Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hilary to vote no on Roberts.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hilary to vote no on Roberts.

    repost from drudge...

    STATEMENT OF SENATOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON ON THE NOMINATION OF JUDGE JOHN G. ROBERTS TO BE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES
    Thu Sep 22 2005 18:54:45 ET

    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.

    END

    Sounds to me like she had to dig pretty hard to find reasons to vote no.
    "Mal nommer les choses, c'est accroître le malheur du monde" - Camus (thanks Davout)

    "I thought you must be dead ..." he said simply. "So did I for a while," said Ford, "and then I decided I was a lemon for a couple of weeks. A kept myself amused all that time jumping in and out of a gin and tonic."

  • #2
    Feinstein has said she will vote no due to Roberts refusing to anwser any questions the Senators asked him. That sounds fair to me. What's the reason they've had Senate hearings for 200+ years if it isn't to ask the nominee questions and to have him anwser them?
    Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

    Comment


    • #3
      He answered a lot of questions senators asked him. He did not say how he would vote on cases he has not seen. Seems to make sense to me, and has been found to be a precident set by 200+ years of senate hearings. The Senate committee resounding approved him, how could Hilary go against that when she wasn't there for all of the hearings?
      "Mal nommer les choses, c'est accroître le malheur du monde" - Camus (thanks Davout)

      "I thought you must be dead ..." he said simply. "So did I for a while," said Ford, "and then I decided I was a lemon for a couple of weeks. A kept myself amused all that time jumping in and out of a gin and tonic."

      Comment


      • #4
        It seems she has a clear reason for voting against him. He's expected to block vote with Thomas and Scalia on some issues, and has done nothing in questioning to suggest otherwise, making his appointment quite scary to anyone with Hilary's opinions on abortion and civil rights.

        I'd do the same
        Smile
        For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next
        But he would think of something

        "Hm. I suppose I should get my waffle a santa hat." - Kuciwalker

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Oerdin
          Feinstein has said she will vote no due to Roberts refusing to anwser any questions the Senators asked him. That sounds fair to me. What's the reason they've had Senate hearings for 200+ years if it isn't to ask the nominee questions and to have him anwser them?
          Also the admin didn't turn over a good deal of documents pertaining to his work under Ray-gun.

          That said, since there's no filibuster its all posturing at this point...
          Stop Quoting Ben

          Comment


          • #6
            Hopefully many Senators will grow some balls and vote no...
            meet the new boss, same as the old boss

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Oerdin
              What's the reason they've had Senate hearings for 200+ years if it isn't to ask the nominee questions and to have him anwser them?
              "In my view, the public is best served by questions that initiate a dialogue with the nominee, not about how she will decide any specific case that may come before her, but about the spirit and method she will bring to the task of judging." - Sen. Biden

              Then we also have the ABA itself which limits the types of questions the judge may answer.
              I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
              For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

              Comment


              • #8
                Roberts is going to be nominated no matter what. Hilary should vote "No" -- it's the smart political move.

                Hilary's up for re-election next year, and will run for prez in 2008. Swing voters in either election will neither remember nor care how she voted on Roberts. Her liberal base will. So she can please her base losing other votes or, indeed, creating any situation for which she might later be held accountable. It's win-win -- and GOP pols did it all the time when they were out of power, too.
                "I have as much authority as the pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it." — George Carlin

                Comment


                • #9
                  I hope she provides a clear, unequivocal answer when asked whether she would serve out a full term if reelected to the Senate.

                  edit: Why not adopt the tactic David Broder suggested: admit that Roberts is "ridiculously" well qualified (Broder's word) and ask Bush to send up another candidate just as eminent for O'Connor's seat? i.e., fight over the next one.
                  Old posters never die.
                  They j.u.s.t..f..a..d..e...a...w...a...y....

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    What's the big deal about this? As it states at the end, Hillary expects Roberts to be confirmed, she just wants to make sure her opinion is noted... it gets her some PR, keeps her more in the limelight.
                    “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                    - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Kaak
                      He answered a lot of questions senators asked him. He did not say how he would vote on cases he has not seen. Seems to make sense to me, and has been found to be a precident set by 200+ years of senate hearings. The Senate committee resounding approved him, how could Hilary go against that when she wasn't there for all of the hearings?
                      Were we watching the same confirmation hearings? I watched Feinstein ask question after question after question and Roberts refusing to answer the lot of them. These were not asking about cases or about "what would you do if...: type questions but were general questions about Roberts personal outlook and his point of view.

