QUOTE(Livyjr @ Sep 21 2005, 03:19 PM)
Excerpts of John Kerry's Senate Statement on Judge Roberts
September 21, 2005
"Judge Roberts' judiciary committee hearings continue an increasingly sterile confirmation process."
"No genuine legal engagement between the questioners and the questioned."
"No real exchange of information and no substantive discussion."
"The confirmation exercise has become little more than an empty shell."
“The Administration's steadfast refusal to disclose documents Judge Roberts worked on while serving as a Deputy Solicitor General in the first Bush Administration has only compounded the problem."
"They claim that disclosure of the documents will violate attorney-client privilege."
"This argument is absurd."
"What client are they trying to protect?"
"The Solicitor General is charged with arguing cases on behalf of all Americans."
"We were Judge Roberts' client when he worked in the Solicitor General's office."
"We have a right to know what he thought about the arguments he made on behalf of the American people."
"When John Roberts served as a Deputy Solicitor General under Ken Starr, he was intimately involved in critical decisions that office made, like whether to intervene in pending cases; what legal arguments to advance in support of their position; whether to push the Supreme Court to review a particular case."
"These decisions helped shape how federal law was applied and how our Constitution was interpreted."
"Yet, we--the Senators who are constitutionally obligated to give consent to this nominee--do not know the positions that Roberts took or the arguments that he made."
“For example, the Solicitor General's office decided to intervene in Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic."
"The case had been brought against abortion clinic protestors during the height of clinic violence and bombings."
"The plaintiffs argued that the protesters were violating a federal anti-discrimination law by blocking access to clinics and inciting violence."
"The Government intervened and argued that the federal anti-discrimination law did not apply and therefore could not be used to stop the protesters."
"Judge Roberts briefed and argued the case for the Government."
"I believe that the arguments advanced by the Government--and the consequences of those arguments--are troubling."
"But, what we do not know is even more important: what role did Judge Roberts have in making them?"
"Did he consider the consequences?"
"Did he argue for a more narrow or more broad interpretation of the law?"
“At the same time, the Solicitor General's office intervened in a district court case in Wichita, Kansas which raised the same issues that the Supreme Court in Bray was facing."
"The government tried to get the district court to lift an injunction put in place to protect the safety of the clinic workers and patients."
"They argued that the plaintiffs could not win and therefore the injunction was improper."
"The district court denied the Government's request and chastised it for unnecessarily endangering people's lives."
"The question is what role did Judge Roberts have in making that decision?"
"What was the legal reasoning that prompted it?"
"Did he consider the real life dangers that would result from his legal argument?"
"The Administration's refusal to disclose these documents created a serious roadblock in the Senate's ability to evaluate Judge Roberts."
"But Judge Roberts' refusal to genuinely engage in the confirmation hearings created an even bigger one."
"This is not the first time that Supreme Court nominees have refused to engage in a meaningful discourse during judiciary committee hearings."
"Justice Souter refused to answer fundamental questions about his judicial philosophy."
"For that reason, I voted against him, and I am happy to say that I have been pleasantly surprised that my concerns regarding his views on civil rights and privacy did not come to pass."
"Justice Thomas also refused to answer fundamental questions about judicial philosophy."
"As I said at the time, Justice Thomas "found a lot of ways to say 'I do not know' or 'I disagree' or 'I cannot agree' or 'I can't say whether I agree.’"
"I voted against Justice Thomas because I did not know what kind of Justice he would be."
"And, I believe I was correct in making that decision."
“At the end of the day, I find myself much in the same position that I was with Justices Souter and Thomas."
"Notwithstanding his impressive legal resume, I cannot say with confidence that I know who Judge Roberts really is or what kind of Chief Justice he will be."
"In what direction will he take the Supreme Court?"
"Will he protect the civil rights and liberties that we have fought so long and hard for?"
"Will he support Congress' power to enact critical environmental legislation?"
"Will he be an effective check on executive branch actions?"
"Before I vote for a Chief Justice--particularly one who may lead the Court for potentially 30 years or more, I need to know the answers to these fundamental questions."
"Unfortunately, in the case of Judge Roberts, I do not."
"Another area of great concern to me is the area of privacy--an area where Judge Roberts skillfully answered a lot of questions without giving a hint as to his own legal positions."
"For example, while Roberts admitted that the Court has recognized that privacy is protected under the Constitution as part of the liberty in the Due Process Clause, he refused to give any indication of what he thought about the Court's most recent privacy-related decisions."
“The furthest he went was to say he had no quarrel with the decisions in Griswold and Eisenstadt, yet this kind of endorsement is hardly reassuring."
"In his confirmation hearings, Justice Thomas agreed that the Court had found a Constitutional right to privacy."
"Like Judge Roberts, he also stated that he had no quarrel with the Court's holding in Eisenstadt."
"Yet when he got to the Supreme Court, Judge Thomas disavowed the very rights he had said the Constitution protected."
"In fact, more recently, in Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Thomas stated that he could not "find (neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a) general right of privacy."
"The bottom line is that I simply do not know how Judge Roberts will approach questions implicating our fundamental right to privacy."
"In addition to what I do not know, what I do know about Judge Roberts is very troubling."
"I know that in the early 80's while he worked in the Department of Justice and White House Counsel's Office, Judge Roberts took an active role in advocating on behalf of Administration policies that would have greatly undermined our civil rights and civil liberties."
“For example, Judge Roberts argued against using the "effects test" to determine whether section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was violated."
"Instead, he believed an "intent" test--requiring proof of a discriminatory motive--should be required, regardless of the fact that many victims of discrimination would be unable to prove a real discriminatory intent and therefore unable to enjoy the protections afforded by the Act."
