just tell them he supports all the parts of the Constitution that provide for abortion!!! (since there aren't any...)
Posted on 07/28/2005 10:09:13 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee John Roberts gave assurances he wouldn't be an activist if confirmed, a key Democrat who already was leaning toward supporting him said Thursday.
"I don't see anything that's going to be disturbing" in his record, Sen. Ben Nelson told reporters after a 30-minute meeting with President Bush's choice to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor on the high court.
Democrats have been pushing to review as many of Roberts' writings as possible, hoping to gain a better understanding of his personal views and the extent to which he might seek to inject them into his judicial rulings.
"He said he would not be an activist judge," Nelson said.
Roberts, in his second week of visiting key senators, and declined to answer questions from reporters in advance of his televised confirmation process before the Judiciary Committee. "I don't think it would be appropriate," said Roberts, took part in a picture-taking session with Nelson after their meeting.
Nelson, D-Neb., is one of the leaders of the "Gang of 14," seven Republicans and seven Democrats who averted a Senate showdown over Bush's lower-court judicial nominees earlier this year. They agreed in May to oppose attempts by GOP leaders to change filibuster procedures.
They also signed a pact not to filibuster judicial nominees except in extraordinary circumstances.
"I have not seen anything that rises to that level," Nelson said.
While Nelson is "leaning yes" on Roberts' nomination, he said he would reserve final judgment until after confirmation hearings. "It's the unexpected that comes out in the hearings," he said.
Democrats are calling for the release of more of Roberts' paperwork as a government lawyer before his confirmation hearings begin, saying the Bush administration's withholding of those documents may cause a delay in getting Roberts confirmed to replace O'Connor.
Republicans insist the demands for documents are misguided.
"They don't have anything on him now, but they're still digging and hoping," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, one of Roberts' most vocal boosters.
The White House says its Tuesday release of documents from Roberts' time in the Reagan administration should be sufficient for the Senate to confirm him before the Supreme Court begins its new term October 3.
But Judiciary Democrats say they need more than what the Bush administration has given them to judge Roberts properly.
"The Senate has a duty to the American people of today and tomorrow to get it right. I hope the White House will help and not hinder the Senate in getting it right," said Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the Judiciary Committee's top Democrat.
Republicans are pushing to start Roberts' confirmation hearings Aug. 29, interrupting the Senate's monthlong summer vacation, unless Democrats promise to allow a confirmation vote before the end of September.
"Absent that kind of commitment, it seems to me that duty will call on us to go ahead with August 29th," said Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa.
Refusing to disclose all of Roberts' documents while pushing Democrats to agree to a confirmation vote before the end of September will cause problems, especially if the nominee plans not to answer all questions at the hearings, said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
"Something has to give," said Schumer, who is on the Judiciary Committee. "If the nominee does not want to answer questions, then we need more documents. If there is a moratorium on documents, then we need the nominee to answer questions more forthrightly and we need more time to ask those questions."
The White House is invoking attorney-client privilege in withholding legal writings by Roberts when he was principal deputy solicitor general under the first President Bush. The administration has released thousands of documents dating from Roberts' tenure as a special assistant in the Justice Department from 1981-82.
Other documents from that time could take several weeks to be released, giving senators little time to review them before confirmation hearings, said Leahy. "I trust they understand that would be the wrong way to proceed and risk adding more time to the process."
The White House said it has asked for Roberts' tax returns for the last three years, but Bush spokesman Scott McClellan declined to say whether the Senate will get that information.
"I think it's fair to ask for these papers," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., when asked if she wanted to see Roberts' writings and tax returns. "I think it's fair to be able to look at these papers."
But Democrats as well as Republicans have continued to give Roberts glowing reviews as he continued his tour of senators' offices. Schumer said Wednesday that Roberts assured him he would not act as an ideologue if he makes it to the Supreme Court.
"He told me flatly that he is not an ideologue and said that he shares my aversion to ideologues," Schumer said in a speech at the National Press Club.
