Roberts Hearing Date `Fell Through,' Specter Says

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aNTYyejGtnRE

July 29 (Bloomberg) -- An agreement to begin U.S. Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts's Senate confirmation hearing on Sept. 6 fell apart after Democrats refused to guarantee a final Senate vote by the end of that month, Republicans said.

Republicans sought a promise that the full Senate would complete its confirmation vote in time for Roberts to take the bench by the time the high court reconvenes Oct. 3. Democrats resisted guaranteeing the timing of a final vote, Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn said in Washington.

Earlier today, Senate aides from both parties said Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, the panel's top Democrat, would announce plans to begin the hearing on Sept. 6.

``We thought we had an arrangement and it fell through,'' Specter told reporters.

and it fell through. :shrug:

The less likely he is to actually become an Associate Justice, IF the Plame-Rove scandal turns up anything juicy on Bush.

Keep that in mind.

But Judge Roberts ensured that the long arm of the law slapped her down and booked her. Case Closed.

...just to say a big F U to dems?
: (

Chimpy don't have the power...

Supreme Court vacancies in the past have been filled by recess appointments (e.g. Justice Brennan by Eisenhower).

Has the law changed since then?

the nomination process goes on...

Brennan was confirmed in Senate hearings when the recess was over.

George Washington made a recess appointment of a chief justice...but the Senate tossed him when they came back.

But if the Senate fails to confirm then the appointment expires at the end of the Congressional session?

That's my understanding; I don't think it expires at the end of the recess unless I'm misreading Article 2 Section 2.

It can expire earlier if the Senate rejects him out of hand. I don't think Chimpy dares try TWO recess appointments..and I'm not even sure he'll dare one.

a timeline! Then all O'Conner has to do is wait until that date before she goes bonkers!

/bush*insanity

We can now Bork Roberts. This is going to be fun.

----
Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts:
How Many Of His Government Records Can Be Hidden From the Senate?
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Jul. 29, 2005

Remarkably little is known about Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts, other than the bare bones of his resume. Although he was recently confirmed for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, that confirmation hearing did little delving. So far, he has written only about forty opinions in his two years on the appellate court, on largely mundane legal matters. Thus, his judicial philosophy remains essentially unknown.

For this reason, several members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have said they will seek copies of documents that Roberts prepared as a government attorney in the Reagan and Bush I administrations, to see if these documents provide evidence of Roberts's thinking. Of particular interest are Roberts's years in the Office of the Solicitor General, for nowhere in the Executive Branch is there more thinking done about the High Court.



The Bush White House, and those speaking on behalf of the Administration, initially said that they would refuse to turn over documents, claiming attorney-client privilege. Apparently reminded that as Independent Counsel, Ken Starr pretty much made a nullity of that privilege for government attorneys, the White House later said that some documents would be made available, but not all.

In support of its position, it cited as precedent the rules that had governed the hearings of past government attorneys who have been selected for the high bench (Rehnquist, Bork, and Scalia). The problem is, it turns out that existing precedent -- in particular, precedent from the Bork hearings, the more recent of the three, cuts the wrong way for the White House.

snip>

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050729.html

then got right into the question of documents that the Senate should have access to....those involving Roberts' tenure as Ass't. Solicitor General...I'd say they're pretty damned important! The jerk was working "for us (not)" and the public shouldn't see them???

Dems must hang tough on this....