Posted on 07/19/2005 5:06:14 PM PDT by Mo1
Edited on 07/19/2005 5:10:19 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Durbin already calling this controversial and vowing to fight per FOX News.
Back to BRIT...here's the full transcript...
Tue Jul 19 20:11:48 2005 worK. We need to consider this nomination as thoroughly and carefully as the american people deserve. It's going to take time and the co-rap racial -- cooperation of the administration. After all a member of the supreme court is there for all people in this country no matter what their party. And that means that republicans as well as democrats have to take seriously our constitutional obligations on behalf of all americans. We have to ensure the supreme court remains a protector of all americans' rights and liberties from government intrusion and that the supreme court understands the role of congress in passing legislation to protect ordinary americans from the special interest abuses.
No one is entitled to a free pass to a lifetime appointment to the supreme court. Someone confirmed today could be expected to serve on the court until the year 2030 or later. Whether he regards the law, how he will exercise the incredible power of a supreme court justice to be the final arbiter of our rights and the meaning of the constitution, all of these creates considerations than the lower court.
Justice sandra day o'connor, whom i voted for for the supreme court is a model justice. She brought a fair and open mind to the bench. She decided cases without a political agenda.
She is widely respected as a jurist. She didn't prejudge cases. And I regret that the extreme right has been so critical of her and was so adamantly opposed to her successor sharing her philosophy. Now the constitution calls us in the senate to examine nominations of the court, not to rubber stamp them.
I look forward to the hearings to inform the senate and all americans. I will work with chairman specter to have a fair hearing. It's going to take a fair amount of time to do that, but we will do it. There will be thorough hearings, and I really do not expect any issues that go to the qualifications, the honesty, the integrity, and the fairness -- the fairness -- of a supreme court justice to be off-limitS. All those questions can be asked.
Chuck schumer is the democrat who represents us on the subcommittee and whose nomination. I'd like to turn it over to senator schumer.
>> Thank you, senator leahy, and thank you for your leadershiP. There's no question that judge roberts has outstanding legal credentials and an appropriate legal temperament and demeanoR. His actual judicial record is limited to only two years on the d.C. Circuit court. For the rest of his career he has been arguing cases as an able lawyer for others leaving many of his personal views unknown.
For these reasons it is vital that judge roberts answer a wide range of questions openly, honestly, and fully in the coming months. His views will affect the generation of americans and it is his obligation during the nomination process to let the american people know those views. The burden is on a nominee to the supreme court to prove that he is worthy not on the senate to prove that he is unworthY.
I voted against judge roberts for the D.C. Court of appeals because he didn't answer questions fully and openly when he appeared before the committee. For instance, when i asked him a question others have answered t to identify three supreme court cases which he was critical he refused.
Brit: Well, that is a key to this whole matter in all likelihood. Senator schumer has outlined a long list of questions that he says he will ask -- would ask not only as it turns out this nominee but would ask any other nominee and these are questions many of them that judge now from the same court, by the way, r
The DUmmies are mixing up the purple Koolaid over there.
One of them started a thread titled "We're Screwed!" (They don't know the new correct FRase is "We're Screwn).
In any event, it's ugly over there. LOL
The opposition has apparently decided to come out swinging. Fox news wisely cut away in the middle of it. :-)
What did Durbin say and when did he say it?
Durbin was the 3rd Senator ( along with Leathy & Schumer)that voted against Roberts before,
Someone will eventually get around to asking Leahy WHY it would take a long time...they thoroughly vetted Judge Roberts for TWO YEARS, just 2 years ago!
Makes the Rats look pretty silly.
Oh, Brian has a statement from Durbin!
"Bush has guaranteed a 'more controversial' confirmation process". (In other words, please DU and Move.On, don't stop sending us money!")
Schumer made it so obvious to anyone listening -- "particularly when he's representing a swing voter"
the Dems don't care about ability or intellect, just about abortion.
Schumer will put up a big fight against Roberts. He said he voted against him for the fed court because he "failed to answer specific questions openly and honestly". One example was that he was asked to name 3 supreme court cases he was critical of and then he -----GOT CUT OFF BY FOX and the other networks. LOL!
LOL, only three voted against Roberts, they were Schumer,Durban and Kennedy.
Turbin Durbin, the little dick, is Already calling Roberts CONTROVERSAL!
The more the public sees of Chuck Schumer the better it gets for republicans. He is a vile disgusting ahole.
Schumer: burden is on nominee to prove worthy, not up to Senate to prove unworthy. I voted against him because he wouldn't answer questions.
One question he wouldn't answer: What three decisions are you critical of?
I don't think he should answer any questions to try to get Chucky's vote-- it is a hopeless case.
Durbin calling Roberts "Controversial" and will be tough confirmation.
We couldn't ask for a better group of three to lead the filibuster than Turban Durbin, THe Swimmer, and Chucky Schumer. God is looking out for us
This is a very good night and the dems make me SICK. I WILL change channels next time the dims are featured.
Great pick..WOO HOO!
TURBIN DURBIN HATES THIS PICK....HE RELEASED A STATEMENT SAYING THE PRES. PICK A CONTROVERSIAL CANDIDATE.
LOL! Don't need to see it, I remember it in my mind from the campaign.
Turbin has said he will oppose him, this is a very good sign.
Yes, along with Kennedy. That was on committee, where he passed something like 12-3. He passed the full Senate unanimously.
I admit it--I wasn't nervous he'd nominate gonzales specifically, just that he'd nominate a "moderate". So far, Roberts sounds good. Interested in more details.. :-)
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.