Posted on 09/23/2005 1:23:40 AM PDT by yoe
The nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States is a matter of tremendous consequence for future generations of Americans. It requires thoughtful inquiry and debate, and I commend my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee for their dedication to making sure that all questions were presented and that those outside of the Senate had the opportunity to make their voices heard. After serious and careful consideration of the Committee proceedings and Judge Roberts's writings, I believe I must vote against his confirmation. I do not believe that the Judge has presented his views with enough clarity and specificity for me to in good conscience cast a vote on his behalf.
The Constitution commands that the Senate provide meaningful advice and consent to the President on judicial nominations, and I have an obligation to my constituents to make sure that I cast my vote for Chief Justice of the United States for someone I am convinced will be steadfast in protecting fundamental women's rights, civil rights, privacy rights, and who will respect the appropriate separation of powers among the three branches. After the Judiciary Hearings, I believe the record on these matters has been left unclear. That uncertainly means as a matter of conscience, I cannot vote to confirm despite Judge Roberts's long history of public service.
In one memo, for example, Judge Roberts argued that Congress has the power to deny the Supreme Court the right to hear appeals from lower courts of constitutional claims involving flag burning, abortion, and other matters. He wrote that the United States would be far better off with fifty different interpretations on the right to choose than with what he called the "judicial excesses embodied in Roe v. Wade." The idea that the Supreme Court could be denied the right to rule on constitutional claims had been so long decided that even the most conservative of Judge Roberts's Justice Department colleagues strongly disagreed with him.
When questioned about his legal memoranda, Judge Roberts claimed they did not necessarily reflect his views and that he was merely making the best possible case for his clients or responding to a superior's request that he make a particular argument. But he did not clearly disavow the strong and clear views he expressed, but only shrouded them in further mystery. Was he just being an advocate for a client or was he using his position to advocate for positions he believed in? The record is unclear.
It is hard to believe he has no opinion on so many critical issues after years as a Justice Department and White House lawyer, appellate advocate and judge. His supporters remind us that Chief Justice Rehnquist supported the constitutionality of legal segregation before his elevation to the high court, but never sought to bring it back while serving the court system as its Chief Justice. But I would also remind them of Justice Thomas's assertion in his confirmation hearing that he had never even discussed Roe v. Wade, much less formed an opinion on it. Shortly after he ascended to the Court, Justice Thomas made it clear that he wanted to repeal Roe.
Adding to testimony that clouded more than clarified is that we in the Senate have been denied the full record of Judge Roberts's writings despite our repeated requests. Combined, these two events have left a question mark on what Judge Roberts's views are and how he might rule on critical questions of the day. It is telling that President Bush has said the Justices he most admires are the two most conservative justices, Justices Thomas and Scalia. It is not unreasonable to believe that the President has picked someone in Judge Roberts whom he believes holds a similarly conservative philosophy, and that voting as a bloc they could further limit the power of the Congress, expand the purview of the Executive, and overturn key rulings like Roe v. Wade.
Since I expect Judge Roberts to be confirmed, I hope that my concerns are unfounded and that he will be the kind of judge he said he would be during his confirmation hearing. If so, I will be the first to acknowledge it. However, because I think he is far more likely to vote the views he expressed in his legal writings, I cannot give my consent to his confirmation and will, therefore, vote against his confirmation. My desire to maintain the already fragile Supreme Court majority for civil rights, voting rights and women's rights outweigh the respect I have for Judge Roberts's intellect, character, and legal skills.
I wonder which rights these would be?
Do women have rights that men do not?
It seems to me that if they do doesn’t that violate the equal protection under the law that the Constitution guarantees.
As to civil rights I believe that the right to property would have to be way up there. But the five justices presently on the court that Hitlery thinks most highly of believe that property rights come a distant second to the right of politicians to increase tax revenues.
In other words, he didn't say that he would NOT repeal Roe v.Wade. That is the only concern of these supporters of baby-killing.
This vote, more than the vote of any other slimey Demo Senator, reflects how Democrats have become captives of their leftwing kook fringe. If even Hillary Clinton can't buck that pressure to vote the responsible way for this emminently qualified candidate, no Democrat can.
The next indicator will be Evan Bayh (sp?): if he votes NAY on Roberts, it will mean that not a single aspirant for the White House is willing to buck the NOW/MoveOn/People for the American Way/NARAL kook pressure. Hooray! They're DEAD in the next election!
Not by a long-shot.
Both Illinois Senator's pulled the 'stupid lever'.
Commie Obamie will vote against Judge Roberts.
"I do not believe that the Judge has presented his views with enough clarity and specificity for me to in good conscience cast a vote on his behalf."
...unless he performs an abortion on the Senate floor.
She has to appease her base and her base only cares about one thing: a woman's right to kill.
Fact is The Hildabeast now knows according to Deborah Orin in the NY Post that the wacko lefts darling AL GOre Is going to run for President in 08. She is going to have a real problem if she continues with the act of moving to the center
Let's hope every American applies this same standard to her.
I don't think so. I can't imagine Republican primary voters going for McCain.
The media loves him; the Republican base does not.
This vote is all about keeping her base. The moderate conservatives who Hillary is trying to court, this vote will not be a factor for. The people who are paying attention to this are the Moveon.org types. Hillary is just going to say quasi-conservative things concerning gay marriage, abortion, and cutting spending, she is not actually going to vote with conservatives. Hillary's run to the middle is just rhetoric to try to pick those up who really don't pay attention.
"It requires thoughtful inquiry and debate"
..and constant polling of the left's base to validate my running for president.
Okay people. The game has changed. No more tacit appoval of the Left's nominees. From now on, no quarter can be given. Every nomination must be for conservative control. Those in office that don't heed this warning need to be dumped at the ballot box. The Nuke option needs to be settled once and for all. Let's quite dancing around.
You can get anything you want,
at Alices restaurant.
This looks like a mistake, but for her purposes, it is not. She knows that Al Gore and perhaps Barak Obama will be running against her in 2008. Gore, especially, is a dangerous opponent. A vote for Roberts would have been poison with the base. Gore would have beat her over the head with it. What this tells you is that her advisors have been telling her is that the free ride she thought she might have to 2008 just got a tad more expensive. There are a lot of Kos Kids and DU types who make up the activist base who want Al Gore to avenge 2000.
Her entire statement is an appeal to the base.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
The Hildabeast is walking a fine line. Hillary knows where the $$$ in the democratic party is: With the far, far, left Michael Moore/Moveon.org/Cindy Sheehan crowd. No way would she ever have voted for Roberts.
Yes Abortion is the buzzword issue but the truth came out when Specter was gassbagging. "Abortion is a method of contraception of last resort." I think this gets to the truth of the matter. As long as contraception is legal we will have legal abortion, the two go hand in hand.
What an idiot, this so-called smartest woman in the world.
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.