Final Senate Vote on John Roberts (C-Span tally)

Dear Senator Bayh,

This is a sad day in the state of Indiana. It appears that you have decided to ignore the people that voted you into office and join forces with those who would undermine this great Country.

Since you are a Senator from Indiana, I know that you must have grown up with great values and morals. Had great pride in the USA and in Indiana.

But, it appears that you have sold yourself to the powers that would be.

If you wish to join forces with outsiders and ignore the people of Indiana, I wish you would have the courage to say so and resign your position, so that someone with Indiana's concerns in mind may take office.

Thanks,

It's great, my question is does he ever read it? And how do we effectively address our elective officials so that they read our message???

BTTT!!

Yes, Bayh voted no. He wants to be VP for Clinton (My guess only).

Wow. Hillary voted No.

Kind of surprising in a way. But I guess it was a safe vote for her. She could placate her base w/out really affecting the outcome.

Frist or the President must have sat them down and said, "Nothing you want passes till you stop the hissy fits!"

This is Hillary's Letter to a female upstate NY constitutent:

Original Message-----
From: Senator_Clinton@clinton.senate.gov
[mailto:Senator_Clinton@clinton.senate.gov]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 8:54 PM

Subject: A message from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

September 23, 2005

Dear Mrs. X:

Because you have shared with me your concerns regarding the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States, I am sending to you in its entirety my statement announcing my decision to vote against his confirmation. I hope that you will read the statement with the same care and thoughtfulness that I gave to this decision. My statement follows.

* * * * * * *

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.

* * * * * *

Thank you for writing. For updates on this and other important issues being discussed before the United States Senate, please check my website at
http://clinton.senate.gov.

Sincerely yours,
Hillary Rodham Clinton

http://clinton.senate.gov

The "NO" voters are about the best list of "Domestic Enemies" one could comprise from the Senate.....

Not a single one can be entrusted with any real power..
All of them have a record of placing self, power and personal wealth above all other considerations....

A POX on all their asses...

Semper Fi

And the supposedly "moderate" Obama voted Nay.

Hillary wrote this: 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.

Here is what she REALLY means: 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 The Constitution of the United States.