Posted on 07/28/2005 2:44:38 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
WASHINGTON - After days of Democratic deference to John Roberts, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy said Thursday that documents made public to date indicate the Supreme Court nominee holds a "rather cramped view of the Voting Rights Act."
Materials that Roberts drafted while working at the Justice Department and White House counsel's office during the Reagan administration "certainly raise some questions in my mind about his commitment" to civil rights in general, added the Massachusetts Democrat.
While couched carefully, Kennedy's remarks showed a willingness to raise pointed questions at a time when most other Democrats have stuck to pleasantries about Roberts' academic and legal credentials while saying they look forward to confirmation hearings.
President Bush named Roberts last week to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and confirmation hearings are expected to begin either Aug. 29 or Sept. 6.
Officials in both parties said leaders of the Senate and the Judiciary Committee were striving for agreement on a timetable as well as a format. The White House and Senate Republicans are demanding a final confirmation vote before the Supreme Court convenes for its new term on Oct. 3.
Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., chairman of the committee, has indicated he expects hearings to begin on Aug. 29. At the same time, officials said Republicans were willing to wait a week until Sept. 6 — thus preserving the full monthlong August vacation that senators have planned — if Democrats agree to allow the vote by Sept. 29, the last business day before the court convenes. According to these officials, Democrats have suggested at least one concession that would give up some of their rights to delay proceedings. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying the discussions were private and they were not authorized to discuss them.
More than the date for hearings, access to documents looms as a point of contention.
The White House has released documents dating to Roberts' work as a special assistant at the Justice Department early in the Reagan administration, and has pledged to expedite release of records while he was working in the White House counsel's office from 1983 to 1986.
Administration officials have said they will refuse to release any of the documents from Roberts' tenure as principal deputy solicitor general during the administration of President George H.W. Bush. Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said this week the decision was "to preserve the attorney-client privilege for this administration" as well as future administrations.
Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said Wednesday he was hoping to enlist Specter, the panel's Republican chairman, in a bipartisan call to the White House to reconsider its position. Kennedy, in remarks to reporters, said Democrats would request documents "limited and targeted on cases related to the Constitution."
Whatever Specter's views, one Republican member of the panel said during the day he saw no reason for the administration to bow to a request from Congress. "It's entirely up the White House because under the attorney-client privilege it's a privilege held by the client," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.
Kennedy's office invited reporters to a briefing, and aides distributed documents that touched on civil rights cases from two decades ago, when Roberts worked for the Reagan administration.
At the time, Congress was considering an extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act against the backdrop of a Supreme Court ruling that held that "proof of intent" was needed to demonstrate someone's rights had been violated.
House Democrats sought legislation to change that so election results would be sufficient.
In a draft opinion article he sent to a county commissioner in San Antonio, Texas, Roberts wrote that the proposal would "not simply extend the existing and effective Voting Rights Act, but would dramatically change it. ... It's not broken so there's no need to fix it."
In another document, Roberts, then working in the White House, wrote that legislation designed to overturn a different Supreme Court ruling would "radically expand the civil rights laws to areas never before considered covered." He recommended against it.
In a third, he wrote that the administration could "go slowly on housing legislation" without fearing political damage.
"These are just three instances," said Kennedy, who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and will have an opportunity to question Roberts at the confirmation hearing.
Asked whether the documents showed Roberts was not as committed to civil rights as he would like, Kennedy replied, "I didn't reach that conclusion yet. But it does certainly raise some questions in my mind about his commitment."
For his part, Roberts turned aside questions from reporters as he continued get-acquainted meetings with senators of both parties. "I don't think it's appropriate for me to answer questions outside of the Judiciary Committee, which I'm looking forward to," he said.
Sen. Ben Nelson D-Neb., said after his meeting that Roberts "said he would not be an activist judge."
Roberts has been following a meticulously organized schedule, going from one meeting to another with a retinue that consists of White House aides and former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee.
An unscripted moment intruded during the day, when he crossed paths with Sen. Tom Harkin (news, bio, voting record), D-Iowa, in the Capitol basement. The two men chatted briefly while other senators, aides and tourists wandered past. An aide said Harkin had raised the issue of the Americans for Disabilities Act.
Oh what a big fat hog. What about Mary Jo's "cramped" civil rights? Creep!
kennedeee questioned Roberts about human rights???????????? Is that a joke or what? Who can take this jerk seriously. He leaves a woman in a car that just went off a bridge and then has the gall to ask a dignified, gentleman like Judge Roberts a question about human rights? The man is dillusional folks not to mention a disgrace to our country.
kennedeee questioned Roberts about human rights???????????? Is that a joke or what? Who can take this jerk seriously. He leaves a woman in a car that just went off a bridge and then has the gall to ask a dignified, gentleman like Judge Roberts a question about human rights? The man is dillusional folks not to mention a disgrace to our country.
Just because activist democrats would take their personal feelings into account when ruling on cases doesn't make it right.
Second, anybody find this statement silly:
"limited and targeted on cases related to the Constitution."
Do democrats think that the constitution is something that only rarely applies?
Kennedy Questions Roberts on Civil Rights ("rather cramped view of the Voting Rights Act.".......
Posted by Sub-DriverOn News/Activism 07/28/2005 4:08:17 PM CDT · 12 replies · 210+ views
Kennedy Questions Roberts on Civil Rights ("rather cramped view of the Voting Rights Act.".......
Posted by Sub-DriverOn News/Activism 07/28/2005 4:08:17 PM CDT · 12 replies · 210+ views
""documents made public to date indicate the Supreme Court nominee holds a "rather cramped view of the Voting Rights Act.""
DO the documents indicate this? Or, does this piece of work's perception of the documents indicate this? Is he trying to fool us commoners??? What would us ignorant people do without HIM to interpret all for us?? I bet, I read these documents and they indicate something else altogether...
""documents made public to date indicate the Supreme Court nominee holds a "rather cramped view of the Voting Rights Act.""
DO the documents indicate this? Or, does this piece of work's perception of the documents indicate this? Is he trying to fool us commoners??? What would us ignorant people do without HIM to interpret all for us?? I bet, I read these documents and they indicate something else altogether...
This Kennedy and his friend'Clinton should both
be breaking boulders in the Arizona desert...Sheriff
Joe would love 'em. Hey Ted..stay off the bridge..
Massmychosetts...get your friend...John ( I was in
Vietnam) Kerry..it is seared in my memory..there is a few
other places to get seared. Jake
kenneeedeee, clintinnnn, kereeeee, all losers
Is he the same guy who drove off a bridge with a passenger and and did not make immediate efforts to rescue her or to get help? Did he go to sleep and wake up much later in the morning? I am not an expert of his life, so correct me if I am wrong.
Maybe he is not fit to hold one of the highest offices of public trust. If he had any shame, he would shut up and listen with admiration to better men and women who have spent their entire adult life trying to do things right.
This is a little like Paris Hilton questioning Mother Teresa on morality.
Keeerrrecccttt..how the hell do people ever
vote for a Kennedy-Kerry? Must be some kind
of dumb virus in the water in Massyourchooseittss... Jake
got me. I'm so glad I am not enamoured of anyone so much that I follow like a sheep. They probably couldn't even answer an intelligent question either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.