Posted on 07/27/2005 11:38:09 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
Top Judiciary Committee Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont said he will vote against Supreme Court nominee John Roberts if the judge seems likely to pursue an "activist" philosophy. Another Democrat said Roberts assured him he is no ideologue.
In an interview broadcast Tuesday on Vermont Public Radio's "Switchboard" program, Leahy said he would vote against the appeals court judge if it seemed as if he would pursue an activist agenda on the court. In selecting Roberts, President Bush emphasized that he was looking for someone who would not legislate from the bench.
Leahy said he's worried that Roberts might try to unravel matters that should be settled law.
Denouncing conservatives on the current court, the Vermont senator said in the interview: "They have struck down parts of the Violence Against Women Act, environmental acts, child safety legislation."
"They've knocked down all these, basically writing the law themselves," Leahy added. "I want to find out if he's going to be as active as this - as people like Justice (Antonin) Scalia and Justice (Clarence) Thomas, who have almost willy-nilly overruled things."
Leahy also said any Supreme Court nominee who doesn't agree that Roe v. Wade is established legal precedent would have difficulty getting confirmed.
"Just as you would not have a justice nominee who said, 'Well I wouldn't consider Brown vs. Board of Education settled law,' I don't see how they could get confirmed," Leahy said. "I don't see how somebody who said that they didn't consider Roe vs. Wade settled law ... I don't see how they get confirmed."
Roe v. Wade is the 1973 case that established a woman's right to an abortion. Brown v. Board of Education is the 1954 Supreme Court decision that struck down school segregation.
But Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who also sits on the Judiciary panel, said he was assured by Roberts on Tuesday that he would not act as an ideologue if he makes it to the Supreme Court.
"He told me flatly that he is not an ideologue and said that he shares my aversion to ideologues," Schumer said in a speech prepared for the National Press Club. "Furthermore, he said I could repeat that publicly - that he is not an ideologue."
Meanwhile, senators sparred anew Wednesday over when confirmation hearings should begin. Democrats continued to push for more documents that could reveal the more about his thinking on controversial issues.
As Roberts, 50, continued to make courtesy calls on senators like Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, Senate Republicans and the White House worked to try to assure a confirmation vote before the court begins a new term in early October.
Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he would convene hearings as early as Aug. 29 if necessary to meet that timetable. A later date - perhaps Sept. 6 - also was possible, he said, if Democrats commit to a confirmation vote before the start of the high court's new term on October 3.
Democrats who are anxious to learn more about Roberts' views say his supporters are trying to push them into holding the confirmation vote before they get all of the paperwork they need. The White House released some of the documents on Tuesday, but Democrats want more, particularly from the time when he worked in the Reagan administration and, later, the administration Bush's father, George H.W. Bush.
Roberts was 26 when he served in the Justice Department as a special assistant to Attorney General William French Smith during the Reagan administration. The 1981-82 files released Tuesday by the National Archives paint a picture of a politically savvy attorney who showed some impatience with "judicial activism."
One issue Roberts focused on was appeals by prisoners, who in the 1980s had several avenues of challenging their sentences in both state and federal courts. Since then, courts generally have limited prisoners' options, with justices this past term clashing over how closely they should scrutinize death penalty sentences by state courts.
The availability of federal court appeals, "particularly for state prisoners, goes far to making a mockery of the entire criminal justice system," Roberts wrote in a Nov. 12, 1981, memorandum, decrying the endless appeals that "obscures the rare serious claim."
Roberts also counseled the Reagan administration against some affirmative action policies, issuing a strong criticism of a U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report urging broader use of racial preferences.
He noted that a city police department had recruited minority cadets only to see them fail or drop out. "There is no recognition of the obvious reason for failure: The affirmative action program required the recruiting of inadequately prepared candidates," Roberts wrote.
The White House is invoking attorney-client privilege in withholding legal writings by Roberts when he was principal deputy solicitor general under the first President Bush.
"From what we know now, John Roberts had a hand in some of the most aggressive assaults on civil rights protections during the Reagan administration," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said.
Committee aides on Tuesday began sifting through the first of thousands of documents to be made available, dating from Roberts' tenure as a special assistant in the Justice Department, and in the White House counsel's office in 1983-86.
As a historical footnote, one memo was hard to beat - a one-page paper in which the young Roberts reported that beginning "my first day on the job" he had been helping O'Connor prep for her own confirmation hearings to the high court.
"The approach was to avoid giving specific responses to any direct questions on legal issues likely to come before the court, but demonstrating in the response a firm command of the subject area and awareness of the relevant precedents and arguments," Roberts wrote in the Sept. 17, 1981, memo.
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
---------------------
You know what isn’t mentioned as being the supreme law of the land? Legal precident. You know what else isn’t mentioned as being the supreme law of the land? Foreign law.
I love how the press continues to write big long articles about what Democrats--who are out of power, out of touch and out of luck--"think". And I use the word "think" in the loosest possible manner.
Leahy: what a Clymer!
BFD!!! Does anybody really care what Chuckie and Leaky think or say other than as daily humor?
That would be 2 votes against. Throw in Dim Harry Read and you have 3 votes against. 97 votes for. Even if all the Dims stood up and voted against him, that would still not be enough to block his confirmation.
Chuck Schummer is not a bigoted, hard-left ideological activist with an agenda?....I didn't know he wasn 't an activisit...what crap....
Have you noticed that even the pro-abort commentators are quietly acknowledging that Roe is horribly written? Things are inching our way, but it is truly ugly to watch the other side in action, and to realize that most of the time, say, a quarter or occasionally even a half of the country is in agreement with them!
Presumably, Leahy would also insist that Dred Scott is "established legal precedent", as well.
In other words, Chuckie, he has an aversion to you.
They have struck down parts of the Violence Against Women Act, environmental acts, child safety legislation.
This foolish man Leahy has it so backwards.
Now, striking down legislation that one believes is Unconstitutional is activist.
He is moronic. He should retire peacefully to a pasture somewhere. Either that or he is following Orwellian tactics of black is white and up is down.
Ditto!
"They've knocked down all these, basically writing the law themselves," Leahy added. "I want to find out if he's going to be as active as this - as people like Justice (Antonin) Scalia and Justice (Clarence) Thomas, who have almost willy-nilly overruled things."
Leaky Leahy gets my vote for dumbest comment of the day. Anybody who says that two justices can overrule the other seven is clearly not suited for the Judiciary Committee, let alone US Senator.
And Democrats have the gall to call W an idiot?
Leahy is truly an idiot to compare Brown v. Board of Ed to the "established precident" of Roe v. Wade. I hate to break it to Leahy, but BEFORE Brown, Jackasses like Leahy used to INSIST Plessy v. Fergonson was the "established law of the land" and segregation was constitutional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.