ON THE NET
Senate Judiciary Committee: http://judiciary.senate.gov/
U.S. Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov
Of course what the a-rats consider an activist is one that REFUSES to be an activist.
You almost have to pity the Dims. Their best chance for stopping Roberts is to continue the "charm offensive" against him and try to portray the White House as uncooperative while they frantically look for the "big scandal" that will finish him. But of course the extreme left won't have any of that; they won't be happy with anything less than all-out thermonuclear war, which will do nothing but rally public support for Roberts. It sure sucks to be them.
just tell them he supports all the parts of the Constitution that provide for abortion!!! (since there aren't any...)
"They also signed a pact not to filibuster judicial nominees except in extraordinary circumstances.
"I have not seen anything that rises to that level," Nelson said."
Give em time. It won't be long before we hear a story come out like, how Robert's cousin's best friends uncle visited an all white country club, which would justify a filibuster from the Democrats standpoint.
You can strictly interpret the Constitution as the men who wrote it meant it to be and overturn hundreds of laws and still not be an activist.
Is it activist to overturn the rulings of activists?
Yeah, I love the Dems newfound fear of "activist judges" by which they mean any judge who would overturn the loopy decisions of leftist activist judges.
Give em time. It won't be long before we hear a story come out like, how Robert's cousin's best friends uncle visited an all white country club, which would justify a filibuster from the Democrats standpoint.
(CNSNews.com) -- Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts "will be expected to answer fully" any questions about his views on controversial issues that could come before the court in the future, according to Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). But, during the 1967 confirmation debate over future Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kennedy argued that Supreme Court nominees should "defer any comments" on such matters.
In his June 20, floor speech responding to President Bush's nomination of Roberts to the Supreme Court, Kennedy argued that senators "must not fail in our duty to the American people to responsibly examine Judge Roberts' legal views."
Kennedy listed a number of issues, including workers' rights, health care and environmental regulations, that he considers important.
"Each of these issues, and many others, [have] been addressed by the Supreme Court in recent years," Kennedy said. "In many of these cases, the Court was narrowly divided, and these issues are likely to be the subject of future Court decisions in the years to come."
The Massachusetts Democrat said he is troubled by Roberts' strict interpretation of the Constitution's "commerce clause" and added that "other aspects of Judge Roberts' record also raise important questions about his commitment to individual rights.
"Because Judge Roberts has written relatively few opinions in his brief tenure as a judge, his views on a wide variety of vital issues are still unknown," Kennedy charged. "What little we know about his views and values lends even greater importance and urgency to his responsibility to provide the Senate and the American people with clear answers."
Kennedy listed examples of conservative positions Roberts had argued on behalf of both private clients and as the principle deputy solicitor general for the administration of President George H. W. Bush.
"Judge Roberts represented clients in each of these cases, but we have a duty to ask where he stands on these issues," Kennedy continued. "I join my colleagues in the hope that the process will proceed with dignity. But the nominee will be expected to answer fully, so that the American people will know whether Judge Roberts will uphold their rights." See Video
During the 1967 confirmation debate over the nomination of then-Solicitor General Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, however, Kennedy held a different view about the types of questions the nominee should be required to answer. Film footage obtained by Cybercast News Service shows Kennedy's response to the prospect of senators asking Marshall questions about how he might rule in future cases.
"We have to respect that any nominee to the Supreme Court would have to defer any comments on any matters, which are either before the court or very likely to be before the court," Kennedy said during a 1967 press conference. "This has been a procedure which has been followed in the past and is one which I think is based upon sound legal precedent." See Video
Marshall was serving President Lyndon Johnson as solicitor general when he was nominated in the summer of 1967. Prior to that, he had been an attorney for the NAACP, and had successfully argued the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court case that racially integrated the nation's public schools. Marshall's nomination was opposed by Southern Democrats who feared his confirmation would further the cause of racial equality in the United States, but he was confirmed by a vote of 69 to 11 on Aug. 30, 1967.
Multiple calls to Sen. Kennedy's office seeking comment for this report were not returned.
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.