The NYT Editorial Board comes out against confirming Roberts:
I agree. Roberts has the resume to be a Supreme Court judge. It’s possible that he will be a pleasant surprise and will be an improvement over Rehnquist. But there is a principle involved here. He won’t reveal how he feels on many important legal controversies. Is that a precedent that we want to perpetuate? If he were to openly declare himself as opposed to Roe would he be confirmed? I doubt it.
In the hearings he tried to leave the impression that he would respect Roe because of the precedent of the Casey case, which upheld Roe. But he could have been intentionally misleading Congress in order to assure his confirmation. Clarence Thomas lied during his confirmation hearings, claiming to have never discussed Roe in his adult life.
As far as I am concerned, allowing judges to avoid answering questions about hot-button issues is a prerequisite for conservatives getting their intolerant nominees confirmed. If we hold the line on the principle that judges must be forthcoming we will change the kinds of judges that will be offered. And I don’t think it will hurt us too much when it comes time for us to nominate our own judges. The American people generally support our side on civil rights, women’s rights, and other contentious issues.
The Democrats should block Roberts’s nomination on principle.
Moderate Republicans and all women Senators should block Roberts’s nomination on principle. Of course people will as me what I’m smoking.
The Democrats should block Roberts’s nomination on principle.
NO
The Democrats should block Roberts’s nomination because he refuses to turn over all documentation to make an informed descision.
Roberts was on the wrong side of civil rights and voting rights, crafting 25 memos in 1982 opposing a restoration/strengthening of the standards of the Voting Rights Act.
That’s why, perhaps, his memos on these topics are heavily redacted and his AFFIRMATIVE ACTION file is missing after 2 lawyers, one from Harriet Miers’ office (WH Counsel) and one from Alberto Gonzales’s office, reviewed the papers.
The WH has refused to even reveal the names of the lawyers who had custody of the file that disappeared.
How do Republicans affirm this “honorable,” “competent” and “brilliant judge?” It is our shame.
taken from a comment on DK
It would be for Mr. Roberts to have to live one day each in the shoes of a poor person, a minority, a GLBT person, a disabled person and a woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy.
I have no doubt that he is well versed in the intellectual niceties of the law. What it appears he lacks in any real world experience outside the comfortable bubble of his own white upper middle class life. We used to occasionally nominate judges who had experienced war or poverty or some other real life crisis that would broaden their experience and leaven it with some compassion for those less well off than themselves.
Yes, Steven. I was thinking something similar: That every Supreme Court Justice be required to have had three to five years experience working solely as a public defender in states like Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Jersey, Virginia, etc.
This is one of the GOP’s main talking points. But it’s irrelevent. You don’t hire a resume. A resume is what gets you a job interview. Beyond that, it does nothing more than set the stage for that interview. It’s what’s behind the resume–the person–and what’s beyond the resume–the vision–that counts.
We know Roberts the person pretty well. He’s a corporate lawyer and rightwing soldier. And he stands before the US Senate and pretends otherwise. He lies. He says repeatedly that he will approach each case with an open mind, which is why he can’t discuss any of them openly with us.
Roberts is playing a part that’s been carefully scripted. The conservatives have had more than a decade to work this all out. They have a narrative wildly at odds with their intentions (remember GW “I’m a uniter, not a divider” Bush?) which portrays their nominee as if he were the centrist which the American people actually want–the same as “compassionate conservative” Bush in 2000 (remember, Gore was portrayed as the ideological polarizer).
But we know where he chose to work, and who he chose to represent. No one forced him to run in the most conservative legal circles. He chose that freely. And now he wants to deny it all. And claim he is a man of high integrity, while he stands there lying about who he is.
“Character counts” the right tells a thousand thousand times. And then gives us GW Bush and his merry band of crooks, liars, incompetents, and finger-pointers. Roberts is just one more of the same. They are incapable of selecting anyone who is not one of their own.
need to oppose Roberts both on principle and as a matter of politics. The politics involve both demonstrating to the public that they’re actually willing to stand on principle and demonstrating what these principles are, e.g. the right to privacy, the right to choice, limitations on executive authority (no elected dictatorship), and our government’s responsiblity to enforce effective health, safety and enviornmental regulations. They need to vigorously oppose this nomination in order to educate the public about these issues, persuade the public about these issues, and demonstrate to the public that Bush’s agenda of stacking the court with right-wing ideologues threatens the hard-won freedoms and protections that most of us now take for granted. Roberts’ early arguments suggest that he is a right-wing ideologue, and by refusing to answer the questions last week he failed to demonstrate that he isn’t, and therefore failed to meet the burden of proof that he’s qualified for this critical position.