"In some cases, the effect of Judge Robert's intent test meant that disenfranchised individuals had to prove the motive of long dead officials who crafted the election rules."
"That is a foolish standard when it comes between citizens and their constitutionally protected right to fair representation in our democracy."
"Mr. President, I realize that Judge Roberts took the positions I just described some time ago."
"And, I know he told the judiciary committee that he was simply advocating the views of the Administration at the time."
"Yet, I find it hard to believe that a staffer at Justice or in the White House Counsel's office never wrote a memo that represented his views rather than the Administration's positions."
"Particularly when the theme of those memos is consistent across the board: strict adherence to narrow principles of law despite their real world impact."
"Judge Roberts' more recent positions trouble me as well, particularly his decision to join Judge Randolph's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the military tribunals case."
"That opinion gave the President unfettered and un-reviewable authority to place captured individuals outside the protections of the Geneva Convention."
"Six retired senior military officials with extensive experience in legal policy, the laws of war, and armed conflict have filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Supreme Court arguing that Hamdan must be overturned immediately because it directly endangers American soldiers."
“I understand that Judge Roberts felt he could not discuss the case while it was pending before the Supreme Court, but, even when asked about his views of the scope of executive power unrelated to the Hamdan case, Judge Roberts was evasive."
"He did little more than describe the Court's current framework for analyzing assertions of executive power."
"As a result, I do not know whether he believes that the state of war is a blank check for the President or whether he will closely scrutinize the legality of Executive Branch actions at all times."
"Given the fact that his Hamdan decision placed our troops at risk, I am forced to conclude that Judge Roberts' future decisions may further threaten the security of our troops abroad and our citizens at home."
"Now, some may argue that Democrats should vote for Judge Roberts because he is the best nominee we could expect from the Administration."
"I cannot vote to confirm the next Chief Justice of the United States simply because the next nominee to the Court may be even less protective of our fundamental rights and liberties or less dangerous to our national security."
"The questions I have raised, the absence of critical documents, and the lack of clarity surrounding fundamental issues like how he would interpret the Constitution require me to fulfill my Constitutional duties by opposing his nomination to be the next Chief Justice."
What happened here with Sotomayor in this case, rla, actually has its roots in the New York State Constitution, specifically, section 4 of ARTICLE XIV, entitled Conservation, which was added to the New York State Constitution by vote of THE PEOPLE, including myself, back in 1969, when I was in Viet Nam ....
That section of the New York State Constitution reads as follows:
§4. The policy of the state shall be to conserve and protect its natural resources and scenic beauty and encourage the development and improvement of its agricultural lands for the production of food and other agricultural products.
The legislature, in implementing this policy, shall include adequate provision for the abatement of air and water pollution and of excessive and unnecessary noise, the protection of agricultural lands, wetlands and shorelines, and the development and regulation of water resources.
The legislature shall further provide for the acquisition of lands and waters, including improvements thereon and any interest therein, outside the forest preserve counties, and the dedication of properties so acquired or now owned, which because of their natural beauty, wilderness character, or geological, ecological or historical significance, shall be preserved and administered for the use and enjoyment of the people.
Properties so dedicated shall constitute the state nature and historical preserve and they shall not be taken or otherwise disposed of except by law enacted by two successive regular sessions of the legislature. (New. Added by vote of the people November 4, 1969.)http://www.dos.state.ny.us/info/constitution.htmBy 1969, the water and air in New York State were so foul the state was becoming unlivable and the cost of living in a polluted state was high, so ....
Using the democracy we had back then, a MAJORITY of New York State residents decided to put an end to pollution in OUR state by making this Constitutional amendment, which directed the New York State Legislature, as follows:
The legislature, in implementing this policy, shall include adequate provision for the abatement of air and water pollution and of excessive and unnecessary noise, the protection of agricultural lands, wetlands and shorelines, and the development and regulation of water resources.end quotes
There is where it all begins, rla .....
With the amendment of the New York State Constitution ....
Which was then subsequently viewed as an encroachment by the TREE HUGGERS and ENVIROS on the "rights" of the POLLUTERS, who believed that they were "grandfathered" so that they could continue poisoning the air and water of this state regardless of any Constitutional amendments or laws to the contrary ...
And they held the political power, despite the New York State Constitution ....
Plante, the engineer who Kathleen Jimino ordered incarcerated in the secure mental facility of Northeast Health, Inc. on 8/22/01, went to court against the state of New York on his own to enforce that Constitutional Amendment, and for that, he won the enmity of those within and without New York State whose activities are threatened by that Constitutional amendment's enforcement ...
By upholding Jimino in this matter, Sotomayor has ensured that that Constitutional amendment is for all purposes dead on arrival ....
By doing that, Sotomayor has upheld the right or polluters to pollute ....
And by upholding Jimino's unlawful actions in the matter, Sotomayor has upheld the right of the "state" to retaliate against any citizen who might think to challenge that ....
Soooo .....
A TWO-TIERED SOCIETY has been created in New York State despite our constitution, rla ....
Those who have absolutely no responsibility to the law whatsoever ....
That is the upper class or tier that Jeffrey Pelletier occupies in our community up here as a PROTECTED PERSON, since he has the money and clout to secure a position in that tier for himself ...
And those who can expect absolutely no protection whatsoever from the law, despite the New York State Constitution ....
That is me and my cohort up here, rla ....
Soooooo ....
Where are you on all of that, then?
On the side of the polluters?
Or are you on the side of the disfranchised citizens of the state?
And so ...