Posted on 07/19/2005 6:56:20 PM PDT by linkinpunk
John Kerry on Roberts Nomination
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: David Wade or April Boyd
July 19, 2005
Statement by John Kerry on the Nomination of John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court
"Americans deserve a Supreme Court that is fair, independent, ethical and served by justices committed to our constitutional freedoms rather than an ideological agenda. Justice O'Connor refused to use her position as a means to advance a political agenda. In replacing her, we must be confident Judge Roberts will do the same.
"We know Judge Roberts is no Sandra Day O'Connor, and the White House has sent a clear signal. There are serious questions that must be answered involving Judge Roberts' judicial philosophy as demonstrated over his short time on the appellate court. The Senate must learn whether he has clear consistent principles upholding Constitutional standards like civil rights and the right to privacy in Roe v. Wade. These issues are in serious question if you take even a cursory glance at his record.
"The American people expect the Senate to fulfill its duty to conduct a thorough, independent review of any nominee, and I intend to do exactly that. I hope Judge Roberts and the White House are forthcoming about his qualifications, background and constitutional philosophy so the Senate can act with all the facts. There's too much at stake to do anything less."
Maybe you should rub some Windex on it.
If only Kerry would STFU!
Spineless US Senate would rather protect Hanoi Kerry
than deal with the anti war crowd.
Anyone who thinks Hanoi Kerry isn't behind the anti war crowd needs to get a clue.
It's time to support our troops and ignore the jelly fish in the US Senate!
There is no need to impeach Hanoi Kerry from the US Senate
He is there illegally!
WAKEUP AMERICA!
For those who "forgot" what Hanoi Kerry
did in the past read on and learn the truth.
Hanoi Kerry was still a USNR officer while he:
gave false hearsay testimony to Congress
negotiated with the enemy
helped the US lose a war
abetted in the deaths of millions
created a hostile environment for all servicemen
Why is Kerry still in the US Senate?
This is in violation of
U.S. Constitution Amendment 14 Sec 3
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html
And the FBI has proof of his treason.
Hanoi Kerry Timeline of a traitor
includes FBI files
May 1970
Kerry and Julia traveled to Paris, France and met with Madame Nguyen Thi Binh, the Foreign Minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of Vietnam (PRG), the political wing of the Vietcong, and other Viet Cong and Communist Vietnamese representatives to the Paris peace talks, a trip he now calls a "fact-finding" mission.
(U.S. code 18 U.S.C. 953, declares it illegal for a U.S. citizen to go abroad and negotiate with a foreign power.)
http://www.archive-news.net/Kerry/JK_timeline.html
a) A person charged with absence without leave or missing movement in time of war,
or with any offense punishable by death,
may be tried at any time without limitation.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm#*%20843.%20ART.%2043.%20STATUTE%20OF%20LIMITATIONS
Distribute these url's!
Links to Anti Kerry sites
212 LINKS
News reports,
Viper's Vietnam Veterans Page
http://members.aol.com/ga1449ga/links/links.html
EXPOSE HANOI KERRY!
MUST SEE WEBSITE!!!!
http://www.kerrystreason.com/index.html
Full details on these url's!
http://stophanoikerry.150m.com
There is a backup site
if the 1st url is unavailable.
http://tonkin.spymac.net/hanoikerry1.html
Did you see this...?
(The 'Kerry's Promise Counter')
http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=6628
Polipundit even tells you how to install it on your own page!
Swift Boat Veteran For Truth John O'Neill Comments on Kerry's 180 'Release'
6/7/05
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1418592/posts
John Kerry was dishonorably dismissed from the Navy:
(statement from lawyers there at the time)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1406760/posts
Why does Hanoi Kerry continue to refuse to sign
form SF 180 and release his military records to the public?