                      The purpose of Senate hearings is so Senators can 1) Make sure the man is qualified and 2) find out the nominees positions to insure. Roberts has refused to state his general principles or his opinions and that's very key because Roberts doesn't have much of a past case history for Senators to review.
                      Last edited by Dinner; September 23, 2005, 02:22.
                      Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        As usual Daily Kos has some pretty good analysis of how the votes will break down. I disagree that Roberts has anwsered many questions to the best of his ability and the administration has been hiding documents about Roberts past activities with the Reagan administration, but, in the end Roberts is about the best candidate you can expect out of someone like Bush.

                        There are a number of diaries recently expressing shock at various Democrats announced votes on the Roberts confirmation (Feingold "Yes", Hillary "No", for instance). So far, I haven't seen any that are particularly surprising.

                        To figure out how people are going to come down, you simply need to look at several factors. . .

                        1. Any Democrat considering a run for President in 2008 is going to vote "No". No one wants the next Howard Dean nipping at their heels.

                        2. Any Democrat seriously considering leading a filibuster of the next nominee and planning to keep the gang of fourteen on board is going to vote "Yes". Voting "No" on Roberts would allow, in fact almost require, the Republican G14 members to break ranks under pressure ("Come on, de Wine, this guy even voted "No" on Roberts!"). Conversely, voting "Yes" on Roberts strengthens the Democrat's argument with the seven Republicans who will matter ("Listen guys, I'm reasonable, I even voted for Roberts. But Judge Hitler really is an exceptional circumstance!").

                        That accounts for Clinton and Biden voting "No", and for Byrd and possibly Leahy voting "Yes" (Byrd being one of the G14, and Leahy the ranking member on the Judiciary committee, both well positioned to lead a filibuster).

                        Furthermore:

                        3. Any senator genuinely concerned about Senatorial process and commity is likely to vote "Yes". That's because Roberts did appear, did answer questions (if not as specifically as some would have liked), and nothing has emerged to disqualify him from the post. The reasons for voting him down are that you believe he lied under oath (always a possibility) or you believe there is some skeleton in the missing Bush administration papers that would disqualify him but that hasn't been leaked in some form already. Those are positions that can be held by a partisan player, but not by a collegiality-oriented Senator concerned about maintaining the integrity of senatorial process. I put Feingold, and possibly Leahy in this camp.

                        4. Senators from Red States will likely vote "Yes" -- why lose their jobs over a symbolic vote?

                        We're left with a relatively small number of Democrats, partisan players from blue states with no interest in a Presidential run or leading a filibuster. How many of them are there? My guess is that they'll break on the "No" side since a "Yes" vote won't get them anything and the "No" will earn them a little credibility with the base (and besides, who in the Senate is thinking maybe, someday, of a Presidential run?).
                        Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not just what is happening, but how it's happening and why people should care. We give you news you can do something about.
                        Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          As long as we're on the topic of the SCOTUS and it's role I'd like to point out that former President Jimmy Carter recently came out and said that he is absolutely convinced that Al Gore won the 2000 Presidential elections but the SCOTUS intervined and behaved in a highly partisan manner.

                          Carter says Gore won 2000 election

                          John Byrne

                          Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter delivered a shocker at an American University panel in Washington Monday: RAW STORY has learned he told the crowd he was certain Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election.

                          There is "no doubt in my mind that Gore won the election," the erstwhile President declared, saying the 2000 election process "failed abysmally."

                          He also snubbed the Supreme Court for getting involved, saying it was "highly partisan."
                          John Roberts is a partisan loyalist would such a man also violate the public's right to vote and for those votes to count?

                          Another interesting comment Carter made was about FEMA, which he founded in 1979. This isn't really the thread for that but i do want to say Carter made some very interesting points.

                          Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            A woman publicly expressed a dissenting opinion when she should be doing dishes, and changing diapers.

                            Burn her at the stake for insubordination.
                            A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              <----- Voting YES for Hillary in 2008

                              You Reactionaries are going to get beat up this time


                              YEE HAW

                              SCROTUM
                              We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. - Abraham Lincoln

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X