Day 1: Democrats Attack; Forget Past (Ignore Ginsberg Precedent)

Republican National Committee ^ | September 12, 2005

[RWR8189]

Democrats Ignore Ginsburg Precedent And Claim Unprecedented 75,000 Plus Pages Of Documents Released Aren't Enough
__________________________________ 

DEMS FORGET ABOUT GINSBURG PRECEDENT

Democrats Suggest Roberts Should Reveal His View On Certain Issues:

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE): "And We'll Be Faced With Equally Consequential Decisions In The 21st Century. Can A Microscopic Tag Be Implanted In A Person's Body To Track His Every Movement? There's Actual Discussion About That. You Will Rule On That - Mark My Words - Before Your Tenure Is Over." (Sen. Joe Biden, Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 9/12/05)

• Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE): "Can Brain Scans Be Used To Determine Whether A Person's Inclined Toward Criminality Or Violent Behavior? You Will Rule On That." (Sen. Joe Biden, Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 9/12/05)

 

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): "The Best Way I Believe Is Through Understanding Your Views About Particular Past Cases, Not Future Cases That Haven't Been Decided, But Past, Already-Decided Cases. It's Not The Only Way, But It's The Best And Most Straightforward Way."  (Sen. Chuck Schumer, Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 9/12/05)

• Schumer: "So I Hope You'll Decide To Answer Questions About Decided Cases Which So Many Other Nominees Have Done. If You Refuse To Talk About Already Decided Cases, The Burden, Sir, Is On You..." (Sen. Chuck Schumer, Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 9/12/05)

 

But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Was Confirmed To Supreme Court With Large Majority Of Republicans Despite Refusing To Provide Many Of Her Views On Issues:

Judge Ginsburg: "My Own View On The Death Penalty, I Think, Is Not Relevant To Any Question That I Would Be Asked To Decide As A Judge." (Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 7/21/93)

• Ginsburg: "[As] I Said In My Opening Remarks, My Own Views And What I Would Do If I Were Sitting In The Legislature Are Not Relevant To The Job For Which You Are Considering Me, Which Is The Job Of A Judge." (Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 7/21/93)

 

Ginsburg: "I Am Again Feeling In The Position Of A Skier At The Top Of That Hill Because You Were Asking Me How I Would Have Voted In Rust V. Sullivan. ... I Think I Have To Not Descend That Slope Because Once You Ask Me About This Question, This Case, Then You Will Ask Me About Another Case That's Over And Done And Another Case. So I Think That I Have To Draw The Line At The Cases I Have Decided."  (Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 7/22/93)

Ginsburg: "[I]t Would Be Wrong For Me To Say Or To Preview In This Legislative Chamber How I Would Cast My Vote On Questions The Supreme Court May Be Called Upon To Decide. Were I To Rehearse Here What I Would Say And How I Would Reason On Such Questions, I Would Act Injudiciously." (Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 7/20/93)

In 1993, Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg Was Confirmed By The U.S. Senate With An Overwhelming 96-3 Vote. (Ginsburg Nomination, Roll Call Vote #232: Confirmed 96-3: R 41-3; D 55-0, 8/3/93)

Back In 1993, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) Affirmed Ginsburg's Right To Not Answer Questions:

Chairman Joe Biden: "[Y]ou Not Only Have A Right To Choose What You Will Answer And Not Answer, But In My View You Should Not Answer A Question Of What Your View Will Be On An Issue That Clearly Is Going To Come Before The Court In 50 Different Forms, Probably, Over The Next -- Over Your Tenure On The Court." (Sen. Joe Biden, Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 7/22/93)

As Far Back As 1967, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Said Nominees Should Defer Comments On Controversial Issues:

"During A 1967 Confirmation Debate Over Future Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kennedy Said Nominees Should Defer Any Comments They Had Concerning Controversial Issues. ... Sen. Edward Kennedy (D), Massachusetts: 'We Have To Respect That Any Nominee To The Supreme Court Would Have To Defer Any Comments On Any Matters Which Are Either Before The Court Or Very Likely To Appear Before The Court. This Has Been A Procedure Which Has Been Followed In The Past And Is One Which I Think Is Based Upon Sound Legal Precedent.'" (Fox's "Hannity & Co.," 8/3/05)

OVER 75,000 PAGES NOT ENOUGH FOR SOME DEMOCRATS

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) Demands Solicitor General Documents:

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL): "The Refusal Of The White House To Disclose Documents On 16 Specific Cases You Wrote As Deputy Solicitor General Denied This Committee More Contemporary Expressions Of Your Values. Only Your Testimony Before This Committee Can Convince Us That John Roberts Of 2005 Will Be A Truly Impartial And Open-Minded Chief Justice." (Sen. Richard Durbin, Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 9/12/05)

The Release Of Documents Pertaining To John G. Roberts Is Unprecedented:

The Senate Has Received Approximately 76,000 Pages Of Documents From The National Archives And Records Administration And The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Relating To Judge John Roberts' Time As Special Assistant To Attorney General William French Smith And In The White House Counsel's Office Under President Reagan.

This Is The Most Heavily Scrutinized Nominee In History.  Senators Have Had An Opportunity Over The Last Two Months To Review More Documents Than In Any Previous Confirmation Process, Judge Roberts' Two Years As A Judge On The Federal Court, And His 39 Arguments Before The Supreme Court.

