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...
I wonder which rights these would be?
Do women have rights that men do not?
It seems to me that if they do doesnt that violate the equal protection under the law that the Constitution guarantees.
As to civil rights I believe that the right to property would have to be way up there. But the five justices presently on the court that Hitlery thinks most highly of believe that property rights come a distant second to the right of politicians to increase tax revenues.
In other words, he didn't say that he would NOT repeal Roe v.Wade. That is the only concern of these supporters of baby-killing.
This vote, more than the vote of any other slimey Demo Senator, reflects how Democrats have become captives of their leftwing kook fringe. If even Hillary Clinton can't buck that pressure to vote the responsible way for this emminently qualified candidate, no Democrat can.
The next indicator will be Evan Bayh (sp?): if he votes NAY on Roberts, it will mean that not a single aspirant for the White House is willing to buck the NOW/MoveOn/People for the American Way/NARAL kook pressure. Hooray! They're DEAD in the next election!
Not by a long-shot.
Both Illinois Senator's pulled the 'stupid lever'.
Commie Obamie will vote against Judge Roberts.
"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."
...unless he performs an abortion on the Senate floor.
She has to appease her base and her base only cares about one thing: a woman's right to kill.
Fact is The Hildabeast now knows according to Deborah Orin in the NY Post that the wacko lefts darling AL GOre Is going to run for President in 08. She is going to have a real problem if she continues with the act of moving to the center
Let's hope every American applies this same standard to her.
I don't think so. I can't imagine Republican primary voters going for McCain.
The media loves him; the Republican base does not.
This vote is all about keeping her base. The moderate conservatives who Hillary is trying to court, this vote will not be a factor for. The people who are paying attention to this are the Moveon.org types. Hillary is just going to say quasi-conservative things concerning gay marriage, abortion, and cutting spending, she is not actually going to vote with conservatives. Hillary's run to the middle is just rhetoric to try to pick those up who really don't pay attention.
"It requires thoughtful inquiry and debate"
..and constant polling of the left's base to validate my running for president.
Okay people. The game has changed. No more tacit appoval of the Left's nominees. From now on, no quarter can be given. Every nomination must be for conservative control. Those in office that don't heed this warning need to be dumped at the ballot box. The Nuke option needs to be settled once and for all. Let's quite dancing around.
You can get anything you want,
at Alices restaurant.
What this tells you is that her advisors have been telling her is that the free ride she thought she might have to 2008 just got a tad more expensive. There are a lot of Kos Kids and DU types who make up the activist base who want Al Gore to avenge 2000.
Her entire statement is an appeal to the base.
Be Seeing You,
The Hildabeast is walking a fine line. Hillary knows where the $$$ in the democratic party is: With the far, far, left Michael Moore/Moveon.org/Cindy Sheehan crowd. No way would she ever have voted for Roberts.
Yes Abortion is the buzzword issue but the truth came out when Specter was gassbagging. "Abortion is a method of contraception of last resort." I think this gets to the truth of the matter. As long as contraception is legal we will have legal abortion, the two go hand in hand.
What an idiot, this so-called smartest woman in the world.
Oddly, McCain's voting record is pretty darn conservative. McCain just choses to oppose the GOP on high profile issues where he can get camera time. McCain's CFR was the biggest assult on first Amendment rights in history, but he got lots and lots of publicity for it. McCain's biggest problem is mental. He can go postal at any time. Unfortunately, if McCain plays his cards right and does not attack Christian Conservatives like he did 8 years ago, it is his election to lose. But the people McCain turns to for advisors will be 'moderates' who will try to stab conservatives in the back every chance they get, so there is a good chance McCain will once again play his winning hand wrong.
IMHO, this speaks volumes describing the socialist lack of intuition regarding discernment in rendering justice. Justice has very little if anything to do with viewpoint. It does require discernment and sometimes wisdom, when discerning malevolent deception.
Correct. And exactly what do she and her fellow leftists think is the purpose of the several states if not to be 50 separate entities. If all laws are uniform and federal across the land, why do we still even need New York, Massachusettes or Alaska?
The correct term is overturn. Repeal sounds to much like they have some type of legislative power -- which to some degree, they do, but it's just too scary to think about this early in the morning. :-)
why not go to 11?
Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2:
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. 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."
You mean the USSC may actually constrain Congress to the scope of the constitution and not make up law from the bench? So Hillary, you admit that you do not believe in what the Constitution says.
The Hillary Shuffle has her making convoluted pronouncements such as this to win back the Moonbat Left of DU, Daily KOS and MoveOn, while still seeming to be "centrist" enough to people who vote but do not follow politicians closely enough to know where any of them actually stand.
Hillary is running scared now. She's losing the Ultra leftists so she has to make them believe she cares for them by meeting with Cindy Sheehan and now to vote NO on Roberts. She's very transparent but they won't realize that until its too late!
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.