Bush Nominates Roberts as Chief Justice
By Fred Barbash
President Bush announced this morning that he will nominate John G. Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States.
"The Senate is well along in the process of finding Judge Roberts qualified," Bush said in a statement from the White House in Washington. 'They know his record and his fidelity to the law."
Bush made the announcement in an 8 a.m. ETLabor Day television appearance.
Roberts, 50, is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
He is a former clerk to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who died Saturday night.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/e...er=emailarticle
Full Version: Bush Nominates Roberts as Chief Justice
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Judicial System > Judicial System Issues Archive
Previous Roberts forum
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...T&f=102&t=34066
-------------------
Bush Nominates Roberts for Chief Justice
Updated 10:41 AM ET September 5, 2005
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8ce5ie80&src=ap
By JENNIFER LOVEN
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush on Monday nominated John Roberts to succeed William H. Rehnquist as chief justice and called on the Senate to confirm him before the Supreme Court opens its fall term on Oct. 3. Just 50 years old, Roberts could shape the court for decades to come.
The swift move would promote to the Supreme Court's top job a newcomer who currently is being considered as one of eight associate justices. It would also ensure a full 9-member court, because retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has said she will remain on the job until her replacement is confirmed.
"I am honored and humbled by the confidence the president has shown in me," Roberts said, standing alongside Bush in the Oval Office. "I am very much aware that if I am confirmed I would succeed a man I deeply respect and admire, a man who has been very kind to me for 25 years."
"He's a man of integrity and fairness and throughout his life he's inspired the respect and loyalty of others," Bush said. "John Roberts built a record of excellence and achievement and reputation for goodwill and decency toward others in his extraordinary career."
The selection of Roberts helps Bush avoid new political problems when he already is under fire for the government's sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina and his approval ratings in the polls are at the lowest point of his presidency.
A brief delay in confirmation hearings for Roberts, which had been set to start Tuesday, was likely in light of his new nomination and Rehnquist's funeral this week.
Senate officials are considering three options: starting Roberts' confirmation on Tuesday with a delay built in on Wednesday for Rehnquist's funeral; starting the confirmation hearing on Thursday; or starting the confirmation hearing next week, the scenerio considered to be the most likely.
But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he still expects Roberts to be confirmed before the new court session begins on October 3.
"The president has made an excellent choice," Frist said Monday. "Mr. Roberts is one of the most well qualified candidates to come before the Senate. He will be an excellent chief."
Democrats said Roberts will now be held to a higher standard, although they had found little in his record to suggest they would thwart his nomination as associate justice.
"Now that the president has said he will nominate Judge Roberts as chief justice, the stakes are higher and the Senate's advice and consent responsibility is even more important," Democratic leader Harry Reid said Monday in a statement. "The Senate must be vigilant."
The president met with Roberts in the private residence of the White House for about 35 to 40 minutes on Sunday evening, then officially offered him the job at 7:15 a.m. Monday when Roberts arrived at the Oval Office.
"This had been something that had been in the president's thinking for some time _ in case the chief justice retired or that there otherwise was a vacancy," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "The president when he met with him, knew he was a natural born leader. The president knew Judge Roberts had the qualities to lead the court."
McClellan said the White House is confident that Roberts can be confirmed by the Senate by Oct. 3. Bush still has to pick a successor for Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, although she said at the time of her retirement announcement that she would remain until a replacement were seated.
McClellan said Bush called O'Connor from Air Force One en route to Louisiana Monday to talk with her about his decision. "He indicated that he was going to move quickly to find her replacement as well," the president's spokesman added. Talking to reporters who accompanied the president on a hurricane-damage inspection trip to the South, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino was unable to say whether O'Connor reiterated her earlier promise about temporarily staying on the court.
Getting a new chief justice of Bush's choosing in place quickly also avoids the scenario of having liberal Justice John Paul Stevens making the decisions about whom to assign cases to and making other decisions that could influence court deliberations. As the court's senior justice, Stevens would take over Rehnquist's administrative duties until a new chief is confirmed.
"The passing of Chief Justice William Rehnquist leaves the center chair empty, just four weeks left before the Supreme Court reconvenes," Bush said. "It's in the interest of the court and the country to have a chief justice on the bench on the first full day of the fall term."
Bush said Roberts has been closely scrutinized since he was nominated as an associate justice and that Americans "like what they see. He is a gentleman. He is a man of integrity and fairness." He said Roberts has unusual experience, having argued 39 cases as a lawyer before the Supreme Court. Bush also said Roberts was a natural leader.
The move was engineered to have all nine seats on the high court filled when the court opens its fall term.
The White House is not opposed to a delay in Roberts' confirmation hearings as long as senators vote on the confirmation before the court session begins on the first Monday of October.
"We believe they have enough time to move forward to meet that goal because of all the work that's already been done and Justice O'Connor had previously indicated that she was going to stay on the court until her position was filled," McClellan said.
Bush already had nominated Roberts to take O'Connor's place. It requires just a little paper shuffling to change the nomination for Rehnquist's seat.
White House chief of staff Andy Card informed members of Congress, calling Frist and Reid. He also called Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee; Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the ranking Democrat on the committee; and House Majority Leader Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.
The White House counsel's office notified the Supreme Court through Justice John Paul Stevens, the senior-most member of the court.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of the judiciary panel, said the nomination "raises the stakes" in making sure that the American people and the Senate knows Roberts' views.
"Judge Roberts has a clear obligation to make his views known fully and completely at the hearings and we look forward to them," Schumer said.
Liberal groups have expressed opposition to Roberts because of his conservative writings as an attorney for the Reagan administration and his rulings as an appeals court judge. However, it does not appear that his opponents have enough votes to block Roberts' confirmation.
That alone might have been impetus for Bush to rename Roberts for chief justice. Bush, with low standing in the polls, might not have the political capital he would need to win a Senate battle over a conservative ideologue who would draw intense opposition.
Rehnquist, 80 at his death, served on the Supreme Court for 33 years and was its leader for 19 years.
Rehnquist, a World War II Army Air Corps veteran, will be buried in a private ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery alongside his wife, who died in 1991, following a funeral that morning at St. Matthew's Cathedral in Washington. He died Saturday at his home.
His body will lie in repose in the marble Great Hall of the Supreme Court building on Tuesday and on Wednesday morning with the public invited to pay its respects.
Five members of the court have lain in repose there: Chief Justices Earl Warren and Warren Burger, and Justices Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan and Harry Blackmun.
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...T&f=102&t=34066
-------------------
Bush Nominates Roberts for Chief Justice
Updated 10:41 AM ET September 5, 2005
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8ce5ie80&src=ap
By JENNIFER LOVEN
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush on Monday nominated John Roberts to succeed William H. Rehnquist as chief justice and called on the Senate to confirm him before the Supreme Court opens its fall term on Oct. 3. Just 50 years old, Roberts could shape the court for decades to come.
The swift move would promote to the Supreme Court's top job a newcomer who currently is being considered as one of eight associate justices. It would also ensure a full 9-member court, because retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has said she will remain on the job until her replacement is confirmed.
"I am honored and humbled by the confidence the president has shown in me," Roberts said, standing alongside Bush in the Oval Office. "I am very much aware that if I am confirmed I would succeed a man I deeply respect and admire, a man who has been very kind to me for 25 years."
"He's a man of integrity and fairness and throughout his life he's inspired the respect and loyalty of others," Bush said. "John Roberts built a record of excellence and achievement and reputation for goodwill and decency toward others in his extraordinary career."
The selection of Roberts helps Bush avoid new political problems when he already is under fire for the government's sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina and his approval ratings in the polls are at the lowest point of his presidency.
A brief delay in confirmation hearings for Roberts, which had been set to start Tuesday, was likely in light of his new nomination and Rehnquist's funeral this week.
Senate officials are considering three options: starting Roberts' confirmation on Tuesday with a delay built in on Wednesday for Rehnquist's funeral; starting the confirmation hearing on Thursday; or starting the confirmation hearing next week, the scenerio considered to be the most likely.
But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he still expects Roberts to be confirmed before the new court session begins on October 3.
"The president has made an excellent choice," Frist said Monday. "Mr. Roberts is one of the most well qualified candidates to come before the Senate. He will be an excellent chief."
Democrats said Roberts will now be held to a higher standard, although they had found little in his record to suggest they would thwart his nomination as associate justice.
"Now that the president has said he will nominate Judge Roberts as chief justice, the stakes are higher and the Senate's advice and consent responsibility is even more important," Democratic leader Harry Reid said Monday in a statement. "The Senate must be vigilant."
The president met with Roberts in the private residence of the White House for about 35 to 40 minutes on Sunday evening, then officially offered him the job at 7:15 a.m. Monday when Roberts arrived at the Oval Office.
"This had been something that had been in the president's thinking for some time _ in case the chief justice retired or that there otherwise was a vacancy," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "The president when he met with him, knew he was a natural born leader. The president knew Judge Roberts had the qualities to lead the court."
McClellan said the White House is confident that Roberts can be confirmed by the Senate by Oct. 3. Bush still has to pick a successor for Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, although she said at the time of her retirement announcement that she would remain until a replacement were seated.
McClellan said Bush called O'Connor from Air Force One en route to Louisiana Monday to talk with her about his decision. "He indicated that he was going to move quickly to find her replacement as well," the president's spokesman added. Talking to reporters who accompanied the president on a hurricane-damage inspection trip to the South, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino was unable to say whether O'Connor reiterated her earlier promise about temporarily staying on the court.
Getting a new chief justice of Bush's choosing in place quickly also avoids the scenario of having liberal Justice John Paul Stevens making the decisions about whom to assign cases to and making other decisions that could influence court deliberations. As the court's senior justice, Stevens would take over Rehnquist's administrative duties until a new chief is confirmed.
"The passing of Chief Justice William Rehnquist leaves the center chair empty, just four weeks left before the Supreme Court reconvenes," Bush said. "It's in the interest of the court and the country to have a chief justice on the bench on the first full day of the fall term."
Bush said Roberts has been closely scrutinized since he was nominated as an associate justice and that Americans "like what they see. He is a gentleman. He is a man of integrity and fairness." He said Roberts has unusual experience, having argued 39 cases as a lawyer before the Supreme Court. Bush also said Roberts was a natural leader.
