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.
Oddly, McCain's voting record is pretty darn conservative. McCain just choses to oppose the GOP on high profile issues where he can get camera time. McCain's CFR was the biggest assult on first Amendment rights in history, but he got lots and lots of publicity for it. McCain's biggest problem is mental. He can go postal at any time. Unfortunately, if McCain plays his cards right and does not attack Christian Conservatives like he did 8 years ago, it is his election to lose. But the people McCain turns to for advisors will be 'moderates' who will try to stab conservatives in the back every chance they get, so there is a good chance McCain will once again play his winning hand wrong.
IMHO, this speaks volumes describing the socialist lack of intuition regarding discernment in rendering justice. Justice has very little if anything to do with viewpoint. It does require discernment and sometimes wisdom, when discerning malevolent deception.
Correct. And exactly what do she and her fellow leftists think is the purpose of the several states if not to be 50 separate entities. If all laws are uniform and federal across the land, why do we still even need New York, Massachusettes or Alaska?
The correct term is overturn. Repeal sounds to much like they have some type of legislative power -- which to some degree, they do, but it's just too scary to think about this early in the morning. :-)
ROTFLMAO
why not go to 11?
Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2:
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." 
You mean the USSC may actually constrain Congress to the scope of the constitution and not make up law from the bench? So Hillary, you admit that you do not believe in what the Constitution says.
The Hillary Shuffle has her making convoluted pronouncements such as this to win back the Moonbat Left of DU, Daily KOS and MoveOn, while still seeming to be "centrist" enough to people who vote but do not follow politicians closely enough to know where any of them actually stand.
Hillary is running scared now. She's losing the Ultra leftists so she has to make them believe she cares for them by meeting with Cindy Sheehan and now to vote NO on Roberts. She's very transparent but they won't realize that until its too late!
She just shot herself in the foot BUMP!!
I wonder if this move will help her or hurt her in the New York Senate race.
Especially considering that neighboring Leahy has voted for Roberts?
(I'm just sitting here on the Group W bench.)
Whadja git?
IOW, Roberts is no Ginsberg. Too bad, slut butt.
I thought Hillary would have voted to Roberts to play the middle in the '08 election. Her voting against Roberts, shows me she isn't convinced she can win the primary yet.
From what she says here, it would seem that she sees the constitution the way the rest of us see Shoney's Breakfast Bar.
Raw burger for the donkey support.
IMO, the RINO McCain has already been tapped by the Clinton machine to be the 3rd party Ross Perot of the 2008 election. Little Johnny gets his face time, gets his tummy rubs from the libs he loves, and gets to impact history (maybe even more than firing off his errant missile on the deck of the USS Forrestal).
The Evil Clintons learn their lessons well...and they know that all they need to re-capture the WH is to drain away maybe 7-8% from the real republican candidate (in all probability, less than was required for the Evil Teensy Bent One to prevail in 1992 and 1996).
Amazingly, so many Perotites and Buchananites (and other mush-meal "3rd party" voters--some sadly represented on our own forum) will fall right over the cliff for the Clintons in this manner. Just disgusts me...
(And to any and all 3rd party dopes who may be reading this, just know that I WILL NOT engage you in any discussion--this is my opinion so leave me alone! Can't stand you anyway!)
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.