Roberts Confirmed

The vote was 78-22.

Democrats who voted no were:

Daniel Akaka, Hawaii
Evan Bayh, Ind.
Joseph Biden Del.
Barbara Boxer, Calif.
Maria Cantwell, Wash.
Hillary Clinton, N.Y.
Jon Corzine, N.J.
Richard Durbin, Ill.
Dianne Feinstein, Calif.
Tom Harkin, Iowa
Daniel Inouye,
Edward Kennedy, Mass.
John Kerry, Mass.
Frank Lautenberg, N.J.
Barbara Mikulski, Md.
Barack Obama, Ill
Jack Reed, R.I.
Harry Reid, Nev.
Paul Sarbanes, Md.
Charles Schumer, N.Y.
Debbie Stabenow, Mich.
Mark Dayton, MN

The question that begs answer is why did anyone vote against him? There was nary a sole who evaluated this man who came away with a single reason why he would not be qualified for the job of Supreme Court Justice. In fact, by all acounts he is considered to be one of the most qualified candidates who has ever been nominated to the bench.

So why the no votes from the hard Left? Well, it can be best explained by George Will's recent column, Hubris and Heartstrings. In this he reveals the embarrassingly weak reasons the leftwing Senators who opposed his nomination voted against him. Particularly singled out was California Senator, Dianne "Tender Utopian" Feinstein.

Says Will,

Feinstein, like many Democrats, has interesting ideas about what Supreme Court justices do, or should do. In her statement explaining to fellow members of the Judiciary Committee why she opposes confirmation of Roberts, she began with a cascade of encomiums, describing Roberts as "an extraordinary person" with "many stellar qualities," including "a brilliant legal mind," "a love and abiding respect for the law" and "a sense of its scope and complexity as well." Her next word was "but."

The "but" it turns out is that Roberts didn't impress her emotionally. He didn't "do it" for her. He was to detatched and not sufficiently compassionate sounding for her tastes. He didn't act like a "champion of the people" or express "the importance of reaching out" that she was looking for.

Say what? I'm sorry, but a US Senator is openly using this as criteria for a Supreme Court Justice? She should be impeached. And what does this say to about the feminist movement that she espouses to be a leader of? I thought feminists wanted to be treated as men are treated, not give in to stereotypically emotional female whimpering. This was an embarrassment, or at least it should be, to any Democrat trying to say they stand for things of substance.

Or, does substance really not "do it" for the touchy-feely Dems?

-MZ