Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Nomination of Judge John G. Roberts
The Drudge Report ^ | September 22, 2005

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 109th; abortion; hillary; johnroberts; liberal; robertshearings
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last
This comes as no surprise. However, it does show how narrow Ms. Clinton's views are - she views the United States Constitution like the Electoral College, both get in her way.
1 posted on 09/23/2005 1:23:41 AM PDT by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: yoe
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

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.

2 posted on 09/23/2005 1:29:59 AM PDT by konaice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe
"matter of conscience"

ROTFLMAO!

3 posted on 09/23/2005 1:33:07 AM PDT by endthematrix (JOHN ROBERTS vs JOE BIDEN ................... ROBERTS wins TKO in second round!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: konaice

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#@.


4 posted on 09/23/2005 1:33:15 AM PDT by Americanwolf ("You are stuck on Stupid" --- Army Lt. Gen. Russell Honore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: yoe

bttt


5 posted on 09/23/2005 1:33:24 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Eff YOU Hillary. Eff you to the Nth degree!


6 posted on 09/23/2005 1:36:08 AM PDT by Bullish (Proudly and consistently hating the Clinton's since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

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.


7 posted on 09/23/2005 1:44:46 AM PDT by Past Your Eyes (I'm just sitting here on the Group W bench.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Hillary/Conscience That is an oxymoron if there ever was one.


8 posted on 09/23/2005 1:47:49 AM PDT by Cincinna (HILLARY and her HINO want to take over your country. STOP THEM NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe
Gee ... bewteen this news and meeting with Cindy Sheehan

Has Hellary realized that she can't play the center card any more??
9 posted on 09/23/2005 1:48:49 AM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

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!


10 posted on 09/23/2005 1:49:58 AM PDT by raisincane (Dims think we're all oblivious to the obvious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe
This comes as no surprise

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.

11 posted on 09/23/2005 1:53:24 AM PDT by msnimje (Cogito Ergo Sum Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe
...in good conscience ...

I never knew that Hitlery Rotten Clintooooooooon had a conscience!!!
12 posted on 09/23/2005 1:54:24 AM PDT by leprechaun9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
Gee ... bewteen this news and meeting with Cindy Sheehan Has Hellary realized that she can't play the center card any more??

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?

13 posted on 09/23/2005 1:55:53 AM PDT by msnimje (Cogito Ergo Sum Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: msnimje
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

14 posted on 09/23/2005 1:58:13 AM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Past Your Eyes
"I guess if you have no conscience, you don't worry about such things, especially since unborns are not an important voting block. "

Oh but they are, and lefties are aborting future lefties every day...

15 posted on 09/23/2005 2:02:58 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: yoe
After serious and careful consideration of the Committee proceedings and Judge Roberts's writings ... "After serious and careful consideration of my political future ... "
16 posted on 09/23/2005 2:11:28 AM PDT by GretchenM (Hooked on porn and hating it? Visit http://www.theophostic.com .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

Has her running mate, Obama, made up his mind yet ? Or is he still on the fence?


17 posted on 09/23/2005 2:15:27 AM PDT by Leroy S. Mort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: konaice

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


18 posted on 09/23/2005 2:34:32 AM PDT by stockpirate (John Kerry & FBI files ==> http://www.freerepublic.com/~stockpirate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: konaice
Exactly. The Congress created the courts. They can do anything they want.

Only a liberal could believe we must bow down to whatever nine black-robed lawyers say...

19 posted on 09/23/2005 2:46:30 AM PDT by THX 1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: yoe
Every time this moron opens her piehole she shows every thinking American what an ill-informed, biased and absolutely hypocritical lib-tard idiot she really is.
20 posted on 09/23/2005 3:06:11 AM PDT by stm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe
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,

I wonder which rights these would be?

Do women have rights that men do not?

It seems to me that if they do doesn’t 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.

21 posted on 09/23/2005 3:06:31 AM PDT by Pontiac (Ignorance of the law is no excuse, ignorance of your rights can be fatal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe
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.

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.

22 posted on 09/23/2005 3:09:48 AM PDT by Jackknife ( "I bet after seeing us, George Washington would sue us for calling him 'father'." —Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

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!


23 posted on 09/23/2005 3:27:14 AM PDT by ReleaseTheHounds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: yoe
S M A R T E S T • W O M A N • I N • T H E • W O R L D

Not by a long-shot.