Former Solicitors General Agree That Documents Are Confidential And Should Not Be Released:

Deliberative Documents In The Solicitor General's Office Are At The Heart Of The Government's Need For Confidentiality.  Release Of These Documents Would Jeopardize The Office's Ability To Defend The Legal Interests Of The U.S. Government And The American People.

According To All Then-Living Former Solicitors General, Documents Drafted While Working As Solicitor General Are Inappropriate And Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege:

• "Any Attempt To Intrude Into The Office's Highly Privileged Deliberations Would Come At The Cost Of The Solicitor General's Ability To Defend Vigorously The United States' Litigation Interests-A Cost That Also Would Be Borne By Congress Itself." (Seth Waxman, Walter Dellinger, Drew Days, Ken Starr, Charles Fried, Robert Bork, And Archibald Cox, Letter To Senator Patrick Leahy, 6/24/02)

 

Criticism Of Democrats' Request For Roberts' Solicitor General Documents: 

Chicago Tribune: "[D]emocrats Are Asking Too Much.  The Administration Has Made Available Innumerable Documents From Roberts' Service In The Justice Department And The White House Counsel's Office, Records That Are Traditionally Released, And More Are On The Way." (Editorial, "The Stakes In Roberts' Memos," Chicago Tribune, 8/11/05)

• Chicago Tribune: "Privacy Here Serves The Vital Purpose Of Encouraging Honest Discussions Of Volatile Issues, By Giving Lawyers The Freedom To Muse, Speculate And Play Devil's Advocate Without Fear Of Being Forced Someday To Answer For Every Word." To Compromise The Confidentiality Of These Deliberations Would Force Government Attorneys To Be Overly Cautious By Letting Them Know Their Memos Could Come Back To Haunt Them Years Later." (Editorial, "The Stakes In Roberts' Memos," Chicago Tribune, 8/11/05)

[Spok]

Again the Democrats tacitly admit that on a level playing field, they lose. Liberal politics will go the way of the dinosaur if the left can't rely on a double standard for everything they do-fairness is not an option.

[hombre_sincero]

I have a better idea - POST something that is actually NEWS - this is just a repeat of politicians as usual - bloviating fart bags.

The only thing of importance is the vote - Get on with it!

[Amalie]

I'm shocked I tell 'ya, SHOCKED....

[jamaksin]

After multiple decades of dim-0-crat rule at the Federal level ... what do conservatives have to show after nearly two full terms in office at the Federal level?

Zero - Zip - Nada - ...

Is a "token" Roberts good enough?

Dubya is lacking ... but why should he care now?

Get it .. do ya'all?

[Huck]

We've got a new Medicare entitlement the public wasn't demanding.

[street_lawyer]

Roberts: the implant will be used to track sex offenders so that when they kill little children after raping them they will be found and put away for life. it may even prevent a few from killing again.

Biden: But Judge wouldn't that violate the right of privacy?

[R.W.Ratikal]

It's a safe bet that hurricane Katrini will be brought into the hearing to confirm John Roberts. The Communists are disgusting

[tet68]

hurricane Katrini


WHAT! There was more than one???

[Delta Dawn]

This 'Hearing', is nothing but a ruse for the democrats. The goal of the democrats is to deny GWB any appointments to the SC. Regardless of how the hearings wind up, the democrats will filibuster this and every other nomination that George Bush submits to the senate. It is the democrats desire to forestall any nominations through this legislative term and once the legislature recovenes after the 2006 mid-term elections, they shall claim that since GWB is a lame-duck president that any other nominations that he makes just cannot possibly receive a hearing.

The nuclear option is going to have to be used by the pubbies, they might as well be setting the timer now.

[popdonnelly]

The Democrats in Congress stink to high heaven. They want to pick the Justices when there's a Democrat in the White House, and they want to pick the justices when there's a Republican in the White House.

[ChildOfThe60s]

[gop_gene]

The gop were FOOLS to play nicey-nice with Clinton's SC nominees, did they actually *believe* that the dems would extend the same courtesy with a republican in the WH?!!!

[WOSG]

* Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE): "Can Brain Scans Be Used To Determine Whether A Person's Inclined Toward Criminality Or Violent Behavior? You Will Rule On That." (Sen. Joe Biden, Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 9/12/05)



-----

I support a yearly brain scan of every Democratic Senator. We know they are bonkers, we need to know by how much.

[decal]

"The goal of the democrats is to deny GWB any appointments to the SC. Regardless of how the hearings wind up, the democrats will filibuster this and every other nomination that George Bush submits to the senate..."

Not a chance.

Unless they want to hang around during the Christmas recess, they lose - the President will simply "pull a Bolton."

[TexasNative2000]

A Very Interesting Post. I'm Simply Left Wondering Why The Newspaper Headline Capitalization Through Out The Post.

Just Wondering.

[Tarkin]

In 1993, Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg Was Confirmed By The U.S. Senate With An Overwhelming 96-3 Vote.

It's sad but true. Only Jesse Helms, Bob Smith and Don Nickles voted against her.

[Delta Dawn]

Bush could very well make recess appointments, but they last
only till the beginning of the next legislative session.