Antonin Scalia--Appointed by Ronald Reagan. Confirmed 9/17/86 by a vote of 98-0.

Clarence Thomas--Appointed by George H.W. Bush. Confirmed on 10/15/91 by a vote of 52-48.

John G. Roberts--Appointed Chief Justice by George W. Bush. Confirmed 9/29/05 by a 78-22.

Samuel A. Alito--Appointed by Bush. Confirmed 1/31/06 by a 58-42 vote.

Let's name names:

Antonin Scalia was approved by the Senate on Sept 17, 1986 by a vote of 98-0. There were two senators absent: Barry Goldwater and Jake Garn. "I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Garn] and the Senator from Arizona [Mr. Goldwater] are necessairly absent", Sen. Alan Simpson, explained at the time. "I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah [Mr. Garn] would each vote "yea".

Senator Al Gore and Ted Kennedy (champion of women's rights?) voted to confirm Scalia.

Clarence Thomas: dem votes for confirmation:

Republicans found 11 of the Senate's 57 Democratic votes to add to the 41 Republicans who voted to confirm Judge Thomas. Those Democrats who voted for Judge Thomas were Senators Sam Nunn (being considered as an Obama VP choice) and Wyche Fowler Jr. of Georgia, Dennis DeConcini of Arizona, J. James Exon of Nebraska, Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, Alan J. Dixon of Illinois, J. Bennett Johnston and John B. Breaux of Louisiana, Chuck Robb (son-in-law of Pres. Johnson) of Virginia, Earnest F. Hollings of South Carolina and David Boren of Oklahoma. Two Republicans voted to oppose Judge Thomas: Bob Packwood (reputed sexist) of Oregon and James M. Jeffords of Vermont

On Alito, dem votes to confirm:

Democratic Senators Byrd, Conrad, Johnson, and Nelson (Nebraska) voted FOR both cloture and confirmation.

On cloture, fifteen Democratic senators apparently sought to have it both ways. These are senators who can now tell their constituents they voted against Alito when they are up for reelection, while not rocking the procedural boat in the Senate by supporting a filibuster. To me, that looks like a victory of politics over principle, nothing more.

Those fifteen Democrats are thus responsible for the confirmation of Samuel Alito. They are Senators Akaka, Baucus, Bingaman, Cantwell, Carper, Dorgan, Inouye, Kohl, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, Nelson (Florida), Pryor, Rockefeller, and Salazar.

Names of the 22 Democrats who voted to confirm John Roberts Jr.:

Hogwash. The Senate has consent powers for a reason.

The fact that we even have to reaffirm that shows how far we have gone down the road to an imperial presidency.

You would think that at least this would be to the progressive advantage if Obama wins, but the Dems have bought into the 'reach out to the other side' theory, not the autocratic presidency, so Obama will not rebalance the court when he gets a chance.

Judith Resnik in the NYTimes:

By constitutional design, Congress is periodically reauthorized through elections. It ought to take a supermajority of the Senate to confer power on judges who will exercise it for their rest of their lives.

I don't trust McCain, either, and my concerns about the leadership and the Democrats in the Senate stand - I have little confidence that Dems would push back and demand a better nominee that what McCain is likely to offer.

Whichever one gets elected - I am not optimistic about their potential nominees, nor am I particularly optimistic about what will come out of the Court for the foreseeable future - like to the end of my lifetime.

It's why the GOP continues to win the propaganda war, and if more Dems stood for their principles and stopped being so accommodating to the erosion of the Constitution, and showed some strength and fire and got at least a LITTLE media savvy, we could do wonders.

And, for the record, given Obama's recent statements, in what way are we sure he WON'T nominate a Bork instead of a Kennedy?  And would a Democratic Senate just go along for the ride because he's a Democratic President??

I can delete comments in my thread.

You want action? Go spam Jeralyn's posts. OR better yet. Write her an e-mail.

Your ErrinF imitation is not new nor interesting and most importantly to you, not effective. I can not give you what you want.

No responses to this commenter please in this thread.

However the truth is that the Supreme Court justices appointment process is solely a political affair and based on little else.  

And since it is a political process rather than a meritocratic process the Senate is beholden to political realities of perception.

So unless the opposition can find real dirt on the appointment, such as with Bork or Doug Ginsburg, there is very little that they can do politically.  

This is why John Roberts was such a master stroke by the Bush Administration.  There was nothing the Democrats could do.  The guy's credentials were impeccable and there was no dirt on him.  So unless the Democrats got suicidal and said "We don't feel he's Liberal enough" he was going to get appointed.

If you want to get good justices on the Supreme Court make sure you get a Democrat in the White House.  It really is that simple.  If you have a Republican in the White House you can only hope and pray he screws up and appoints someone like David Souter.

Clement F. Haynsworth Jr. The most controversial of President Nixon's nominations for 1969 was that of federal judge Haynsworth to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. The nomination was rejected by the Senate Nov. 21 by a key 45-55 roll-call vote, giving President Nixon his first major congressional defeat of the session. He became the first Supreme Court nominee to be formally rejected since 1930.

G. Harrold Carswell The most controversial of President Nixon's nominations for 1970 was that of Federal Judge G. Harrold Carswell to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. The nomination was rejected by the Senate April 8 by a key 45-51 roll-call vote.