Skip to comments.REPORT: Hillary Clinton announces she'll vote 'NO' on Roberts (Drudge Tease)
Posted on 09/22/2005 3:57:08 PM PDT by RWR8189
REPORT: Hillary Clinton announces she'll vote 'NO' on Roberts... Developing...
Rush predicted that because it looks like Algore might move on 2008.
Going to turn into a bash-america frathouse in the democratic primary
I wonder how she'll vote on the O'Conner replacement.
It's a very safe move for her. She can appease her leftist supporters, while Roberts skates through confirmation. It does kind of tarnish her "moderate" image, though.
Confirmation must be in the bag and it is safe for her to cast a meaningless but high-minded No vote. On principles, of course.
BFD (I know this will shock the MSM)
Everyone who thought she might actually be honest and
faithful to the vest interests of the United States,
and vote her concience (As if she had one!)...
...Iaise your hand!
One....uhm no...yo were just scratching your head...
Rush is correct. Because of a possible move on the part of Algore, the Hildebeast is being forced to play to her left base.
This is good (for the Republicans).
I heard the Rush segment about albore as well. It will fun to watch the dems "outliberal" eachother to appeal to the kook base..
Orders from her contributors in Beijing and Cambridge?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON ON THE NOMINATION OF JUDGE JOHN G. ROBERTS TO BE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES
Thu Sep 22 2005 18:54:45 ET
The nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States is a matter of tremendous consequence for future generations of Americans. It requires thoughtful inquiry and debate, and I commend my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee for their dedication to making sure that all questions were presented and that those outside of the Senate had the opportunity to make their voices heard. After serious and careful consideration of the Committee proceedings and Judge Roberts's writings, I believe I must vote against his confirmation. I do not believe that the Judge has presented his views with enough clarity and specificity for me to in good conscience cast a vote on his behalf.
The Constitution commands that the Senate provide meaningful advice and consent to the President on judicial nominations, and I have an obligation to my constituents to make sure that I cast my vote for Chief Justice of the United States for someone I am convinced will be steadfast in protecting fundamental women's rights, civil rights, privacy rights, and who will respect the appropriate separation of powers among the three branches. After the Judiciary Hearings, I believe the record on these matters has been left unclear. That uncertainly means as a matter of conscience, I cannot vote to confirm despite Judge Roberts's long history of public service.
In one memo, for example, Judge Roberts argued that Congress has the power to deny the Supreme Court the right to hear appeals from lower courts of constitutional claims involving flag burning, abortion, and other matters. He wrote that the United States would be far better off with fifty different interpretations on the right to choose than with what he called the "judicial excesses embodied in Roe v. Wade." The idea that the Supreme Court could be denied the right to rule on constitutional claims had been so long decided that even the most conservative of Judge Roberts's Justice Department colleagues strongly disagreed with him.
When questioned about his legal memoranda, Judge Roberts claimed they did not necessarily reflect his views and that he was merely making the best possible case for his clients or responding to a superior's request that he make a particular argument. But he did not clearly disavow the strong and clear views he expressed, but only shrouded them in further mystery. Was he just being an advocate for a client or was he using his position to advocate for positions he believed in? The record is unclear.
It is hard to believe he has no opinion on so many critical issues after years as a Justice Department and White House lawyer, appellate advocate and judge. His supporters remind us that Chief Justice Rehnquist supported the constitutionality of legal segregation before his elevation to the high court, but never sought to bring it back while serving the court system as its Chief Justice. But I would also remind them of Justice Thomas's assertion in his confirmation hearing that he had never even discussed Roe v. Wade, much less formed an opinion on it. Shortly after he ascended to the Court, Justice Thomas made it clear that he wanted to repeal Roe.
Adding to testimony that clouded more than clarified is that we in the Senate have been denied the full record of Judge Roberts's writings despite our repeated requests. Combined, these two events have left a question mark on what Judge Roberts's views are and how he might rule on critical questions of the day. It is telling that President Bush has said the Justices he most admires are the two most conservative justices, Justices Thomas and Scalia. It is not unreasonable to believe that the President has picked someone in Judge Roberts whom he believes holds a similarly conservative philosophy, and that voting as a bloc they could further limit the power of the Congress, expand the purview of the Executive, and overturn key rulings like Roe v. Wade.
Since I expect Judge Roberts to be confirmed, I hope that my concerns are unfounded and that he will be the kind of judge he said he would be during his confirmation hearing. If so, I will be the first to acknowledge it. However, because I think he is far more likely to vote the views he expressed in his legal writings, I cannot give my consent to his confirmation and will, therefore, vote against his confirmation. My desire to maintain the already fragile Supreme Court majority for civil rights, voting rights and women's rights outweigh the respect I have for Judge Roberts's intellect, character, and legal skills.
Why do I get the feeling some people in the Beltway way were on the edge of their seats for this announcement?
Truly. Too many people are interested in her every move. I don't care what Hillary does.
Oh, I have some interest in her getting kicked around by Gore and on the end of Cindy's leash. LOL That is entertaining. But breathlessly awaiting her votes? Couldn't care less.
Hillary is irrelevant. The only ones we have to watch are the RINO's.
Another intellectual midget voting against a superior mind. If her brain was only as big as her ass.
Article III Section 2
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
What's so controversial about the Constitution Ms. Rodham?
Really I thought after 2000 that OwlGore would run in 2008. Why? Because Richard Nixon ran in 1968 after losing a squeaker in 1960, 8 years later.
Liberals hate judges who look to the actual text of the Constitution rather than the emanations from penumbra.
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.