Senate barely confirms Olson solicitor general
Human Events, Jun 4, 2001
On May 24, by a 51-to-47 vote, the Senate confirmed the nomination of Ted Olson to be solicitor general of the United States. Olson, who had strong support from conservatives, is most noted for successfully arguing the Republican side in Bush v. Gore before the U.S. Supreme Court last winter. The solicitor general represents the United States is cases before the Supreme Court.
Due to partisan opposition in the Judiciary Committee that resulted in a 9-to-9 vote on Olson's nomination May 17, Sen. Trent Lott was forced to invoke his new (and now fleeting) power to discharge a nomination or measure onto the Senate floor.
Although he was supported by numerous liberal legal experts, Senate Democrats first attacked Olson, who was nominated back in February, for his role in investigative reporting by the American Spectator into Bill Clinton's corruption in Arkansas. Then they opposed him because they claimed that his committee testimony on the matter was false (see HUMAN EVENTs last week, pages 6, 7).
Shortly after Sen. Jim Jeffords (Vt.) announced he would leave the Republican Party, Lott was able to bring the nomination to a vote. Forty-nine Republicans and two Democrats-Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Zell Miller of Georgia-voted yes. Jeffords, who was still in Vermont at the time, did not vote.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D.-Wis.), who had supported other controversial Bush nominees such as John Ashcroft and John Bolton, opposed Olson. Feingold said: "Mr. Olson testified that the solicitor general owes the Supreme Court `absolute candor and fair dealing: I think that nominees owe Senate committees that same duty when they testify at nominations hearings. I do not think that Mr. Olson met that standard."
Senate Democrats did not oppose Lott's discharge motion, allowing it pass by unanimous consent. The rollcall vote was on the actual confirmation.
A "yes" vote was a vote to confirm Ted Olson. to be solicitor general of the United States. A "no" vote was a vote against Olson.
FOR CONFIRMATION (51)
REPUBLICANS FOR (49): Allard, Allen, Bennett, Bond, Brownback, Bunning, Bums, Campbell, Chafee, Cochran, Collins, Craig, Crapo, DeWine, Domenici, Ensign, Enzi, Fitzgerald, Frist, Gramm (Tex.), Grassley, Gregg, Hagel, Hatch, Helms, Hutchinson (Ark.), Hutchison (Tex.), Inhofe, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, McCain, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, Roberts, Santorum, Sessions, Shelby, Smith (N.H.), Smith (Ore.), Snowe, Specter, Stevens, Thomas, Thompson, Thurmond, Voinovich and Warner.
DEMOCRATS FOR (2): Miller and Nelson (Neb.).
AGAINST CONFIRMATION (47)
DEMOCRATS AGAINST (47): Akaka, Baucus, Bayh, Biden, Bingaman, Boxer, Breaux, Byrd, Cantwell, Carnahan, Career, Cleland, Clinton, Conrad, Corzine, Daschle, Dayton, Dodd, Dorgan, Durbin, Edwards, Feingold, Feinstein, Graham (Fla.), Harkin, Hollings, Inouye, Johnson, Kennedy, Kerry, Kohl, Landrieu, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Lincoln, Mikulski, Murray, Nelson (Fla.), Reed (R.1.), Reid (Nev.), Sarbanes, Schumer, Stabenow, Torricelli, Wellstone and Wyden.
NOT VOTING (2): Jeffords** and Rockefeller.
Most Recent Reference Articles
- Dear EarthTalk: What kind of job opportunities might be opened up by the new federal emphasis on green projects?
- Dear EarthTalk: What effects do fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides used on residential lawns or on farms have on nearby water bodies like rivers, streams-or even the ocean for those of us who live near the shore?
- Science stats: penguins from space
- Thirty years of publishing
- Pleasuring body parts: women and soap operas in Brazil