The move was engineered to have all nine seats on the high court filled when the court opens its fall term.
The White House is not opposed to a delay in Roberts' confirmation hearings as long as senators vote on the confirmation before the court session begins on the first Monday of October.
"We believe they have enough time to move forward to meet that goal because of all the work that's already been done and Justice O'Connor had previously indicated that she was going to stay on the court until her position was filled," McClellan said.
Bush already had nominated Roberts to take O'Connor's place. It requires just a little paper shuffling to change the nomination for Rehnquist's seat.
White House chief of staff Andy Card informed members of Congress, calling Frist and Reid. He also called Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee; Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the ranking Democrat on the committee; and House Majority Leader Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.
The White House counsel's office notified the Supreme Court through Justice John Paul Stevens, the senior-most member of the court.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of the judiciary panel, said the nomination "raises the stakes" in making sure that the American people and the Senate knows Roberts' views.
"Judge Roberts has a clear obligation to make his views known fully and completely at the hearings and we look forward to them," Schumer said.
Liberal groups have expressed opposition to Roberts because of his conservative writings as an attorney for the Reagan administration and his rulings as an appeals court judge. However, it does not appear that his opponents have enough votes to block Roberts' confirmation.
That alone might have been impetus for Bush to rename Roberts for chief justice. Bush, with low standing in the polls, might not have the political capital he would need to win a Senate battle over a conservative ideologue who would draw intense opposition.
Rehnquist, 80 at his death, served on the Supreme Court for 33 years and was its leader for 19 years.
Rehnquist, a World War II Army Air Corps veteran, will be buried in a private ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery alongside his wife, who died in 1991, following a funeral that morning at St. Matthew's Cathedral in Washington. He died Saturday at his home.
His body will lie in repose in the marble Great Hall of the Supreme Court building on Tuesday and on Wednesday morning with the public invited to pay its respects.
Five members of the court have lain in repose there: Chief Justices Earl Warren and Warren Burger, and Justices Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan and Harry Blackmun.
I think that the Roberts' hearing is delayed a few days for Rehnquist's funeral.
------------------
Some big names lined up for hearing on Roberts
Democrats' speakers on nominee to include John Dean, John Lewis
Associated Press
Originally published September 3, 2005
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationwor...ack=1&cset=true
------------------
Some big names lined up for hearing on Roberts
Democrats' speakers on nominee to include John Dean, John Lewis
Associated Press
Originally published September 3, 2005
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationwor...ack=1&cset=true
Boxer and Feinstein: Two pro-choice senators, two views of John Roberts
Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Friday, August 19, 2005
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGOBEA9JK1.DTL
Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Friday, August 19, 2005
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGOBEA9JK1.DTL
Recusal Questions for Roberts
Two Senators Ask About Participation
In Military Tribunal Case
By JESS BRAVIN
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
August 26, 2005; Page A4
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB...ff_main_tff_top
Two Senators Ask About Participation
In Military Tribunal Case
By JESS BRAVIN
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
August 26, 2005; Page A4
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB...ff_main_tff_top
Law.com
Roberts Faces Abortion Test
Friday August 26, 2:59 am ET
T.R. Goldman, Legal Times
http://biz.yahoo.com/law/050826/81b3ad243a...e6d7c.html?.v=1
John Roberts Jr. has called abortion a "tragedy," but aside from that one word in a 1985 memo to his White House boss, Roberts' paper trail on the subject is characteristically sparse.
It won't stay that way much longer.
Among the first cases Roberts will hear should he reach the Supreme Court is what might turn out to be the most significant abortion decision in years, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. It will be the first abortion case the Court considers since President George W. Bush took office.
And Roberts, along with Justice Anthony Kennedy, will likely determine the outcome.
Ayotte is not about the legality of abortion per se. Rather it addresses the critical but murky question of how courts should determine the constitutionality of laws that regulate the right to have an abortion.
At issue is a New Hampshire law requiring a minor to notify a parent 48 hours before having an abortion. The law was enjoined by a federal judge on Dec. 29, 2003, two days before it was to take effect, a decision that was later affirmed by a federal appeals court.
The calculus on the high court, where positions on abortion rights have long since been established, appears set to shift with Roberts' expected arrival.
But that isn't the only variable at play. The United States government has weighed in with a novel but far-reaching argument that would change the constitutional standard for judging abortion restrictions, one which critics charge would turn years of abortion rights jurisprudence on its head.
"This is a case in which substantial damage could be done to abortion rights without anyone seriously being able to claim that Roe v. Wade is in danger," says David Garrow, a legal historian at Emory University.
"It's a real, powerfully original argument the [U.S. solicitor general] is making here," Garrow adds. "And Roberts is not only indisputably the fifth and controlling vote; so long as Kennedy agrees with him, Roberts will control how far the Court majority chooses to take this." ......
Roberts Faces Abortion Test
Friday August 26, 2:59 am ET
T.R. Goldman, Legal Times
http://biz.yahoo.com/law/050826/81b3ad243a...e6d7c.html?.v=1
John Roberts Jr. has called abortion a "tragedy," but aside from that one word in a 1985 memo to his White House boss, Roberts' paper trail on the subject is characteristically sparse.
It won't stay that way much longer.
Among the first cases Roberts will hear should he reach the Supreme Court is what might turn out to be the most significant abortion decision in years, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. It will be the first abortion case the Court considers since President George W. Bush took office.
And Roberts, along with Justice Anthony Kennedy, will likely determine the outcome.
Ayotte is not about the legality of abortion per se. Rather it addresses the critical but murky question of how courts should determine the constitutionality of laws that regulate the right to have an abortion.
At issue is a New Hampshire law requiring a minor to notify a parent 48 hours before having an abortion. The law was enjoined by a federal judge on Dec. 29, 2003, two days before it was to take effect, a decision that was later affirmed by a federal appeals court.
The calculus on the high court, where positions on abortion rights have long since been established, appears set to shift with Roberts' expected arrival.
But that isn't the only variable at play. The United States government has weighed in with a novel but far-reaching argument that would change the constitutional standard for judging abortion restrictions, one which critics charge would turn years of abortion rights jurisprudence on its head.
"This is a case in which substantial damage could be done to abortion rights without anyone seriously being able to claim that Roe v. Wade is in danger," says David Garrow, a legal historian at Emory University.
"It's a real, powerfully original argument the [U.S. solicitor general] is making here," Garrow adds. "And Roberts is not only indisputably the fifth and controlling vote; so long as Kennedy agrees with him, Roberts will control how far the Court majority chooses to take this." ......
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9023929/site/newsweek/
Roberts: Ready for His Close-Up
Newsweek
Aug. 29 - Sept. 5, 2005 issue
Roberts: Ready for His Close-Up
Newsweek
Aug. 29 - Sept. 5, 2005 issue
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Delay in Roberts hearing
Posted by Lyle Denniston at 08:46 PM
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/arch..._in_robert.html
It now appears nearly certain that the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., will be delayed, although the length of the postponement appears not to have been settled yet. The Committee had planned to open hearings on Tuesday.
GOP leaders of the Senate reportedly have been discussing a delay at least until after the Chief Justice is buried on Wednesday. Senate Democrats have indicated they will join in the delay.
The discussions were revealed in this statement by Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada:
"I understand my Republican colleagues are considering a postponement of the Roberts hearings until after Chief Justice Rehnquist's funeral. I believe this is the right thing to do. The nation is already reeling from the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and the Senate should focus its immediate attention on helping the victims of that tragedy. The death of Chief Justice Rehnquist presents an additional reason to adjust the schedule.
"Out of respect for the memory of Chief Justice Rehnquist and in fairness to those whose lives continue to be devasted by Katrina, the Senate should not commence a Supreme Court confirmation hearing this Tuesday. A brief postponement will not disadvantage anyone."
President Bush, in a statement about the Chief's death, included this comment on his plan: "There are now two vacancies on the Supreme Court, and it will serve the best interests of the nation to fill those vacancies promptly. I will choose in a timely manner a highly qualified nominee to succeed Chief Justice Rehnquist."
Delay in Roberts hearing
Posted by Lyle Denniston at 08:46 PM
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/arch..._in_robert.html
It now appears nearly certain that the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., will be delayed, although the length of the postponement appears not to have been settled yet. The Committee had planned to open hearings on Tuesday.
GOP leaders of the Senate reportedly have been discussing a delay at least until after the Chief Justice is buried on Wednesday. Senate Democrats have indicated they will join in the delay.
The discussions were revealed in this statement by Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada:
"I understand my Republican colleagues are considering a postponement of the Roberts hearings until after Chief Justice Rehnquist's funeral. I believe this is the right thing to do. The nation is already reeling from the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and the Senate should focus its immediate attention on helping the victims of that tragedy. The death of Chief Justice Rehnquist presents an additional reason to adjust the schedule.
"Out of respect for the memory of Chief Justice Rehnquist and in fairness to those whose lives continue to be devasted by Katrina, the Senate should not commence a Supreme Court confirmation hearing this Tuesday. A brief postponement will not disadvantage anyone."
President Bush, in a statement about the Chief's death, included this comment on his plan: "There are now two vacancies on the Supreme Court, and it will serve the best interests of the nation to fill those vacancies promptly. I will choose in a timely manner a highly qualified nominee to succeed Chief Justice Rehnquist."
Senator Specter just announced that Roberts' hearing will start 12 noon on 9/12/05 and they hope to finish by Friday.
At Bush's cabinet meeting today, he said he wants Roberts to be approved before he announces the next justice. He said the list is wide open again and looked at Gonzales. Everyone laughed like it was an inside joke.
A Supreme Court reporter today on C-span said Bush has known for 5 years who is on his short list for justices. He is waiting for the right political opportunity to announce the next one.
A Supreme Court reporter today on C-span said Bush has known for 5 years who is on his short list for justices. He is waiting for the right political opportunity to announce the next one.
As a former clerk to Rehnquist, Roberts acted as one of the pall bearers for the casket. A woman also was a pall bearer.
Look for Roberts's face on TV all this week at the funeral. Good PR for his nomination.
Look for Roberts's face on TV all this week at the funeral. Good PR for his nomination.
