Skip to comments.Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Nomination of Judge John G. Roberts
Posted on 09/23/2005 1:23:40 AM PDT by yoe
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.
And had she ever bothered to read the Constitution she might have run into Article 3 Section 2, and would have seen that Roberts was absolutely correct.
With Hitlery she never lets the facts get in her way...
Heck if she had her way she would have the constitution banned and write her own. she is one power hungery Bit#@.
Eff YOU Hillary. Eff you to the Nth degree!
Abortion, abortion, abortion. How would you like to stand before your maker and have to explain how you participated in the murder of millions of innocent unborn babies? I guess if you have no conscience, you don't worry about such things, especially since unborns are not an important voting block.
Hillary/Conscience That is an oxymoron if there ever was one.
Hitlery might seem to be moving to the middle, but she must keep your fringe frenzie left friends happy. This is a safe vote for her because she knows Roberts will be confirmed with or without her vote. Coniving beast!
It does to me!!
I have been watching her orchestrated shift to the right awaiting for her to appear on the horizon of the center and now she tacks back to the left.
There is no REASONABLE or enlightened or even informed excuse for voting against a man who will arguably be one of the best Chief Justices this country has ever had.
She is not only on the wrong side of the "main" stream, she is also on the wrong side of common sense, Senatorial obligation and worst of all, History.
This move leaves the center wide open for John McCain in 2008. The big question is, can he move far enough to the right to get there?
No .. with the republican candidates that we know of so far??
McPain won't make it out of the primaries
Oh but they are, and lefties are aborting future lefties every day...
Has her running mate, Obama, made up his mind yet ? Or is he still on the fence?
I sure she won't let something as small as him being correct bother her.
Well I guess she is a moderate after all! /*scarasm off
Only a liberal could believe we must bow down to whatever nine black-robed lawyers say...
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.