Sam Sewell 09 June 2005
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4388.html
THEN: Democrats Said Judicial Nominees Should Get A Vote
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA): Mr. President, this is not the way to run the U.S. Senate. Lets allow this womans name to be placed on the floor and then those who have any objection can express their objections and vote no. (Sen. Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, 5/14/97, p. S4420)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA): According to the U.S. Constitution, the President nominates, and the Senate shall provide advice and consent. It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor. (Sen. Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, 5/14/97, p. S4420)
Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-MD): It is worse than that. It is not whether you let the President have his nominees confirmed. You will not even let them be considered by the Senate for an up-or-down vote. That is the problem today. In other words, the other side will not let the process work so these nominees can come before the Senate for judgment. (Sen. Paul Sarbanes, Congressional Record, 3/19/97, p. S2539)
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE): But I also respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor. (Sen. Joe Biden, Congressional Record, 3/19/97, p. S2540)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): Mr. President, the time has come to act on these nominations. Im not asking for a rubber stamp; lets hold hearings on those nominees who havent had them, and vote on all of them, up or down, yes or no. (Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Congressional Record, 5/14/97, p. S4425)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): I think what we on this side are encountering is the holding up of judges for years on end. That must stop. A nominee is entitled to a vote. Vote them up; vote them down. (Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Congressional Record, 9/16/99, p. S11014)
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): Nominees deserve a vote. The President and the Senate do not always agree. But we should resolve these disagreements by voting on these nominees--yes or no. (Sen. Ted Kennedy, Congressional Record, 1/28/98, p. S85)
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): What we are witnessing today is a direct assault on the Presidents constitutional power to nominate and appoint judges. (Sen. Ted Kennedy, Congressional Record, 5/14/97, p. S4426)
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): When the Founders wrote the Constitution and gave the Senate the power of advice and consent on Presidential nominations , they never intended the Senate to work against the President, as this Senate is doing, by engaging in a wholesale stall and refusing to act on large numbers of the President's nominees. (Sen. Ted Kennedy, Congressional Record, 9/21/99, S11102)
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): They are simply holding up the Presidents appointees because they dont want them to be selected, or they have some other issue and they are trying to hold the nominee hostage. (Sen. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, 4/22/97, p. S3398)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): That is what the Constitution speaks of in our advise and consent capacity. Vote them up, vote them down. (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 9/21/99, p. S11102)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): [E]arlier this year I noted how improper it would be to filibuster a judicial nomination. (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 10/14/98, p. S12578)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): To delay judicial nominations for months and years and to deny them a vote is wrong. (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 10/14/98, p. S12578)
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL): If, after 150 days languishing in a committee there is no report on an individual, the name should come to the floor. If, after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the person up or down. They are qualified or they are not. (Sen. Dick Durbin, Congressional Record, 9/28/98, p. S S11031)
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): I also plead with my colleagues to move judges with alacrity--vote them up or down. But this delay makes a mockery of the Constitution, makes a mockery of the fact that we are here working, and makes a mockery of the lives of very sincere people who have put themselves forward to be judges and then they hang out there in limbo. (Sen. Chuck Schumer, Congressional Record, 3/7/00, p. S1211)
NOW: Democrats Filibuster President Bushs Judicial Nominations
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): This chapter in the effort of our Republican friends of the judicial nominations has ended with these hours of filibuster. But what has not ended is the resolution and the determination of the members of the United States Senate to continue to resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this president of the United States for any court -- federal court in the United States. (CNNs Inside Politics, 11/14/03)
Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT): So bottom line, circumstances changed, and my opinion about the supermajority change[d]. (Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Press Conference, 4/20/05)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA): So were saying we think you ought to get nine votes over the 51 required. That isnt too much to ask for such a super important position. There ought to be a super vote. Dont you think so? (Sen. Barbara Boxer, Remarks At MoveOn.org Rally, Washington, D.C., 3/16/05)
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): If we have to exercise all our rights in order to protect them, so be it (Jennifer A. Dlouhy, No Letup In Judiciary Wars As Party-Line Vote Advances Disputed Estrada Nomination, Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 2/1/03)
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): The Presidents 20 renominees are out of the mainstream and will not be confirmed. (Editorial, Advice And Consent, The San Diego Union-Tribune, 2/16/05)
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): The nominees we have opposed are so far out of the mainstream that they deserved to be rejected before and they deserve to be rejected again. (Gary Martin, Senate Showdown Looms On Judges, San Antonio Express-News, 4/22/05)
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): What we have to keep in mind is that we, the legislative branch of Government, are separate but equal. That is what checks and balances are all about. The President should not have, from the Senate, a rubberstamp for everything he wants. (Sen. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, 4/21/04, S4043)
On which side?
|
Short answer... "Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"
Someone call a waambulance.
I'm mighty glad you're not on the court, Kerry. Being no Sandra Day O'Conner is a good thing, you plastic twerp.
Yeah. For 3 months before he cut and ran.
"NOT FORTHCOMING WITH INFORMATION."
LOL Kerry's talking about himself again.
Kerry should be at a stake....... burning at a stake.
I'm sorry.... John who?? Oh, yes, the PX (NEX) hero.
If you listen closely this is the same thing (more or less) that McCain said!
why do i torment myself by reading this drivel?
Kerry. Who he?
"I detest this guy."
Brother, you are NOT the only one!
Well, Morris the Liberal Negro on Fox was already saying they should filibuster if even one senator isn't satisfied.
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.