Listening to Leahy claiming the nominee must be good for "all Americans." He's boring, pedantic, and sounds tired and slow.
Leahy also said - this is going to be a LENGTHY process. My bet this is their last ditch effort - Schumer just said - he will be answering these questions in the coming "months". I would like to go to sleep and wake up after these "months" are over and Judge Roberts sits on the Supreme Court.
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