24 posted on 09/23/2005 3:36:40 AM PDT by johnny7 (“I'm American, honey. Our names don't mean sh_t.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe
Bump for when I want to torture myself with a mental replaying of Hillary!'s screechy voice...
25 posted on 09/23/2005 3:38:53 AM PDT by gridlock (IF YOU'RE NOT CATCHING FLAK, YOU'RE NOT OVER THE TARGET...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leroy S. Mort

Both Illinois Senator's pulled the 'stupid lever'.


26 posted on 09/23/2005 3:41:33 AM PDT by johnny7 (“I'm American, honey. Our names don't mean sh_t.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Leroy S. Mort

Commie Obamie will vote against Judge Roberts.


27 posted on 09/23/2005 3:42:07 AM PDT by reg45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: yoe

"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.


28 posted on 09/23/2005 3:42:24 AM PDT by TheRobb7 (The American Spirit does not require a federal subsidy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

She has to appease her base and her base only cares about one thing: a woman's right to kill.


29 posted on 09/23/2005 3:43:11 AM PDT by libertylover (Liberal: A blatant liar who likes to spend other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raisincane

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


30 posted on 09/23/2005 3:43:56 AM PDT by ballplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: All

31 posted on 09/23/2005 3:46:43 AM PDT by monkapotamus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe
"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."

Let's hope every American applies this same standard to her.

32 posted on 09/23/2005 3:49:00 AM PDT by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: msnimje
The big question is, can he move far enough to the right to get there?

I don't think so. I can't imagine Republican primary voters going for McCain.

The media loves him; the Republican base does not.

33 posted on 09/23/2005 3:51:52 AM PDT by proud American in Canada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: msnimje
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.

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.

34 posted on 09/23/2005 4:09:01 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: yoe

"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.


35 posted on 09/23/2005 4:16:55 AM PDT by Tulsa Ramjet (If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Past Your Eyes

You can get anything you want,
at Alices restaurant.


36 posted on 09/23/2005 4:28:50 AM PDT by Joe Boucher (an enemy of islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: yoe
This looks like a mistake, but for her purposes, it is not. She knows that Al Gore and perhaps Barak Obama will be running against her in 2008. Gore, especially, is a dangerous opponent. A vote for Roberts would have been poison with the base. Gore would have beat her over the head with it.

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,

Chris

37 posted on 09/23/2005 4:33:37 AM PDT by section9 (Major Motoko Kusanagi says, "Jesus is Coming. Everybody look busy...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

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.


38 posted on 09/23/2005 4:34:12 AM PDT by PilloryHillary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Past Your Eyes

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.


39 posted on 09/23/2005 4:42:56 AM PDT by RichardMoore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: yoe

What an idiot, this so-called smartest woman in the world.


40 posted on 09/23/2005 4:46:55 AM PDT by LLBeet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: msnimje
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?

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.

41 posted on 09/23/2005 4:47:27 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: yoe
"...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."

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.

42 posted on 09/23/2005 4:54:25 AM PDT by Cvengr (<;^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: konaice
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."

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?

43 posted on 09/23/2005 4:55:44 AM PDT by Sgt_Schultze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jackknife
In other words, he didn't say that he would NOT repeal Roe v.Wade

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. :-)

44 posted on 09/23/2005 5:02:00 AM PDT by Bear_Slayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: monkapotamus

ROTFLMAO


45 posted on 09/23/2005 5:09:13 AM PDT by hudsonohio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Bullish

why not go to 11?


46 posted on 09/23/2005 5:21:47 AM PDT by Zavien Doombringer (Have you gotten your Viking Kittie Patch today? http://www.visualops.com/patch.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: yoe
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.

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."

47 posted on 09/23/2005 5:35:58 AM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe
and that voting as a bloc they could further limit the power of the Congress

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.

48 posted on 09/23/2005 5:40:22 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe

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.


49 posted on 09/23/2005 5:42:40 AM PDT by N. Theknow (Kennedys - Can't drive, can't fly, can't ski, can't skipper a boat - But they know what's best.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yoe; All

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!


50 posted on 09/23/2005 6:40:59 AM PDT by areafiftyone (Politicians Are Like Diapers, Both Need To Be Changed Often And For The Same Reason!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson