’s pretty depressing in my view that SCOTUS hearings are now like political campaigns, and as hollow. The US will I believe eventually have to change something about its process to overcome this problem.
And, er, you may be right about Kerry.
Vote:Cheers.
October 2nd, 2005 at 5:21 pm
Governor Jeb Bush signs Certificate of Ascertainment designating 25 Florida electors pledged to George W. Bush and transmits to National Archives as required by Title 3, U.S. Code, Section 6.
Harris was just a stooge and would have done whatever Roberts and Jeb Bush told her.
Note Bush did this on November 26.
December 8: In 4-3 split decision, Florida Supreme Court rules for Gore, ordering a statewide manual recount of undervotes to begin and adding 383 votes to his total. Bush seeks stays before the Florida Supreme Court, the 11th Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court and additionally petitions the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari.
This was the when the ‘coup’ happened, a statewide manual recount was to be avoided at all costs and the SCOTUS gave G W Bush his stay and later stopped any recounts to stick with the ‘certified and ascertained’ sham result that Harris , Jeb Bush AND Roberts had rammed through 2 weeks earlier
Interestingly the US constitution never mentions ‘ELECTORAL COLLEGE’ just electors , a term borrowed from the Holy Roman Empire. That never worked well either the final incarnation being the Third Reich
Vote:October 2nd, 2005 at 5:42 pm
Without doubt the stupidest comment (of many) from Skyray: is this one:
“Interestingly the US constitution never mentions ‘ELECTORAL COLLEGE’ just electors , a term borrowed from the Holy Roman Empire. That never worked well either the final incarnation being the Third Reich”.
Hmmmm.
Vote:October 2nd, 2005 at 5:49 pm
Skyway:
a) There’s a big difference between certifying the vote count and certifying the electors. Jeb Bush could not certify the vote count, no matter what formality he had in certifying the electors.
b) If Katherine Harris was a stooge, why was she elected independantly from the Governor by the people of Florida?
c) Gore never sought a statewide manual recount – he only sought a recount in three counties (Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Nassau). It was because of the limited nature of the recount that the SCOTUS decided that the equal protection clause had been breached. If you can’t get simple facts right then it says alot about your reading.
d) You contradict yourself yet again. First you say that Roberts only had a thirty minute talk with Jeb Bush about not certifying the electors and now it’s sham result that he had engineered two weeks earlier. If he was so bright to think of a winning SCOTUS tactic in only half an hour, then he deserves to be chief justice on the grounds of legal brilliance alone. But in reality, you are just making yet another incoherent argument without any facts to support it.
e) If you knew anything about history (and you clearly don’t), then you would have known that the preferred Nazi method of seeking approval from the people was the plebsite, not the electoral college. Which renders your whole innuendo somewhat pathetic.
Vote:October 2nd, 2005 at 5:55 pm
Stephen Glaister.
Your points noted, but as for “… masses of Republican senators voted against her …”. No, the actual Senate vote for Ginsburg was 96 to 3.
It could reasonably be said that Ginsburg’s 1993 hearing pioneered the approach of generalised responses to specific questions, but that didn’t seem to stop the then Senate from giving her the thumbs-up in an overwhelming way. Now we have an even more distinguished and experienced advocate and Judge, and he garners a 78-22 vote.
The Dem mainstream (sadly) just cannot break free from their trauma at the 2000 Presidential election. The USA is by far the poorer for not having an effective and decent opposition party. Whilst you have Howard Dean as Chair, and so mnay moonbats in Congress, the credible opposition is coming from within the Republican Party.
Vote:October 2nd, 2005 at 6:15 pm
skyray.
You said:
“Interestingly the US constitution never mentions ‘ELECTORAL COLLEGE’ just electors , a term borrowed from the Holy Roman Empire. That never worked well either the final incarnation being the Third Reich.”
As the Holy Roman Empire ceased in 1806, your attempted link with Germany 1933 seems somewhat far-fetched (to say the least). Best stick to facts – your opinions seems pretty windy.
And if you were trying to make a connection between the USA (College of Electors) and Nazi Germany, then it looks like Godwin’s law applies. Congratulations, you’ve just ended the debate.
Vote:October 2nd, 2005 at 6:29 pm
Tony, you shame me! You are right about the Ginsberg vote, I misremembered that as much more contentious than it ended up being. And I just checked the Breyer vote – it was 87-9. Wow. So since I agree with you that Roberts is in their ballpark of bulletproof-ness (a little more so than Breyer but less so than Ginsberg in my view, but I’m quibbling), I have to take something back. On balance you do appear to be right that the Dems/left have continued to do more to politicize the SCOTUS confrimation process than the Repubs/right, and I appear to have been wrong to suggested, contrarily, that all sides are equally guilty. I stand corrected by you. Many thanks!
Vote:October 2nd, 2005 at 7:01 pm
Sure Gore didnt ask the FSC for a statewide manual recount
November 27: Gore files election contest action under Election Code section 102.168, challenging vote counts in Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, and Nassau counties;
December 8: In 4-3 split decision, Florida Supreme Court rules for Gore, ordering a statewide manual recount of undervotes to begin and adding 383 votes to his total.
This was the result that the SCOTUS finally overules in Bush v Gore that stops all recounts and gives Bush the election.
Startingly the SCOTUS fial ruling says this:
The majority opinion contains some language that supports the broad authority of a state legislature to appoint electors: “The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors,” citing legislative history affirming “the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time”.
So that no matter what the vote counts the Florida legislature could overide the voters and appoint the electors directly, which in this instance they did, but this in the end proved superfluous.
So my offhand comment about the 3rd Reich , the US very nearly came to a usurping of the election result by the GOP controlled Governor and legislature of Florida.
Who still in their right mind thinks Bush v Gore was decided correctly.
My reading of the tea leaves sees Tom Delay doing a plea bargain on his charges so maybe the neocons will finally start to get their comeuppance. Carl Rove will be next !
Vote:October 2nd, 2005 at 7:12 pm
Skyray asks:
“Who still in their right mind thinks Bush v Gore was decided correctly.”
Probably:
Vote:a) the judges who were in the majority
b) the GOP.
c) lots of Americans.
October 2nd, 2005 at 8:03 pm
Skyray:
a) Your source is wrong in claiming that Gore sought and got a manual statewide recount. The recount cannot have added 383 votes to Gore’s vote total because the recount had not been completed when the SCOTUS ruled.
b) The “startling language” is a simple recognition of the fact that according to the constitution, the right to chose electors belongs to the states and not the people (Article 2, first clause). People vote for the electors because the states themselves chose to delegate that power to the people.
c) Your offhand comment reveals nothing more than your reckless disregard for the truth and your ignorant contempt for the murdered millions whose memory you abuse to score cheap shots.
d) Tom Delay isn’t a Neocon.
e) Rove’s first name is spelt with a K as any fule kno.
f) The topic is Chief Justice Roberts. Try and marshal a coherent argument about his merits the next time you post. Wafflings about Bush vs Gore are not an adequate substitute.
Vote:October 2nd, 2005 at 10:12 pm
Strictly speaking I was correct, the 3rd in 3rd reich was the final outcome of the Holy Roman Empire. It has nothing to with the US of course other than the term ‘electors’ were the same Kurfursten as required by the Golden Bull 0f 1356.
Intereesting that the 5 judge majority saw no problem with the state taking back the chosing of electors from the people in the month after an election. This power would only be exercised if the vote count came up for Al Gore.
Hilter too became Chancellor without a majority of seats in the Reichstag, being put in office by an old reactionary Hindenburg who refused to offer the position to the leader of the largest party the SPD.
Roberts was at the centre of all these legal manouerings, no longer a political appointee, and having his nomination as a federeral judge lapse on Clintons election, was in private practice, but in the thick of the legal action, preparing the case before his mentor rehnquist ,which was argued by Ted Olsen.
Delay is part of the ultra reactionaries like Cheney, Rove, Bolton ( who visted Judith Miller in the pen). Part of the plan is to place their people on the SCOTUS and Circuit Appeals Courts so as by pass the constitution and allow the President to ignore any laws of congress they dont like. These very situations have been argued by government lawyers before the courts, led by Alberto Gonzales a very likely next nominee.
Vote:October 2nd, 2005 at 10:26 pm
Copy of decision of Florida Supreme Court :
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/OP-SC00-2431.pdf (pg 2)which states that a counting of all the ‘votes’ in all the counties is the ultimate relief.