QUOTE(heritage @ Sep 6 2005, 08:38 AM)
At Bush's cabinet meeting today, he said he wants Roberts to be approved before he announces the next justice. He said the list is wide open again and looked at Gonzales. Everyone laughed like it was an inside joke.
A Supreme Court reporter today on C-span said Bush has known for 5 years who is on his short list for justices. He is waiting for the right political opportunity to announce the next one.
A Supreme Court reporter today on C-span said Bush has known for 5 years who is on his short list for justices. He is waiting for the right political opportunity to announce the next one.
I think a good time would be during his trial in the Senate, after he is impeached in the House!
I'm thinking cronyism will prevail and Alberto Gonzales will get the next nomination. If he and his family want to stay in Washington, that is.
QUOTE(heritage @ Sep 9 2005, 11:39 AM)
Court: 'Dirty Bomb' Suspect Can Be Held
Updated 10:41 AM ET September 9, 2005
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - A federal appeals court Friday sided with the Bush administration and reversed a judge's order that the government charge or free "dirty bomb" suspect Jose Padilla.
A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the president has the authority to detain a U.S. citizen closely associated with al Qaida.
A federal judge in South Carolina had ruled in March that the government cannot hold Padilla indefinitely as an "enemy combatant," a designation President Bush gave him in 2002.
The government views Padilla as a militant who planned attacks on the United States, including with a "dirty bomb" radiological device.
[doesn't John Roberts sit on this court?]
Updated 10:41 AM ET September 9, 2005
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - A federal appeals court Friday sided with the Bush administration and reversed a judge's order that the government charge or free "dirty bomb" suspect Jose Padilla.
A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the president has the authority to detain a U.S. citizen closely associated with al Qaida.
A federal judge in South Carolina had ruled in March that the government cannot hold Padilla indefinitely as an "enemy combatant," a designation President Bush gave him in 2002.
The government views Padilla as a militant who planned attacks on the United States, including with a "dirty bomb" radiological device.
[doesn't John Roberts sit on this court?]
My letter to my senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein -
Dear Senator,
I do not like George Bush. I do not like everything he says and does. I do not like the fact that he occupies the office of the President of the United States when he was not elected in 2000 nor again in 2004. I do not like the fact that he represents and panders to a small extremist cult sect of our society. I do not like the fact that he prostitutes himself to corporate power and greed. I do not like the repeated incompetent decisions he has made that has killed tens of thousands of Americans. I do not like the President of the United States acting as an international outlaw and criminal by preemptively attacking a sovereign nation using fabricated and false justifications while acting as our elected leader. I do not like his nomination to the supreme court as a means to extend his corrupting and backward thinking minority extremists theologies. I am asking you, as my elected State Senator to block at every opportunity, at every vote, at every single time the fascist George Bush from further ruining and destroying our nation, our government institutions, and the people of the United States.
Thank You,
Wunder Maus
Dear Senator,
I do not like George Bush. I do not like everything he says and does. I do not like the fact that he occupies the office of the President of the United States when he was not elected in 2000 nor again in 2004. I do not like the fact that he represents and panders to a small extremist cult sect of our society. I do not like the fact that he prostitutes himself to corporate power and greed. I do not like the repeated incompetent decisions he has made that has killed tens of thousands of Americans. I do not like the President of the United States acting as an international outlaw and criminal by preemptively attacking a sovereign nation using fabricated and false justifications while acting as our elected leader. I do not like his nomination to the supreme court as a means to extend his corrupting and backward thinking minority extremists theologies. I am asking you, as my elected State Senator to block at every opportunity, at every vote, at every single time the fascist George Bush from further ruining and destroying our nation, our government institutions, and the people of the United States.
Thank You,
Wunder Maus
Democrat press conference on C-span 2 now (taped) --- after Roberts' hearing.
Today's discussion on Roberts' hearing
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...ST&f=16&t=37294
Democrats represent more people even though republicans have more senators.
Bush's poll ratings are sinking -57% disapproval
Republican poll ratings are sunk.
Democrats need to stick up for the other two thirds of the country.
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...ST&f=16&t=37294
Democrats represent more people even though republicans have more senators.
Bush's poll ratings are sinking -57% disapproval
Republican poll ratings are sunk.
Democrats need to stick up for the other two thirds of the country.
Roberts Vows to Judge Cases by Rule of Law
Updated 9:06 AM ET September 13, 2005
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8cjctm89&src=ap
By JESSE J. HOLLAND
WASHINGTON (AP) - John Roberts says he would judge cases "according to the rule of law, without fear or favor" as the nation's 17th chief justice.
After an opening day of speeches and platitudes, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are ready to test that statement. They begin grilling the conservative federal judge Tuesday on his views on the Constitution, abortion, presidential power and dozens of other issues.
"This is a confirmation proceeding ... not a coronation," said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis. "It is a Senate Judiciary Committee's job to ask tough questions. We are tasked by the Senate with getting a complete picture of your qualifications, your temperament and how you will carry out your duties."
Republicans will pose tough questions of their own to the 50-year-old appeals court judge and Reagan administration lawyer, picked by President Bush to succeed the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. But they will also try to block Democrats from getting too aggressive in getting Roberts to answer questions about hot-button issues.
"I want you to know that I will defend your refusal to answer any question that you believe to be improper," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who will control the questioning with his wooden gavel as committee chairman, said he won't stop senators from asking questions because Roberts can't be forced to answer. "He can protect himself," Specter said. "And if they're badgering, or repetitive, or out of line, that's the time when a chairman should intervene."
Although the questioning is expected to last for a few days, Roberts' confirmation seems all but assured.
The hearing shifts on Tuesday from the ornate and historical marble columns of the Russell Senate Caucus Room to the second-floor hearing room of the ultramodern Hart Senate Office Building, which provides the committee more room and wireless Internet access for reporters.
Roberts, in his first statement in front of the committee, told senators that he was not a partisan heading to the court with a political agenda. He spoke for less than 10 minutes _ and without notes, befitting a lawyer whose specialty once was thinking on his feet while answering demanding questions from Supreme Court justices.
"I have no platform. Judges are not politicians who can promise to do certain things in exchange for votes," Roberts said. "Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them."
A Roberts who would limit the Supreme Court's reach would please the 10 Republicans on the committee, who used their opening statements Monday to complain about the Supreme Court's reach into areas they felt were more properly left to local, state and national legislators.
"Perhaps the Supreme Court's most notorious exercise of raw political power came in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, two 1973 cases based on false statements which invented a constitutional right to abortion," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan. "The issue had been handled by the people through their elected representatives prior to that time."
GOP senators don't want Roberts to be asked questions about what he thinks on those issues, saying it would be improper for judges to talk about cases they may see in the future.
"Believe me, Judge Roberts will be asked a lot of questions, and he will give a lot of answers," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. "But one thing I don't expect him to do and that no previous nominee has ever been asked to do, is to make specific commitments about how he will rule in cases that are likely to come back before the United States Supreme Court."
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said senators know better than to ask Roberts how he will vote on specific cases. Judicial nominees routinely refuse to answer questions about how they will vote on future cases so litigants won't think their case has been judged before it was argued.
"But it is very important for the American people to understand who this justice is and what his views are on important constitutional issues," Kennedy said. "And this is magnified particularly when the administration has made a judgment and decision to restrict information about the nominee, for what reasons we do not know."
The White House has released more than 70,000 documents from Roberts' time in the Reagan administration but has refused to release documents from his tenure as principal deputy solicitor general in the first Bush administration. That office supervises and conducts government litigation in the Supreme Court, and dealt with such divisive issues as abortion and prisoners' rights during Roberts' time.
A group of Democratic senators, including potential presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and John Kerry of Massachusetts, reiterated a call Monday for the White House to release those documents.
"The people deserve to know the complete truth about Judge Roberts, the good and the bad alike," they said in a letter.
___
On the Net:
Senate Judiciary Committee: http://judiciary.senate.gov
Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Updated 9:06 AM ET September 13, 2005
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8cjctm89&src=ap
By JESSE J. HOLLAND
WASHINGTON (AP) - John Roberts says he would judge cases "according to the rule of law, without fear or favor" as the nation's 17th chief justice.
After an opening day of speeches and platitudes, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are ready to test that statement. They begin grilling the conservative federal judge Tuesday on his views on the Constitution, abortion, presidential power and dozens of other issues.
"This is a confirmation proceeding ... not a coronation," said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis. "It is a Senate Judiciary Committee's job to ask tough questions. We are tasked by the Senate with getting a complete picture of your qualifications, your temperament and how you will carry out your duties."
Republicans will pose tough questions of their own to the 50-year-old appeals court judge and Reagan administration lawyer, picked by President Bush to succeed the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. But they will also try to block Democrats from getting too aggressive in getting Roberts to answer questions about hot-button issues.
"I want you to know that I will defend your refusal to answer any question that you believe to be improper," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who will control the questioning with his wooden gavel as committee chairman, said he won't stop senators from asking questions because Roberts can't be forced to answer. "He can protect himself," Specter said. "And if they're badgering, or repetitive, or out of line, that's the time when a chairman should intervene."
Although the questioning is expected to last for a few days, Roberts' confirmation seems all but assured.
The hearing shifts on Tuesday from the ornate and historical marble columns of the Russell Senate Caucus Room to the second-floor hearing room of the ultramodern Hart Senate Office Building, which provides the committee more room and wireless Internet access for reporters.
Roberts, in his first statement in front of the committee, told senators that he was not a partisan heading to the court with a political agenda. He spoke for less than 10 minutes _ and without notes, befitting a lawyer whose specialty once was thinking on his feet while answering demanding questions from Supreme Court justices.
"I have no platform. Judges are not politicians who can promise to do certain things in exchange for votes," Roberts said. "Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them."
A Roberts who would limit the Supreme Court's reach would please the 10 Republicans on the committee, who used their opening statements Monday to complain about the Supreme Court's reach into areas they felt were more properly left to local, state and national legislators.
"Perhaps the Supreme Court's most notorious exercise of raw political power came in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, two 1973 cases based on false statements which invented a constitutional right to abortion," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan. "The issue had been handled by the people through their elected representatives prior to that time."
GOP senators don't want Roberts to be asked questions about what he thinks on those issues, saying it would be improper for judges to talk about cases they may see in the future.
"Believe me, Judge Roberts will be asked a lot of questions, and he will give a lot of answers," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. "But one thing I don't expect him to do and that no previous nominee has ever been asked to do, is to make specific commitments about how he will rule in cases that are likely to come back before the United States Supreme Court."
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said senators know better than to ask Roberts how he will vote on specific cases. Judicial nominees routinely refuse to answer questions about how they will vote on future cases so litigants won't think their case has been judged before it was argued.
"But it is very important for the American people to understand who this justice is and what his views are on important constitutional issues," Kennedy said. "And this is magnified particularly when the administration has made a judgment and decision to restrict information about the nominee, for what reasons we do not know."
The White House has released more than 70,000 documents from Roberts' time in the Reagan administration but has refused to release documents from his tenure as principal deputy solicitor general in the first Bush administration. That office supervises and conducts government litigation in the Supreme Court, and dealt with such divisive issues as abortion and prisoners' rights during Roberts' time.
A group of Democratic senators, including potential presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and John Kerry of Massachusetts, reiterated a call Monday for the White House to release those documents.
"The people deserve to know the complete truth about Judge Roberts, the good and the bad alike," they said in a letter.
___
On the Net:
Senate Judiciary Committee: http://judiciary.senate.gov
Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Roberts Sidesteps Landmark Abortion Ruling
Updated 9:52 AM ET September 13, 2005
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8cjdj680&src=ap
By JESSE J. HOLLAND
WASHINGTON (AP) - Supreme Court nominee John Roberts on Tuesday declined to discuss his views on the landmark 1973 ruling on abortion but said the concept of legal precedent is a "very important consideration."
On the second day of his confirmation hearings, President Bush's choice for the nation's 17th chief justice said that as of 1992, when the Supreme Court ruled in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, the high court has emphasized the principles that had been settled for years.
"It's entitled to respect under those principles," Roberts said.
Moderate Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the Judiciary Committee chairman, immediately questioned Roberts about the divisive issue of abortion.
"I think it is a jolt to the legal system when you overturn precedent," Roberts said. "It is not enough that you may think that a prior decision was wrongly decided."
In his writings, Roberts has argued that the Roe v. Wade decision by the high court had been wrongly decided.
The federal appeals judge declined to specifically discuss the abortion rights case, saying that there are abortion-related cases on the court's docket. The next term begins Oct. 3.
Updated 9:52 AM ET September 13, 2005
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8cjdj680&src=ap
By JESSE J. HOLLAND
WASHINGTON (AP) - Supreme Court nominee John Roberts on Tuesday declined to discuss his views on the landmark 1973 ruling on abortion but said the concept of legal precedent is a "very important consideration."
On the second day of his confirmation hearings, President Bush's choice for the nation's 17th chief justice said that as of 1992, when the Supreme Court ruled in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, the high court has emphasized the principles that had been settled for years.
"It's entitled to respect under those principles," Roberts said.
Moderate Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the Judiciary Committee chairman, immediately questioned Roberts about the divisive issue of abortion.
"I think it is a jolt to the legal system when you overturn precedent," Roberts said. "It is not enough that you may think that a prior decision was wrongly decided."
In his writings, Roberts has argued that the Roe v. Wade decision by the high court had been wrongly decided.
The federal appeals judge declined to specifically discuss the abortion rights case, saying that there are abortion-related cases on the court's docket. The next term begins Oct. 3.
CBC Wants Roberts Probed on Civil Rights
Updated 9:25 AM ET September 13, 2005
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8cjd6o00&src=ap
By JESSE J. HOLLAND
WASHINGTON (AP) - Supreme Court nominee John Roberts should be questioned closely about civil rights because of the Bush administration's refusal to release documents from his tenure in the solicitor general's office, black Democratic lawmakers said Tuesday.
On the second day of confirmation hearings, members of the Congressional Black Caucus urged Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to focus on Roberts and his views on civil rights. The group said Roberts turned down their request for a meeting and documents that could shed light on his opinions have been withheld by the White House.
"Our country's transformation on race could not have been achieved lawfully and nonviolently without the decisions of the Supreme Court. We hope that you agree that this achievement at a minimum deserves a central place in your examination of the nominee," said Rep. Mel Watt, D-N.C., the group's chairman, and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., the caucus' judicial nominations chair, said in a letter to the committee.
The Justice Department has refused to release Roberts' paperwork from his time in the solicitor general's office in President George H.W. Bush's administration. The White House has released more than 70,000 documents from his time as a government lawyer in the Reagan administration.
Roberts told the committee on Monday that he would judge cases "according to the rule of law, without fear or favor" as the nation's 17th chief justice.
Democrats said they would grill the conservative federal judge on his views on the Constitution, abortion, presidential power and dozens of other issues.
"This is a confirmation proceeding ... not a coronation," said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis. "It is a Senate Judiciary Committee's job to ask tough questions. We are tasked by the Senate with getting a complete picture of your qualifications, your temperament and how you will carry out your duties."
Republicans will pose tough questions of their own to the 50-year-old appeals court judge and Reagan administration lawyer, picked by President Bush to succeed the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. But they will also try to block Democrats from getting too aggressive in getting Roberts to answer questions about hot-button issues.
"I want you to know that I will defend your refusal to answer any question that you believe to be improper," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who will control the questioning with his wooden gavel as committee chairman, said he won't stop senators from asking questions because Roberts can't be forced to answer. "He can protect himself," Specter said. "And if they're badgering, or repetitive, or out of line, that's the time when a chairman should intervene."
Although the questioning is expected to last for a few days, Roberts' confirmation seems all but assured.
The hearing shifts on Tuesday from the ornate and historical marble columns of the Russell Senate Caucus Room to the second-floor hearing room of the ultramodern Hart Senate Office Building, which provides the committee more room and wireless Internet access for reporters.
Roberts, in his first statement in front of the committee, told senators that he was not a partisan heading to the court with a political agenda. He spoke for less than 10 minutes _ and without notes, befitting a lawyer whose specialty once was thinking on his feet while answering demanding questions from Supreme Court justices.
"I have no platform. Judges are not politicians who can promise to do certain things in exchange for votes," Roberts said. "Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them."
A Roberts who would limit the Supreme Court's reach would please the 10 Republicans on the committee, who used their opening statements Monday to complain about the Supreme Court's reach into areas they felt were more properly left to local, state and national legislators.
"Perhaps the Supreme Court's most notorious exercise of raw political power came in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, two 1973 cases based on false statements which invented a constitutional right to abortion," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan. "The issue had been handled by the people through their elected representatives prior to that time."
GOP senators don't want Roberts to be asked questions about what he thinks on those issues, saying it would be improper for judges to talk about cases they may see in the future.
"Believe me, Judge Roberts will be asked a lot of questions, and he will give a lot of answers," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. "But one thing I don't expect him to do and that no previous nominee has ever been asked to do, is to make specific commitments about how he will rule in cases that are likely to come back before the United States Supreme Court."
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said senators know better than to ask Roberts how he will vote on specific cases. Judicial nominees routinely refuse to answer questions about how they will vote on future cases so litigants won't think their case has been judged before it was argued.
"But it is very important for the American people to understand who this justice is and what his views are on important constitutional issues," Kennedy said.
___
On the Net:
Senate Judiciary Committee: http://judiciary.senate.gov
Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Updated 9:25 AM ET September 13, 2005
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8cjd6o00&src=ap
By JESSE J. HOLLAND
WASHINGTON (AP) - Supreme Court nominee John Roberts should be questioned closely about civil rights because of the Bush administration's refusal to release documents from his tenure in the solicitor general's office, black Democratic lawmakers said Tuesday.
On the second day of confirmation hearings, members of the Congressional Black Caucus urged Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to focus on Roberts and his views on civil rights. The group said Roberts turned down their request for a meeting and documents that could shed light on his opinions have been withheld by the White House.
"Our country's transformation on race could not have been achieved lawfully and nonviolently without the decisions of the Supreme Court. We hope that you agree that this achievement at a minimum deserves a central place in your examination of the nominee," said Rep. Mel Watt, D-N.C., the group's chairman, and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., the caucus' judicial nominations chair, said in a letter to the committee.
The Justice Department has refused to release Roberts' paperwork from his time in the solicitor general's office in President George H.W. Bush's administration. The White House has released more than 70,000 documents from his time as a government lawyer in the Reagan administration.
Roberts told the committee on Monday that he would judge cases "according to the rule of law, without fear or favor" as the nation's 17th chief justice.
Democrats said they would grill the conservative federal judge on his views on the Constitution, abortion, presidential power and dozens of other issues.
"This is a confirmation proceeding ... not a coronation," said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis. "It is a Senate Judiciary Committee's job to ask tough questions. We are tasked by the Senate with getting a complete picture of your qualifications, your temperament and how you will carry out your duties."
Republicans will pose tough questions of their own to the 50-year-old appeals court judge and Reagan administration lawyer, picked by President Bush to succeed the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. But they will also try to block Democrats from getting too aggressive in getting Roberts to answer questions about hot-button issues.
"I want you to know that I will defend your refusal to answer any question that you believe to be improper," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who will control the questioning with his wooden gavel as committee chairman, said he won't stop senators from asking questions because Roberts can't be forced to answer. "He can protect himself," Specter said. "And if they're badgering, or repetitive, or out of line, that's the time when a chairman should intervene."
Although the questioning is expected to last for a few days, Roberts' confirmation seems all but assured.
The hearing shifts on Tuesday from the ornate and historical marble columns of the Russell Senate Caucus Room to the second-floor hearing room of the ultramodern Hart Senate Office Building, which provides the committee more room and wireless Internet access for reporters.
Roberts, in his first statement in front of the committee, told senators that he was not a partisan heading to the court with a political agenda. He spoke for less than 10 minutes _ and without notes, befitting a lawyer whose specialty once was thinking on his feet while answering demanding questions from Supreme Court justices.
"I have no platform. Judges are not politicians who can promise to do certain things in exchange for votes," Roberts said. "Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them."
A Roberts who would limit the Supreme Court's reach would please the 10 Republicans on the committee, who used their opening statements Monday to complain about the Supreme Court's reach into areas they felt were more properly left to local, state and national legislators.
"Perhaps the Supreme Court's most notorious exercise of raw political power came in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, two 1973 cases based on false statements which invented a constitutional right to abortion," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan. "The issue had been handled by the people through their elected representatives prior to that time."
GOP senators don't want Roberts to be asked questions about what he thinks on those issues, saying it would be improper for judges to talk about cases they may see in the future.
"Believe me, Judge Roberts will be asked a lot of questions, and he will give a lot of answers," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. "But one thing I don't expect him to do and that no previous nominee has ever been asked to do, is to make specific commitments about how he will rule in cases that are likely to come back before the United States Supreme Court."
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said senators know better than to ask Roberts how he will vote on specific cases. Judicial nominees routinely refuse to answer questions about how they will vote on future cases so litigants won't think their case has been judged before it was argued.
"But it is very important for the American people to understand who this justice is and what his views are on important constitutional issues," Kennedy said.
___
On the Net:
Senate Judiciary Committee: http://judiciary.senate.gov
Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Roberts: Roe V. Wade 'Entitled to Respect'
Updated 11:20 AM ET September 13, 2005
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8cjesf00&src=ap
By JESSE J. HOLLAND
WASHINGTON (AP) - Supreme Court nominee John Roberts said Tuesday that the landmark 1973 ruling legalizing abortion was "settled as a precedent," as he was immediately pressed to address the divisive issue on the second day of his confirmation hearings.
"It's settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis," the concept that long-established rulings should be given extra weight, Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
President Bush's choice to succeed the late William H. Rehnquist as chief justice, Roberts focused on a 1992 Supreme Court ruling in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, referring to that as a precedent-setting case in addition to the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.
In the Pennsylvania case, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to uphold the core holdings of Roe v. Wade and ban states from outlawing most abortions. The court said states could impose restrictions on the procedure that do not impose an "undue burden" on women.
"It reaffirmed the central holding in Roe v. Wade," Roberts said.
Roberts answered questions about abortion through the prism of legal precedent but declined to answer specifically how he would rule if faced with the question of overturning Roe v. Wade.
The nominee dismissed any suggestion that his Catholic faith would influence his decisions if he were confirmed to be the nation's 17th chief justice. The Roman Catholic Church strongly opposes abortion.
"There's nothing in my personal views based on faith or other sources that would prevent me from applying the precedent of the court faithfully under the principles of stare decisis," Roberts said.
Stare decisis is Latin for "to stand by a decision" and legally translates into the doctrine that says courts are bound by previous decisions, or precedents, particularly when a case has been decided by a higher court.
Despite that principle, the current Supreme Court has been willing to revisit and overrule previous court decisions, on issues such as gay rights and the death penalty.
Questioned about rights of privacy, the appellate judge cited several amendments in the Bill of Rights and said, "I do think the right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways."
Specter, a moderate Republican who supports abortion rights, asked if the Roe v. Wade decision was a "super-duper precedent" in light of efforts to overturn it.
Roberts noted that the Supreme Court itself upheld the basics of Roe v. Wade in the 1992 Casey case.
"That, I think, is the decision that any judge in this area would begin with," Roberts said.
Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the committee, focused on the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress _ and Roberts' suggestion, in past writings, that favor the presidency and speak dismissively of the legislature.
After considerable discussion about a memo dealing with military benefits, the White House and Congress, Leahy simply asked if Congress has the power to declare war.
"Of course, the Constitution specifically gives the power to Congress," Roberts said.
Leahy also questioned Roberts about recent Bush administration documents on torture and interrogation, prompting another definitive statement from Roberts.
"No one is above the law and that includes the president," he said.
Specter pressed Roberts on whether the abortion ruling was settled law for him, established only for an appellate judge such as he or "settled beyond that."
"Well, beyond that, it's settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not," Roberts said.
In 1992, Rehnquist wanted to use the Casey case to overturn Roe, but he was stymied by moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a bitter dissent then, and is likely to push the court to revisit the issue.
An abortion case will be taken up by the court this fall, but it does not directly deal with the right to an abortion. The Supreme Court's next term begins Oct. 3.
Troy Newman, leader of Operation: Rescue, said anti-abortion activists weren't surprised by Roberts' comments but would watch him closely.
"We're concerned about these statements, but the proof will come when it's time for him to rule on these cases as a justice," Newman said.
Roberts' opponents complained that he was ducking specific questions _ as they expected.
"He's obviously playing a game of dodgeball," said Ralph Neas, head of the liberal People of the American Way.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, asked Roberts whether he was an originalist, a constructionist, a perfectionist or any of the oft-repeated legal definitions that analysts and activists apply to Supreme Court justices.
"I think, like most people, I resist the label. ... When pressed I prefer to be known as a modest judge. I appreciate the role of judge is limited," said Roberts, who said he tends to look at cases according to the facts and details and avoids an overarching judicial philosophy.
"I don't think the courts should have a dominant role in society, in addressing society's problems. Their role is to judge what the law is," he said.
Roberts briefly answered questions about his unpaid work while a private attorney, including his assistance to a gay rights group in a Colorado case about discrimination. The group prevailed in what gay rights advocates consider one of their most important legal victories.
"I never turned down a request. I think it's right that if there had been something morally objectionable, I suppose I would have. But it was my view that lawyers don't stand in the shoes of their clients and that good lawyers can give advice and argue any side of a case," he said.
Updated 11:20 AM ET September 13, 2005
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8cjesf00&src=ap
By JESSE J. HOLLAND
WASHINGTON (AP) - Supreme Court nominee John Roberts said Tuesday that the landmark 1973 ruling legalizing abortion was "settled as a precedent," as he was immediately pressed to address the divisive issue on the second day of his confirmation hearings.
"It's settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis," the concept that long-established rulings should be given extra weight, Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
President Bush's choice to succeed the late William H. Rehnquist as chief justice, Roberts focused on a 1992 Supreme Court ruling in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, referring to that as a precedent-setting case in addition to the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.
In the Pennsylvania case, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to uphold the core holdings of Roe v. Wade and ban states from outlawing most abortions. The court said states could impose restrictions on the procedure that do not impose an "undue burden" on women.
"It reaffirmed the central holding in Roe v. Wade," Roberts said.
Roberts answered questions about abortion through the prism of legal precedent but declined to answer specifically how he would rule if faced with the question of overturning Roe v. Wade.
The nominee dismissed any suggestion that his Catholic faith would influence his decisions if he were confirmed to be the nation's 17th chief justice. The Roman Catholic Church strongly opposes abortion.
"There's nothing in my personal views based on faith or other sources that would prevent me from applying the precedent of the court faithfully under the principles of stare decisis," Roberts said.
Stare decisis is Latin for "to stand by a decision" and legally translates into the doctrine that says courts are bound by previous decisions, or precedents, particularly when a case has been decided by a higher court.
Despite that principle, the current Supreme Court has been willing to revisit and overrule previous court decisions, on issues such as gay rights and the death penalty.
Questioned about rights of privacy, the appellate judge cited several amendments in the Bill of Rights and said, "I do think the right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways."
Specter, a moderate Republican who supports abortion rights, asked if the Roe v. Wade decision was a "super-duper precedent" in light of efforts to overturn it.
Roberts noted that the Supreme Court itself upheld the basics of Roe v. Wade in the 1992 Casey case.
"That, I think, is the decision that any judge in this area would begin with," Roberts said.
Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the committee, focused on the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress _ and Roberts' suggestion, in past writings, that favor the presidency and speak dismissively of the legislature.
After considerable discussion about a memo dealing with military benefits, the White House and Congress, Leahy simply asked if Congress has the power to declare war.
"Of course, the Constitution specifically gives the power to Congress," Roberts said.
Leahy also questioned Roberts about recent Bush administration documents on torture and interrogation, prompting another definitive statement from Roberts.
"No one is above the law and that includes the president," he said.
Specter pressed Roberts on whether the abortion ruling was settled law for him, established only for an appellate judge such as he or "settled beyond that."
"Well, beyond that, it's settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not," Roberts said.
In 1992, Rehnquist wanted to use the Casey case to overturn Roe, but he was stymied by moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a bitter dissent then, and is likely to push the court to revisit the issue.
An abortion case will be taken up by the court this fall, but it does not directly deal with the right to an abortion. The Supreme Court's next term begins Oct. 3.
Troy Newman, leader of Operation: Rescue, said anti-abortion activists weren't surprised by Roberts' comments but would watch him closely.
"We're concerned about these statements, but the proof will come when it's time for him to rule on these cases as a justice," Newman said.
Roberts' opponents complained that he was ducking specific questions _ as they expected.
"He's obviously playing a game of dodgeball," said Ralph Neas, head of the liberal People of the American Way.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, asked Roberts whether he was an originalist, a constructionist, a perfectionist or any of the oft-repeated legal definitions that analysts and activists apply to Supreme Court justices.
"I think, like most people, I resist the label. ... When pressed I prefer to be known as a modest judge. I appreciate the role of judge is limited," said Roberts, who said he tends to look at cases according to the facts and details and avoids an overarching judicial philosophy.
"I don't think the courts should have a dominant role in society, in addressing society's problems. Their role is to judge what the law is," he said.
Roberts briefly answered questions about his unpaid work while a private attorney, including his assistance to a gay rights group in a Colorado case about discrimination. The group prevailed in what gay rights advocates consider one of their most important legal victories.
"I never turned down a request. I think it's right that if there had been something morally objectionable, I suppose I would have. But it was my view that lawyers don't stand in the shoes of their clients and that good lawyers can give advice and argue any side of a case," he said.
QUOTE(heritage @ Sep 22 2005, 12:49 PM)
CNN is reporting the committee will vote 13-5 for Roberts today. 3 democrats will vote for him - Feingold, Leahy and Kohl
QUOTE(heritage @ Sep 22 2005, 11:50 AM)
That's the correct total: 13-5.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/22/roberts.ap/index.html
This doesn't break down who voted for it, other than saying Kohl said he would 'vote his hopes rather than his fears'
Feingold's Senate site has a dead link (not active to a page right now) with his statement regarding the vote. More when it's there and I have time.
Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On the Nomination of Judge John G. Roberts To be Chief Justice of the United States
September 22, 2005
Mr. Chairman, I will vote in favor of the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be the Chief Justice of the United States. This has not been an easy decision, but I believe it is the correct one. Judge Roberts's impeccable legal credentials, his reputation and record as a fair-minded person, and his commitment to modesty and respect for precedent have persuaded me that he will not bring an ideological agenda to the position of Chief Justice of the United States and that he should be confirmed.
I have often noted that the scrutiny that I will apply to a President's nominee to the Supreme Court is the highest of any nomination and that the scrutiny to be applied to the position of Chief Justice must be the very highest. I have voted for executive branch appointments, and even for Court of Appeals nominees, whom I would not necessarily vote to put on the Supreme Court.
Furthermore, because the Supreme Court, alone among our courts, has the power to revisit and reverse its precedents, I believe that anyone who sits on that Court must not have a pre-set agenda to reverse precedents with which he or she disagrees and must recognize and appreciate the awesome power and responsibility of the Court to do justice when other branches of government infringe on or ignore the freedoms and rights of all citizens.
Judge Roberts came to his hearing with a record that few can top. His long record of excellence as a lawyer practicing before the Supreme Court, and his reputation as a lawyer's lawyer who has no ideological agenda, carry substantial weight. I wanted to see, however, how that record and reputation would stand up against a searching inquiry into his past statements and current views.
One important question I had was about Judge Roberts's views on the role of precedent and stare decisis in our legal system. A lot of the concern about this nomination stems from the fact that many important precedents seem to be hanging by a thread. In both our private meeting and in his hearing, Judge Roberts demonstrated a great respect for precedent, and for the importance of stability and settled expectations. His themes of modesty and humility showed appropriate respect for the work of the Justices who have come before him. He convinced me that he will take these issues very seriously, with respect to both the constitutional right to privacy and many other issues of settled law.
As I'm sure every single one of us on this Committee noticed and expected, Judge Roberts did not expressly say how he would rule if asked to overturn Roe v. Wade. But if Judge Roberts abides by what he said about how he would approach the question of stare decisis, I think he should vote to uphold Roe. He certainly left some wiggle room, and he said he would approach the possibility of overturning a case differently if the underlying precedents themselves came into question. But it will be difficult to overrule Roe or other important precedents while remaining true to his testimony about stability and settled law, including his statement that he agrees with the outcome in Griswold v. Connecticut. I know the American people will be watching him very closely on that question, and I personally will consider it a reversal of huge proportions, and a grave disappointment, if he ultimately does attempt to go down that road.
I was also impressed that Judge Roberts does not seem inclined to try to rein in Congress's power under the commerce clause. He repeatedly called attention to the Court's recent decision in Gonzales v. Raich as indicating that the Court is not headed inexorably in the direction it turned in the Lopez and Morrison cases limiting Congress's power. His approving references to Raich suggests to me that he will take a more moderate stance on these issues than his mentor Chief Justice Rehnquist. His attitude seems to be if Congress does its job right, he will not stand in the way as a judge. That is, of course, cold comfort if the Court creates new hoops for Congress to jump through and applies them retroactively. I hope that Judge Roberts will recognize that Congress can pay attention to what the Court says is needed to justify legislation only if the Court gives clear advance notice of those requirements.
Judge Roberts also seemed to reject a return to the Lochner era, when a majority of the Court invoked the due process and contracts clauses of the Constitution to strike down child labor and other laws it disagreed with, and the courts openly acted as a super-legislature, rejecting congressional enactments based on their own political and economic judgments. Judge Roberts disparaged the Lochner decision, saying, "[y]ou can read that opinion today and it's quite clear that they're not interpreting the law, they're making the law." That's a marked contrast to many in the so-called "Constitution in Exile" movement, including recently confirmed D.C. Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown.
Judge Roberts's determination to be a humble and modest judge should lead him to reject efforts to undermine Congress's power to address social and economic problems through national legislation. I view that as a significant commitment he has made to the Congress and to the country.
Another important issue involves not so much respect for settled precedent, but rather questions that will arise in the future with respect to the application of the Bill of Rights in a time of war. The Supreme Court has already dealt with a series of cases arising from the Bush Administration's conduct of the fight against terrorism, and will undoubtedly face many more during the next Chief Justice's term. Indeed, how the new Justices address these issues may well define them and the Court in history.
For me, Judge Roberts's discussion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has been such an issue in the Patriot Act debate, was a defining moment in the hearing. His answers showed a gut-level understanding of the potential dangers of a court that operates entirely in secret, with no adversary process. His instincts as a lawyer, one who trusts our judicial system and its protections to yield the correct result under the rule of law, seemed to take over, and he seemed genuinely disturbed by the idea of a court without the usual protections of an open, adversary process. Here is what he said about the FISA court to Senator DeWine:
I'll be very candid. When I first learned about the FISA Court, I was surprised. It's not what we usually think of when we think of a court. We think of a place where we can go, we can watch the lawyers argue and it's subject to the glare of publicity and the judges explain their decision to the public and they can examine them. That's what we think of as a court.
This is a very different and unusual institution. That was my first reaction. I appreciate the reasons that it operates the way it does, but it does seem to me that the departures from the normal judicial model that are involved there put a premium on the individuals involved.
Judge Roberts's comments, and that he went out of his way to express surprise at the fact that this secret court even exists, suggests to me that he would address issues related to FISA, such as government secrecy and challenges to civil liberties, with an appropriately skeptical mindset.
I was troubled when Judge Roberts refused to give a fuller answer about his view of the Supreme Court's decision in the Hamdi case, and I have concerns about his decision as an appeals court judge in the Hamdan case regarding military commissions. But Judge Roberts did tell me that he believes: "The Bill of Rights doesn't change during times of war. The Bill of Rights doesn't change in times of crisis." I was pleased to hear him recognize this fundamental principle.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to minimize the concerns that have been expressed by those who oppose the nomination. I share some of them. Many of my misgivings about this nomination stem from Judge Roberts's refusal to answer many of our reasonable questions. Not only that, he refused to acknowledge that many of the positions he took as a member of the Reagan Administration team were misguided or in some cases even flat-out wrong.
I do not understand why the one person who cannot express an opinion on virtually anything the Supreme Court has done is the person whom the American public most needs to hear from. No one on the Committee asked him for a commitment on a given case or set of issues. We certainly recognize that it is possible his views might change once he is on the Court and hears the arguments and discusses the issues with his colleagues. All of those caveats would have been perfectly appropriate. But why shouldn't the Committee and the public have some idea of where he stands, or at least what his instincts are, on recent controversial decisions?
Although in some areas he was more forthcoming than others, Judge Roberts did not answer questions that he could and should have -- unfortunately with the full support of Committee members who want to smooth his confirmation -- and I think that is disrespectful of the Senate's constitutional role. In addition, the Administration's refusal to respond to a reasonable, limited request for documents from the time Judge Roberts served in the Solicitor General's office did a real disservice to the country and to the nominee. My voting in favor of Judge Roberts does not endorse this refusal. In fact, if not for Judge Roberts's singular qualifications, I may have felt compelled to oppose his nomination on these grounds alone. Future nominees who refuse to answer reasonable questions or whose documents the Administration -- any administration -- refuses to provide should not count on my approval.
Also troubling was Judge Roberts's approach to the memos he wrote as a young Reagan Administration lawyer. His writings from his early service in government were those of a very smart man who was at times a little too sure of himself and too dismissive of other viewpoints. I wanted to see if the Judge Roberts of 2005 had grown from the John Roberts of 1985, whose strong views often suggested a rigid ideological agenda. I wanted to see the possibility of a seasoned, wise and just John Roberts on the Supreme Court, not just a more polished, shrewder version of his younger self.
Unfortunately, he refused to disavow any of those memos, many of which laid out disturbing opinions on a variety of issues, from voting rights, to habeas corpus, to affirmative action. He refused to acknowledge that some of his tone and word choice in that era demonstrated a lack of sensitivity to minorities and women, and to the challenges they face. Instead, he took refuge in the argument that he was simply doing his job, so we are not now supposed to infer anything about his beliefs or motivations based on the memos he wrote in the 1980s.
I found these arguments unpersuasive, particularly since several of these memos indicate that those were, in fact, his own personal views. And I do not understand why he felt he had to defend these 20-year-old memos. Maybe it was pride. Maybe it was a political strategy dictated by a White House that so rarely admits error. But take voting rights -- it should have been easy for Judge Roberts to say that in retrospect he was wrong about the dangers of the effects test, and that the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act that he opposed have been good for the country. Instead, he said he wasn't an expert on the Voting Rights Act and insisted on the correctness of his position. That troubles me. The John Roberts of 2005 did not have to embrace the John Roberts of 1985, but in some cases he did, all too readily. On the other hand, I'm not sure that the John Roberts of 1985 would have told Senator Feinstein with respect to affirmative action that: "A measured effort that can withstand strict scrutiny is … a very positive approach." His answers to questions on affirmative action, seemed to me, on balance, to be an encouraging sign that he will not undo the Court's current approach.
Finally, I was unhappy with Judge Roberts's failure to recuse himself in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case, once he realized he was being seriously considered for a Supreme Court nomination. It is also hard to believe, as Judge Roberts testified, that he does not remember precisely when the possibility of an ethics violation first came to his attention. Judge Roberts sat on a court of appeals panel that heard the appeal of a District Court ruling that, if upheld, would have been a huge setback for the Administration's position on military commissions and the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. And he heard oral argument just six days after interviewing for a Supreme Court appointment with the Attorney General of the United States, who also was a major participant in the underlying legal judgment of the Administration that was challenged in the case. I am troubled that Judge Roberts apparently didn't recognize at the time that there was an ethical issue.
I give great weight to ethical considerations in judicial nominations. For example, when Judge Charles Pickering solicited letters of recommendation for his Court of Appeals nomination from lawyers practicing before him in the District Court, I found that very significant, especially in combination with his actions in a cross burning case where improper ex parte contacts were alleged. But while the issue raised about Judge Roberts is serious, I do not see such a pattern with Judge Roberts, who has a long record and reputation for ethical behavior. Nor is there evidence of the egregious, almost aggressive unethical behavior that was present in the nomination of Judge Pickering.
I hope that Judge Roberts now understands the concerns that I and a number of respected legal ethicists have about his participation in the Hamdan case. It is not too late for him to recuse himself and allow a new panel to hear the case.
At the end of the day, I had to ask myself: What kind of Justice does this man aspire to be? An ideologue? A lawyers' lawyer? A great Supreme Court Justice like Justice Jackson, who moved comfortably from the top legal positions in the Department of Justice to a judicial position in which he was more than willing to challenge executive power? A Chief Justice who will go down in history as the leader of a sharp ideological turn to the right, or a consensus builder who is committed to the Court and its role as guarantor of basic freedoms?
I have talked to a number people who know John Roberts or to people who know people who know John Roberts. Those I have heard from directly or indirectly have seen him develop since 1985 into one of the foremost Supreme Court advocates in the nation, whose skills and judgment are respected by lawyers from across the ideological spectrum. They don't see him as a champion of one cause, as a narrow ideologue who wants to impose his views on the country. They see him as openminded, respectful, thoughtful, devoted to the law, and truly one of the great legal minds of his time. That carries a great deal of weight with me. And it helps to overcome my frustration with Judge Roberts for not distancing himself from what he wrote in his Reagan-era memos and with the White House for refusing to release relevant documents to the Committee.
History has shown that control of the White House, and with it the power to shape the courts, never stays for too long with one party. When my party retakes the White House, there may very well be a Democratic John Roberts nominated to the Court, a man or woman with outstanding qualifications, highly respected by virtually everyone in the legal community, and perhaps with a paper trail of political experience or service on the progressive side of the ideological spectrum. When that day comes, and it will, that will be the test for this Committee and the Senate. And, in the end, it is one of the central reasons I will vote to confirm Judge John Roberts to be perhaps the last Chief Justice of the United States in my lifetime.
The position of Chief Justice demands the very highest scrutiny from the Senate, and the qualifications and abilities of the nominee for this position must shine through. Judge Roberts has the legal skills, the intellect and the character to be a good Chief Justice, and I hope he fulfills that promise. I wish him well. May his service be a credit not only to the rule of law, but also to the principles of equality and freedom and justice that make this country so great.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/state...2005922608.html
# # #
September 22, 2005
Mr. Chairman, I will vote in favor of the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be the Chief Justice of the United States. This has not been an easy decision, but I believe it is the correct one. Judge Roberts's impeccable legal credentials, his reputation and record as a fair-minded person, and his commitment to modesty and respect for precedent have persuaded me that he will not bring an ideological agenda to the position of Chief Justice of the United States and that he should be confirmed.
I have often noted that the scrutiny that I will apply to a President's nominee to the Supreme Court is the highest of any nomination and that the scrutiny to be applied to the position of Chief Justice must be the very highest. I have voted for executive branch appointments, and even for Court of Appeals nominees, whom I would not necessarily vote to put on the Supreme Court.
Furthermore, because the Supreme Court, alone among our courts, has the power to revisit and reverse its precedents, I believe that anyone who sits on that Court must not have a pre-set agenda to reverse precedents with which he or she disagrees and must recognize and appreciate the awesome power and responsibility of the Court to do justice when other branches of government infringe on or ignore the freedoms and rights of all citizens.
Judge Roberts came to his hearing with a record that few can top. His long record of excellence as a lawyer practicing before the Supreme Court, and his reputation as a lawyer's lawyer who has no ideological agenda, carry substantial weight. I wanted to see, however, how that record and reputation would stand up against a searching inquiry into his past statements and current views.
One important question I had was about Judge Roberts's views on the role of precedent and stare decisis in our legal system. A lot of the concern about this nomination stems from the fact that many important precedents seem to be hanging by a thread. In both our private meeting and in his hearing, Judge Roberts demonstrated a great respect for precedent, and for the importance of stability and settled expectations. His themes of modesty and humility showed appropriate respect for the work of the Justices who have come before him. He convinced me that he will take these issues very seriously, with respect to both the constitutional right to privacy and many other issues of settled law.
As I'm sure every single one of us on this Committee noticed and expected, Judge Roberts did not expressly say how he would rule if asked to overturn Roe v. Wade. But if Judge Roberts abides by what he said about how he would approach the question of stare decisis, I think he should vote to uphold Roe. He certainly left some wiggle room, and he said he would approach the possibility of overturning a case differently if the underlying precedents themselves came into question. But it will be difficult to overrule Roe or other important precedents while remaining true to his testimony about stability and settled law, including his statement that he agrees with the outcome in Griswold v. Connecticut. I know the American people will be watching him very closely on that question, and I personally will consider it a reversal of huge proportions, and a grave disappointment, if he ultimately does attempt to go down that road.
I was also impressed that Judge Roberts does not seem inclined to try to rein in Congress's power under the commerce clause. He repeatedly called attention to the Court's recent decision in Gonzales v. Raich as indicating that the Court is not headed inexorably in the direction it turned in the Lopez and Morrison cases limiting Congress's power. His approving references to Raich suggests to me that he will take a more moderate stance on these issues than his mentor Chief Justice Rehnquist. His attitude seems to be if Congress does its job right, he will not stand in the way as a judge. That is, of course, cold comfort if the Court creates new hoops for Congress to jump through and applies them retroactively. I hope that Judge Roberts will recognize that Congress can pay attention to what the Court says is needed to justify legislation only if the Court gives clear advance notice of those requirements.
Judge Roberts also seemed to reject a return to the Lochner era, when a majority of the Court invoked the due process and contracts clauses of the Constitution to strike down child labor and other laws it disagreed with, and the courts openly acted as a super-legislature, rejecting congressional enactments based on their own political and economic judgments. Judge Roberts disparaged the Lochner decision, saying, "[y]ou can read that opinion today and it's quite clear that they're not interpreting the law, they're making the law." That's a marked contrast to many in the so-called "Constitution in Exile" movement, including recently confirmed D.C. Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown.
Judge Roberts's determination to be a humble and modest judge should lead him to reject efforts to undermine Congress's power to address social and economic problems through national legislation. I view that as a significant commitment he has made to the Congress and to the country.
Another important issue involves not so much respect for settled precedent, but rather questions that will arise in the future with respect to the application of the Bill of Rights in a time of war. The Supreme Court has already dealt with a series of cases arising from the Bush Administration's conduct of the fight against terrorism, and will undoubtedly face many more during the next Chief Justice's term. Indeed, how the new Justices address these issues may well define them and the Court in history.
For me, Judge Roberts's discussion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has been such an issue in the Patriot Act debate, was a defining moment in the hearing. His answers showed a gut-level understanding of the potential dangers of a court that operates entirely in secret, with no adversary process. His instincts as a lawyer, one who trusts our judicial system and its protections to yield the correct result under the rule of law, seemed to take over, and he seemed genuinely disturbed by the idea of a court without the usual protections of an open, adversary process. Here is what he said about the FISA court to Senator DeWine:
I'll be very candid. When I first learned about the FISA Court, I was surprised. It's not what we usually think of when we think of a court. We think of a place where we can go, we can watch the lawyers argue and it's subject to the glare of publicity and the judges explain their decision to the public and they can examine them. That's what we think of as a court.
This is a very different and unusual institution. That was my first reaction. I appreciate the reasons that it operates the way it does, but it does seem to me that the departures from the normal judicial model that are involved there put a premium on the individuals involved.
Judge Roberts's comments, and that he went out of his way to express surprise at the fact that this secret court even exists, suggests to me that he would address issues related to FISA, such as government secrecy and challenges to civil liberties, with an appropriately skeptical mindset.
I was troubled when Judge Roberts refused to give a fuller answer about his view of the Supreme Court's decision in the Hamdi case, and I have concerns about his decision as an appeals court judge in the Hamdan case regarding military commissions. But Judge Roberts did tell me that he believes: "The Bill of Rights doesn't change during times of war. The Bill of Rights doesn't change in times of crisis." I was pleased to hear him recognize this fundamental principle.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to minimize the concerns that have been expressed by those who oppose the nomination. I share some of them. Many of my misgivings about this nomination stem from Judge Roberts's refusal to answer many of our reasonable questions. Not only that, he refused to acknowledge that many of the positions he took as a member of the Reagan Administration team were misguided or in some cases even flat-out wrong.
I do not understand why the one person who cannot express an opinion on virtually anything the Supreme Court has done is the person whom the American public most needs to hear from. No one on the Committee asked him for a commitment on a given case or set of issues. We certainly recognize that it is possible his views might change once he is on the Court and hears the arguments and discusses the issues with his colleagues. All of those caveats would have been perfectly appropriate. But why shouldn't the Committee and the public have some idea of where he stands, or at least what his instincts are, on recent controversial decisions?
Although in some areas he was more forthcoming than others, Judge Roberts did not answer questions that he could and should have -- unfortunately with the full support of Committee members who want to smooth his confirmation -- and I think that is disrespectful of the Senate's constitutional role. In addition, the Administration's refusal to respond to a reasonable, limited request for documents from the time Judge Roberts served in the Solicitor General's office did a real disservice to the country and to the nominee. My voting in favor of Judge Roberts does not endorse this refusal. In fact, if not for Judge Roberts's singular qualifications, I may have felt compelled to oppose his nomination on these grounds alone. Future nominees who refuse to answer reasonable questions or whose documents the Administration -- any administration -- refuses to provide should not count on my approval.
Also troubling was Judge Roberts's approach to the memos he wrote as a young Reagan Administration lawyer. His writings from his early service in government were those of a very smart man who was at times a little too sure of himself and too dismissive of other viewpoints. I wanted to see if the Judge Roberts of 2005 had grown from the John Roberts of 1985, whose strong views often suggested a rigid ideological agenda. I wanted to see the possibility of a seasoned, wise and just John Roberts on the Supreme Court, not just a more polished, shrewder version of his younger self.
Unfortunately, he refused to disavow any of those memos, many of which laid out disturbing opinions on a variety of issues, from voting rights, to habeas corpus, to affirmative action. He refused to acknowledge that some of his tone and word choice in that era demonstrated a lack of sensitivity to minorities and women, and to the challenges they face. Instead, he took refuge in the argument that he was simply doing his job, so we are not now supposed to infer anything about his beliefs or motivations based on the memos he wrote in the 1980s.
I found these arguments unpersuasive, particularly since several of these memos indicate that those were, in fact, his own personal views. And I do not understand why he felt he had to defend these 20-year-old memos. Maybe it was pride. Maybe it was a political strategy dictated by a White House that so rarely admits error. But take voting rights -- it should have been easy for Judge Roberts to say that in retrospect he was wrong about the dangers of the effects test, and that the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act that he opposed have been good for the country. Instead, he said he wasn't an expert on the Voting Rights Act and insisted on the correctness of his position. That troubles me. The John Roberts of 2005 did not have to embrace the John Roberts of 1985, but in some cases he did, all too readily. On the other hand, I'm not sure that the John Roberts of 1985 would have told Senator Feinstein with respect to affirmative action that: "A measured effort that can withstand strict scrutiny is … a very positive approach." His answers to questions on affirmative action, seemed to me, on balance, to be an encouraging sign that he will not undo the Court's current approach.
Finally, I was unhappy with Judge Roberts's failure to recuse himself in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case, once he realized he was being seriously considered for a Supreme Court nomination. It is also hard to believe, as Judge Roberts testified, that he does not remember precisely when the possibility of an ethics violation first came to his attention. Judge Roberts sat on a court of appeals panel that heard the appeal of a District Court ruling that, if upheld, would have been a huge setback for the Administration's position on military commissions and the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. And he heard oral argument just six days after interviewing for a Supreme Court appointment with the Attorney General of the United States, who also was a major participant in the underlying legal judgment of the Administration that was challenged in the case. I am troubled that Judge Roberts apparently didn't recognize at the time that there was an ethical issue.
I give great weight to ethical considerations in judicial nominations. For example, when Judge Charles Pickering solicited letters of recommendation for his Court of Appeals nomination from lawyers practicing before him in the District Court, I found that very significant, especially in combination with his actions in a cross burning case where improper ex parte contacts were alleged. But while the issue raised about Judge Roberts is serious, I do not see such a pattern with Judge Roberts, who has a long record and reputation for ethical behavior. Nor is there evidence of the egregious, almost aggressive unethical behavior that was present in the nomination of Judge Pickering.
I hope that Judge Roberts now understands the concerns that I and a number of respected legal ethicists have about his participation in the Hamdan case. It is not too late for him to recuse himself and allow a new panel to hear the case.
At the end of the day, I had to ask myself: What kind of Justice does this man aspire to be? An ideologue? A lawyers' lawyer? A great Supreme Court Justice like Justice Jackson, who moved comfortably from the top legal positions in the Department of Justice to a judicial position in which he was more than willing to challenge executive power? A Chief Justice who will go down in history as the leader of a sharp ideological turn to the right, or a consensus builder who is committed to the Court and its role as guarantor of basic freedoms?
I have talked to a number people who know John Roberts or to people who know people who know John Roberts. Those I have heard from directly or indirectly have seen him develop since 1985 into one of the foremost Supreme Court advocates in the nation, whose skills and judgment are respected by lawyers from across the ideological spectrum. They don't see him as a champion of one cause, as a narrow ideologue who wants to impose his views on the country. They see him as openminded, respectful, thoughtful, devoted to the law, and truly one of the great legal minds of his time. That carries a great deal of weight with me. And it helps to overcome my frustration with Judge Roberts for not distancing himself from what he wrote in his Reagan-era memos and with the White House for refusing to release relevant documents to the Committee.
History has shown that control of the White House, and with it the power to shape the courts, never stays for too long with one party. When my party retakes the White House, there may very well be a Democratic John Roberts nominated to the Court, a man or woman with outstanding qualifications, highly respected by virtually everyone in the legal community, and perhaps with a paper trail of political experience or service on the progressive side of the ideological spectrum. When that day comes, and it will, that will be the test for this Committee and the Senate. And, in the end, it is one of the central reasons I will vote to confirm Judge John Roberts to be perhaps the last Chief Justice of the United States in my lifetime.
The position of Chief Justice demands the very highest scrutiny from the Senate, and the qualifications and abilities of the nominee for this position must shine through. Judge Roberts has the legal skills, the intellect and the character to be a good Chief Justice, and I hope he fulfills that promise. I wish him well. May his service be a credit not only to the rule of law, but also to the principles of equality and freedom and justice that make this country so great.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/state...2005922608.html
# # #
Feingold said above:
"When my party retakes the White House, there may very well be a Democratic John Roberts nominated to the Court, a man or woman with outstanding qualifications, highly respected by virtually everyone in the legal community, and perhaps with a paper trail of political experience or service on the progressive side of the ideological spectrum. When that day comes, and it will, that will be the test for this Committee and the Senate."
When the democrats get back the senate, the republicans will return to their filibustering in committee (blue slips).
Roberts didn't give any leanings dusing his testimony but you can be assured he did privately to the republicans and Bush. Why else would all the right wing religious groups and republican corporate donors be supporting Roberts?
"When my party retakes the White House, there may very well be a Democratic John Roberts nominated to the Court, a man or woman with outstanding qualifications, highly respected by virtually everyone in the legal community, and perhaps with a paper trail of political experience or service on the progressive side of the ideological spectrum. When that day comes, and it will, that will be the test for this Committee and the Senate."
When the democrats get back the senate, the republicans will return to their filibustering in committee (blue slips).
Roberts didn't give any leanings dusing his testimony but you can be assured he did privately to the republicans and Bush. Why else would all the right wing religious groups and republican corporate donors be supporting Roberts?
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05265/576118.stm
Roberts' nomination sent to full Senate
Thursday, September 22, 2005
By Maeve Reston, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
WASHINGTON -- The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13-5 today to support John G. Roberts Jr. as the nation's next Chief Justice, an action that sends his nomination to the Senate floor for consideration next week.
Democrats are divided over the Roberts nomination. Three of them -- the committee's ranking Democrat, Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, and Wisconsin Sens. Herb Kohl and Russell D. Feingold -- joined the committee's 10 Republicans in giving Roberts a favorable recommendation, a move the committee's Republicans praised as "courageous."
But five committee Democrats said they had concluded they could not be sure Roberts would protect a woman's right to an abortion, disability rights, or the autonomy of Americans in making decisions such as whether a patient can be disconnected from artificial medical devices keeping them alive.
Sens. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said they were both extremely troubled after the hearings when they went back and compared Roberts' responses to those of now Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings.
They both noted that Roberts used a phrase identical to one used by Thomas -- that he had "no quarrel" with certain cases affecting privacy rights, for example. But after Thomas was seated on the court, he went on to ridicule some of the very same cases with which he said he had "no quarrel."
Schumer and Feinstein also said they were concerned that Roberts would not say there was a "general right to privacy," an underpinning of a woman's right to an abortion.
"Judge Roberts is clearly brilliant. His demeanor suggests he well might not be an ideologue. But he did not make the case strongly enough to bet the whole house," Schumer said. "There is a reasonable danger that he will be like Justice Thomas, the most radical justice on the Supreme Court.
"It is not that I am certain that he will be a Thomas, it's not even that it's more than 50 percent, but the risk that he might be a Thomas . . . is too great to bear. The court's balance may be for decades tipped radically in one direction," Schumer said.
Sen. Dick Durbin, the assistant minority leader from Illinois, who voted against Roberts' nomination to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 2003, said Roberts did not tell the committee enough about what he believed and had failed to distance himself from controversial memos he wrote as a young lawyer.
"I promised John Roberts in this process I would give him a clean slate. I did. But at the end of the process, sadly, it was largely an empty slate," Durbin said.
Many minds today were clearly on the next nomination. But Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said today he did not expect the president to appoint a nominee to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor until after senators have cast their final vote, which will be no later than next Thursday. At least eight Democrats have now said they will either support Roberts or are leaning heavily toward voting for him. The Supreme Court begins its new term on Oct. 3.
In the context of discussion of the next nomination, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said today that the president "hasn't even made a decision on who will be his nominee for the vacancy on the Supreme Court."
Roberts' nomination sent to full Senate
Thursday, September 22, 2005
By Maeve Reston, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
WASHINGTON -- The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13-5 today to support John G. Roberts Jr. as the nation's next Chief Justice, an action that sends his nomination to the Senate floor for consideration next week.
Democrats are divided over the Roberts nomination. Three of them -- the committee's ranking Democrat, Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, and Wisconsin Sens. Herb Kohl and Russell D. Feingold -- joined the committee's 10 Republicans in giving Roberts a favorable recommendation, a move the committee's Republicans praised as "courageous."
But five committee Democrats said they had concluded they could not be sure Roberts would protect a woman's right to an abortion, disability rights, or the autonomy of Americans in making decisions such as whether a patient can be disconnected from artificial medical devices keeping them alive.
Sens. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said they were both extremely troubled after the hearings when they went back and compared Roberts' responses to those of now Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings.
They both noted that Roberts used a phrase identical to one used by Thomas -- that he had "no quarrel" with certain cases affecting privacy rights, for example. But after Thomas was seated on the court, he went on to ridicule some of the very same cases with which he said he had "no quarrel."
Schumer and Feinstein also said they were concerned that Roberts would not say there was a "general right to privacy," an underpinning of a woman's right to an abortion.
"Judge Roberts is clearly brilliant. His demeanor suggests he well might not be an ideologue. But he did not make the case strongly enough to bet the whole house," Schumer said. "There is a reasonable danger that he will be like Justice Thomas, the most radical justice on the Supreme Court.
"It is not that I am certain that he will be a Thomas, it's not even that it's more than 50 percent, but the risk that he might be a Thomas . . . is too great to bear. The court's balance may be for decades tipped radically in one direction," Schumer said.
Sen. Dick Durbin, the assistant minority leader from Illinois, who voted against Roberts' nomination to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 2003, said Roberts did not tell the committee enough about what he believed and had failed to distance himself from controversial memos he wrote as a young lawyer.
"I promised John Roberts in this process I would give him a clean slate. I did. But at the end of the process, sadly, it was largely an empty slate," Durbin said.
Many minds today were clearly on the next nomination. But Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said today he did not expect the president to appoint a nominee to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor until after senators have cast their final vote, which will be no later than next Thursday. At least eight Democrats have now said they will either support Roberts or are leaning heavily toward voting for him. The Supreme Court begins its new term on Oct. 3.
In the context of discussion of the next nomination, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said today that the president "hasn't even made a decision on who will be his nominee for the vacancy on the Supreme Court."
23 dems voted yes for Roberts; 22 voted no; Final 78-22
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...T&f=102&t=37409
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...T&f=102&t=37409
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.