If the Democrats want to make a strategic decision to save the filibuster for O’Connor’s replacement, so be it, but at the very minimum they need to come up with 40+ votes against him in order to set the stage for this coming battle, i.e. lock in the narrative that will be essential to winning over public opinion if the Republicans try to go nuclear. "We gave them their ideologue for Renquist, but we will not give them another ideologue for O’Connor, and we will make our stand on this." Rolling over now will do nothing to accomplish this, because it will do nothing to challenge the GOP portrayal of Roberts as a "humble, likeable moderate". The Democrats have been keeping their powder dry for the last five years; now is the time to fight. Stand up for a change. If you want to regain the public’s respect, fight.
Just kidding, I know all views are appreciated here by most members.
If I were a Democrat I would vote for Roberts. That doesn’t mean I am happy about this man becoming Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. That doesn’t mean I don’t think it is possible he is another Scalia/Thomas. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t bother me that some documents were withheld, and it certainly doesn’t mean I don’t wish that we could hear his personal views on every important issue.
However, whether sincere or not (and NOTHING in his history indicates to me that this man is not sincere), he has said all the right things in the hearing. I have to say that as an attorney, I WANT and DEMAND that ever judge or justice that I appear before look at MY CLIENT’S individual case and rule fairly based on the facts of that case. A potential judge or justice must not indicate any predisposition to any open area of the law.
I think Roberts went as far as he could to alleviate the fears that I and many others have. He unambiguously stated he takes no issue with Casey and that the Constitution includes the right to privacy. That is a huge first step, and a huge admission to get from a Bush nominee. I also think his response to Schumer’s inquiries about Scalia and Thomas with “I am not an idealogue” was very important.
Do I wish that we could have a Democratic nominee? Another Ginsberg or Stevens? Hell yes. But the Constitution affords the right to choose the nominee to the White House and to the Senate for confirmation. Both are controlled by Republicans. It is the reality we face. Bush did not hide the fact that he would nominate someone like Scalia or Thomas during the 2004 election. You have to give him credit, and the electorate unfortunately were not nearly as outraged with those statements as they should have been.
The confirmation hearings should not be about specific hot-button issues. They should be about determining the qualifications and character of the nominee. Roberts passes both those tests with flying colors. Clearly he will be confirmed, and I look forward to finding out what kind of justice we are going to have for the next 30 years. I have a great deal of fear how bad he may be, but I also have a glimmer of hope that he is more moderate than most think. Only time will tell.
But the lesson from all this, just as in every other issue we are rightfully outraged about, is that we must get back power in Washington. I do not see how a vote against Roberts moves us toward accomplishing that most important of goals.
and every human being, brings predispositions to a case — a philosophy, an ideology, a worldview. No one rules on "the facts" alone. Every sitting Jusitice on the Supreme Court has indicated predispositions to just about every issue that could possibly come before it, both in prior rulings and in other writings. This does now preclude taking new facts and considerations into account and allowing one’s views to evolve. But Roberts’ pretention that he has no such predispositions — that he possesses a neutral, value-free perspective — is simply disingenuous. By refusing to answer the questions — and from what I’ve read, the "answers" you sighted above were so meticulously qualified as to be effectively meaningless, for example on privacy — he has failed to prove that he’s not the ideologue that his previous work suggests he is.
The problem is that under your theory the Senators could simply ask him about every case and demand that he answer as to how he will rule. And, indeed, if you follow that logic you might as well just get rid of the judicial branch and have the Congress pre-legislate outcomes to any disputes that arise.
I am not ready to just throw in the towel on such important principles as an independent judiciary and a fair and impartial hearing to every litigant’s case simply because I am pissed off that the bad guys have power and the right to nominate and confirm whomever they please.
that a lawyer could claim that there is such a thing as an impartial judge, or that decisions at the SC level are based on facts. They of course reflect the values of the judges. Are you claiming that they are blank slates, or are able to attain that state when they’re going about their business? That seems preposterous to me, especially after the 2000 election travesty, where the majority openly boasted of overturning constitutional requirements in order to maintain order, or whatever weasel words they used.
In a gun control case, for example, the decision will rest on the judge’s interpretation of a hoplelessly ambiguous phrase in the Constitution. Do you really claim that that interpretation will come from “facts” or law? Of course they won’t. If they did we’d have no need of judges. Judges are in the business of making judgements, and none moreso than at he SC level. They are not law clerks, they are supposed to be functional philosophers, with all the intellectual, ideological, and political baggage that that position entails.
I’d be genuinely interested in how you can support your claim that there can be such a thing as a “fair and impartial” hearing at the SC level, where by its very nature the question is not how to apply the law, but what the law means.
No flames intended, just a serious but respectful disagreement. What compromises an independent judiciary from my POV is the assumption that the President automatically deserves to have his or her judicial nominees rubber stamped by the Senate regardless of their philosophical or ideological disposition. The Senate has the right and responsibility to ask if their judicial philosophies will be good for the country and all of its citizens. That means asking if they think previous cases were correctly decided, and why or why not. Opinions expressed about previous cases do not compromise fair consideration of new cases that might come up, any more than sitting Justices’ previous rulings do. And I will restate my opinion that no human being, and no judicial nominee, really possesses the kind of disembodied, value-free, ideology-free perspective that Judge Roberts claims.
Practically speaking, the right-wing movement of corporatists and theocrats is trying to gain lasting control over this country by gaining a firm hold over the courts, and I think it is vital that the opposition party forcefully oppose this agenda.
I agree with you on this one. The problem is that ever since the Bork hearings, the interpretation of the advise and consent clause has been narrowed to the point where no judge with a recorded opinion on ANYTHING can get past the confirmation hearings. That’s why we ended up with Thomas.
The fact is that the Democrats don’t control the Senate, and if this guy isn’t confirmed then the nominee will still be chosen by Bush, probably somebody with a worse resume, a more conservative viewpoint, and less recorded opinion. We’ll probably get one of those when the next nominee comes up anyway.
Quite a few people simply don’t understand that when you beomce the minority party you don’t get to control things any more. I guess it’s a hard thing to come to grips with…
Would you say that that’s an argument for trying to become the majority again?
I can appreciate where you are coming from and totally understand your point of veiw. My question is this. If we know that we will not be able to block this nominee then what do we have to lose by voting against him just to make a statement. Either way we lose except that maybe some of our senators can regain some respect from their constituents. Thus folks may be more inclined to vote moderate dem instead of a progressive in order to take back the majority?
If a Senator votes no and states that he/she is doing so because Roberts didn’t say how he will vote on important legal issues, that is a terrible statement to be making and is against some of the greatest principles of our government.
I certainly won’t hold it against any Senator for voting no. But I would be more impressed by a Senator who votes yes BECAUSE Roberts indicated a respect for stare decisis, the right of privacy, and his repeated commitment to an open-minded and independent review of each and every case that comes before him.
That seems to me to be a very naive point of view. Do you believe anything anyone tells you simply because they say it? If not, why are you so ready to believe Roberts?
He appears to be bright and superficially personable. He also appears to be very adept at dancing and dodging to avoid what he doesn’t want people to know and appears sincere in stating what he wants people to know. He also appears to be very controlled and controlling. None of the above, alone, would distinguish him from a high-functioning sociopath.
Given his reticence, lack of history on the bench, refusal to provide records requested by the committee that might shed some light on his thinking, and prior writings that suggest a lack of respect for women, minorities, and civil rights, a vote of NO seems entirely appropriate to me.
We are not talking about a temp position here. If approved, he will influence the Court for decades to come and have significant administrative clout. Given that, we need to be very, very cautious. We also need to avoid rolling over in the hopes that the Administration will give us someone more centrist the next time around if we’re good children and approve Roberts this time. That thinking is naive, too.
How can any American feel warmly towards this man? I haven’t checked, but I’d guess that even the ‘wingers can’t get too worked up to defend him.
He lives an utterly false life. He makes a game of answering questions.
You just know he’s the kind of guy, in any typical office setting, who seems to never get ruffled and who always pauses to give himself a moment to say just the right thing, but never what he truly feels.
If he does… Feel.
He seems, rather like his president, to exhibit similar lack of compassion and empathy.
I’m reading “Bush on the Couch.” Can you tell 🙂
Unfortunately, the Democrats won’t block Roberts. I expect at least nine – Reid plus the Stupid Seven – to vote to confirm him as often as possible. This is what we get for supporting candidates that oppose the party platform. “Pro-life” candidates are particularly bad in this respect, as history has shown that they are generally extremely zealous when it comes to their oppressive beliefs, and will vote to oppress women before even considering any other disadvantages of said vote.
go along with all the hype about Roberts being “brilliant” and “extremely qualified”, or, Boo, having
“the resume to be a Supreme Court judge”. I heard nothing brilliant at the hearings, and a brief scan revealed nothing that jumped out as brilliant in his writings. True, I only looked over a tiny percent of his output, but that’s generally a reliable indicator: I don’t have to read more than a few pages of Sidney Sheldon or Danielle Steel to know that they are not great writers.
Roberts is a corporate lawyer and, briefly, an apparachik in the Reagan oxymoronic “justice” department. He apparently argued cleverly against the public interest, but so what? Is everybody who ever stood up in the SC automatically qualified to be chief justice? Roberts probably was “brilliant”, from a lawyer’s point of view when he was a law clerk, nattering away at the letter of the law, finding slick interpretations of what “is” is, suggesting ways to bend the law to mean the opposite of what it says.
He’s probably a good bullyboy for his corporate and kleptocrat clients. There was a time when we at least pretended in this country that elevation to our highest court required a great deal more than that. Roberts may not be as bad as Rehnquist, just as Bush may not be as bad as Saddam, but that’s an idiotic reason to vote for either of them.