Vote:There were so many legal avenues opened but this is the decision that the SCOTUS reversed that finally ended any manual recounts.
You pathetic attempts to substitute your recollection over that of an expert on US election law who has full links to all his sources is amusing to say the least.
October 2nd, 2005 at 11:22 pm
Skyray:
a) No matter how hard you try and pretend you were correct in linking the electoral college to the Nazis, the simple fact is you are wrong and sickeningly so.
b) Your alleged “discussion of taking back the power” is a simple statement of constitutional fact that all nine justices believe. The purported usurpation of power could not have happened because to do so would have required a law change by the floridan legislature in an impossibly quick timeframe.
c) Roberts (I see you have finally come back to arguing about him) was not at the centre of these proceedings whether you like it or not. His involvement was peripheral and involved no impropiety whatsoever.
d) The issue isn’t whether Delay is an ultra conservative but whether he was a neo-conservative. You were wrong to originally call him such and your subsequent semantical flailings, while pathetic, have no bearing on Roberts suitability for the SCOTUS.
e) You can’t read the judgement correctly. It then goes on to say “[W]e reverse [the original judgement] and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
The original judgement stayed the recounting in the three counties. By reversing this judgement, the Florida Supreme court allowed those recounts to resume. It did _not_ order a full statewide recount but instead announced an intention to hold further proceedings at an unspecified date.
f) Your source that you cite happens to have a history of working on democratic campaigns (including clinton 92, paul tsongas for prez and so on). He is hardly an impartial expert that you pretend.
Vote:October 2nd, 2005 at 11:42 pm
skyray.
The Third Reich (or “German State”) was only connected to the holy Roman Empire in the minds of the deluded Nazi propagandists. The link was an attempt to cover Hitler’s electoral coup d’etat with an historic (Germanic) veneer for purposes of racial dogma. Your point attempts to give it a credibility that it simply doesn’t deserve.
There was nothing holy nor Roman about von Bismark’s 1870-1887 kulturkampf (sparking the alleged Second Reich), and the nihilistic hatred of the Hitlerite psychopaths.
Vote:October 2nd, 2005 at 11:54 pm
On a trivial note, Hitler didn’t like the term “Third Reich” and had it banned in 1939.
As Casablanca put it:
Captain Renault: We are very honored tonight, Rick. Major Strasser is one of the reasons the Third Reich enjoys the reputation it has today.
Major Heinrich Strasser: You repeat *Third* Reich as though you expected there to be others!
Captain Renault: Well, personally, Major, I will take what comes.
Vote:October 3rd, 2005 at 3:41 pm
>The Third Reich (or “German State”) was only
>connected to the holy Roman Empire in the minds
>of the Nazi propagandists.
Not completely, the aim was to give political reasoning for the return of the land that once belonged to the German Empire (i.e. ‘the Second Reich’) that was annexed at the end of WW1 (1919) by the Allies as part of the war reparations.
This allowed them to take back the Saar and the Sudentenland, but when it sets its eyes on getting Prussia back unopposed from Poland, as with the other two areas, the propoganda failed to hold enough clout in the international arena, hence after Hitler asked France and England for the sixth time for the return of Prussia, it sparked World War II when they again refused.
Vote:October 4th, 2005 at 9:25 am
Alex Fogarty.
So WW2 was sparked by “France and Britain again refusing (for the 6th time) to accede to Hitler’s request”. Interesting variant of history that you subscribe to.
Whilst the causes of that conflagration were many and complex, the one you state (as principal cause) has to rank about bottom for credibility.
In your topsy-turvey world, presumably the rise of a militaristic, totalitarian government had little to do with it. Or the appeasement of the weak-kneed French and British. Oh no, in your statement it was their obduracy – how they stood up to Hitler’s demands (“refusing him six times”).
Yeah, right (as they say in Tui Country.)
Vote:October 26th, 2005 at 11:29 pm
Tony, when the land belongs to someone else it should be returned, this is a moral issue that is faced all over the world, so why should Germany be any different?
History shows that most of Europe and America supported Hitler in his rise to power, they didn’t care how he came into power, just that he got things done and ended the Great Depression. Germany, after all, is the biggest economy in Europe, and when Germany does well, so does every other European country.
Vote: