How Appealing

Friday, September 23, 2005

“With next round ahead, Roberts vote presents dilemma for Senate Democrats; The Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday voted to confirm chief justice nominee John Roberts 13-5”: This article appears today in The Christian Science Monitor.

Posted at 10:44 PM by Howard Bashman

Back home: After an enjoyable trip to Lansing, Michigan, I’m pleased to be back at home in suburban Philadelphia.

Posted at 8:33 PM by Howard Bashman

They’ve got questions, and he’s got answers: I have posted online in three parts (here, here, and here) the written answers that Chief Justice nominee John G. Roberts, Jr. provided on Wednesday of this week in response to the written follow-up questions he received from various members of the Senate Judiciary Committee after Judge Roberts’s oral testimony at the confirmation hearing had concluded.

As I earlier noted here, Jess Bravin and Jeanne Cummings had an article headlined “Roberts’s Responses May Further Add to Debate” (pass-through link) in yesterday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.

Posted at 8:05 AM by Howard Bashman

“Panel Approves Roberts, 13-5, as 3 of 8 Democrats Back Him”: This article appears today in The New York Times.

The Washington Post today contains articles headlined “Senate Panel Endorses Roberts; Democrats Vow to Fight Next Nominee“; “Dissenting Opinions: Senators Cast Their Votes on John Roberts With an Eye on a More Decisive Battle to Come“; and “At Final Day of Roberts Hearings, Hatch Snaps…and Snaps.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “Roberts Wins Senate Panel’s Backing; Five of eight committee Democrats decide not to recommend the chief justice nominee to the full chamber, which is to vote by Thursday.”

In USA Today, Kathy Kiely and Joan Biskupic report that “Senate committee backs Roberts for chief justice.”

The Boston Globe reports that “Roberts nomination heading to full Senate after panel’s OK; Vote reflects deep split among Democrats.”

In The Chicago Tribune, Jan Crawford Greenburg and Jill Zuckman report that “Panel OKs Roberts, looks ahead to the next nominee.”

The Dallas Morning News reports that “Vote for Roberts comes with warning for Bush; Democrats on Senate panel say next nominee might not be so lucky.”

Newsday reports that “Panel approves Roberts; Schumer in minority as committee votes 13-5 to recommend chief justice nominee; Senate vote next week.”

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that “Chief justice nominee advances.”

The Washington Times contains articles headlined “Judiciary Committee approves Roberts” and “Roberts’ presentation fails senator’s abortion test.”

The Houston Chronicle reports that “Committee OKs Roberts’ nomination; Final approval to be chief justice expected quickly.”

The New York Sun reports that “Committee Sends Roberts to Full Senate.”

The Hartford Courant reports that “Democrats Hesitant As Roberts Wins Vote; Easy Approval Seen For High Court Pick.”

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that “Feinstein refuses to back Roberts in vote; 3 of 8 Democrats on panel back nominee, showing party’s split on nomination strategy.”

The Canton Repository reports that “Sen. DeWine votes in majority.”

The Rocky Mountain News reports that “Salazar, Roberts to talk; Senator wants info from court nominee before casting vote.”

The News Journal of Wilmington, Delaware reports that “Judiciary panel OKs Roberts; Biden registers one of five ‘no’ votes.”

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reports that “Court OK seen low risk for senators.”

The Fond Du Lac Reporter contains an article headlined “Bush’s next nominee viewed as crucial.”

The Telegraph (UK) reports that “Bush gets his man in Supreme Court.”

The Harvard Crimson reports that “Senate Panel Approves Roberts; Alumnus of College, Law School now heads to full Senate for confirmation.”

And The Daily Pennsylvanian reports that “Roberts likely to see quick confirmation; After sailing through committee with a 13-5 vote, Roberts nomination heads for floor vote.”

In commentary, The Wilmington (N.C.) Star-News contains an editorial entitled “The next chief justice.”

The Times Argus of Barre, Vermont contains an editorial entitled “The Roberts vote.”

In The Los Angeles Times, David Gelernter has an op-ed entitled “Let’s take abortion away from the court.”

In The Boston Globe, columnist Ellen Goodman has an op-ed entitled “Where’s Roberts’s heart?” And columnist Scot Lehigh has an op-ed entitled “Kerry and Kennedy misfire.”

In Newsday, James Klurfeld has an op-ed entitled “Roberts is right about putting aside the personal.”

In The Washington Times, Edwin Meese III has an op-ed entitled “Supreme choice…,” while Law Professor Nelson Lund has a companion op-ed entitled “…with encore.”

In The Arizona Republic, the confirmation diary entry from U.S. Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) published today bears the heading “A few surprises surface at hearing.”

Online at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has a jurisprudence essay entitled “Confirmation Report: The way to a man’s heart….”

FindLaw commentator John W. Dean has an essay entitled “How the U.S. Senate Can Obtain Information From Former Federal Government Employees Who Are Now Supreme Court Nominees: A New, More Direct Approach that Won’t Require Fighting Over Records.”

At, Michael Scherer has an essay entitled “Get his robes ready: Conservatives gloat, senators posture and NPR’s Nina Totenberg lobbies to protect her vacation plans as John Roberts’ nomination sails through.”

And in The Cavalier Daily, Allan Cruickshanks has an op-ed entitled “Robed rascals and lousy law interpretation.”

Posted at 6:24 AM by Howard Bashman