Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Top Democrat Announces He'll Vote No on Roberts..

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Top Democrat Announces He'll Vote No on Roberts..

    By voting against Roberts, Harry Reid is representating a Nevada that I'm not familiar with.

    Of course, there would need to be several more pieces of evidence, but let me give you political exhibit A of how national leaders lose local elections..


    QUOTE
    Top Democrat Says He'll Vote No on Roberts
    By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

    WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 - The Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said Tuesday that he would oppose the confirmation of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice, surprising both the White House and fellow Democrats still conflicted about how to vote.

    In becoming the first Democrat to declare formally how he intended to vote, Mr. Reid may have made it more difficult for fellow Democrats to support Judge Roberts. Many Senate observers expected Mr. Reid, who comes from a Republican-leaning state and is opposed to abortion, to support Judge Roberts.

    And the Democratic leader himself said Tuesday that he had earlier given the White House a list of nominees who would be objectionable and that Judge Roberts was not on it.

    In announcing his decision in a lengthy speech on the Senate floor, Mr. Reid questioned Judge Roberts's commitment to civil rights and said he was "very swayed" by the civil rights and women's rights leaders who testified Thursday in opposition to the nomination - and with whom Mr. Reid met privately that same day. Liberal advocacy groups, who raise millions of dollars to support Democratic candidates and who have been putting intense pressure on Democrats to oppose the nomination, were elated.

    With the White House considering how to fill a second Supreme Court vacancy, Mr. Reid could be using his vote on Judge Roberts to send a message to President Bush to fill that position with a moderate, in the mold of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a critical swing vote, who is retiring. Along with three other senior senators, Mr. Reid is expected to meet Mr. Bush for breakfast Wednesday to discuss the vacancy.

    Explaining his decision on Judge Roberts, Mr. Reid said in his Senate speech that he simply had "too many unanswered questions" about the nominee, who he complained had refused to distance himself from seemingly callous writings while a lawyer for the Reagan administration, including a memorandum in which he used the term "illegal amigos" to refer to illegal immigrants.

    "I'm not too sure," Mr. Reid later told reporters, "if his heart is as big as his head."

    How much influence Mr. Reid will have over his fellow Democrats is unclear; he has said repeatedly that each senator is free to vote his conscience on the nomination, and several Democrats, including those on the Judiciary Committee, said Tuesday that they were still torn.

    One centrist Democrat, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, said Tuesday that he had "not seen anything that would cause me to vote against" confirmation of Judge Roberts to be the nation's 17th chief justice.

    Last Thursday, as Mr. Reid was weighing his decision, representatives of about 40 advocacy groups met with him in the Capitol; the reason, they said, was to underscore the threat they believe Judge Roberts poses to Democrats' core causes, racial and gender equality. Hovering in the background was a political argument, that if Democrats vote in favor of Judge Roberts, they will be held liable by voters for the decisions he makes on the court.

    "He got the message loud and clear, didn't he?" Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, said of Mr. Reid on Tuesday.

    One of the most memorable presentations, those in attendance said, came from Theodore M. Shaw, general counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, who told Mr. Reid that his group rarely took a position on nominations.

    "We appear before the Supreme Court - who in their right mind would want to poke their finger in the eye of the next chief justice?" Mr. Shaw recalled saying. But, he added, "Based on what we know, this is not a nominee that we can let go by unopposed."

    Those who attended the meeting said they came away not knowing what Mr. Reid would decide.

    "He listened carefully, he listened thoughtfully," said Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Council on Civil Rights and an organizer of the session. "He did not respond to challenges or views that were presented. I do think he felt this should be a vote of conscience and I think in the end he voted his conscience, and I think at the end of the day that speaks volumes about his leadership."

    Mr. Reid and his Republican counterpart, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, have been invited to meet with President Bush on Wednesday morning to discuss the second vacancy. The Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and the committee's senior Democrat, Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, have also been invited.

    With a vote in committee scheduled for Thursday, the eight Democrats on the judiciary panel met Tuesday to discuss the nomination. They emerged tight-lipped, saying they wanted to speak to the entire Democratic caucus before announcing their votes. Several, including Mr. Leahy, said they had not yet reached a decision.

    "I'm close," Mr. Leahy said. Asked if he would know by the end of the day, he said, "I may. You won't."

    By day's end, only one of the panel's eight Democratic members, Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, had announced his position. As expected, he will vote no.

    "This is really a leap of faith, isn't it?" Mr. Kennedy told reporters. "I mean, I think there are those that took the leap in terms of the war, there were those that took the leap in terms of taxes and now they're being invited to take the leap again in terms of Judge Roberts, and" - here, Mr. Kennedy paused for effect - "I don't think I'm going to be among them."

    The White House reacted coolly to Mr. Reid's announcement. A spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said it departed from Senate tradition in which members have "based their decisions on the qualifications of the nominee, not on whether or not the person doing the nominating was in their same party."

    Mr. Reid said there was no single reason he decided to vote against the nomination, and in his speech he described the decision as "a very close question." But he made plain that an important factor was the White House's refusal to release legal memorandums written by Judge Roberts when he was deputy solicitor general in the first Bush administration. "The administration cannot treat the Senate with such disrespect without some consequences," he said.

    The records issues is a matter of principle to many Democrats. Senator Ken Salazar, Democrat of Colorado and a member of the so-called Gang of 14 who struck a bipartisan compromise to avoid a showdown over President Bush's judicial nominees, said Tuesday that he had recently called Harriet Miers, the White House counsel, to tell her that disclosing the documents could make the difference in his vote and that of his colleagues.

    "I think it is the right of the American people to get that information," Mr. Salazar said. "She said she would consider my request. I don't think they are going to do it."

    While Mr. Reid said the records fight does not warrant a filibuster, the parliamentary tactic Democrats have used to block other judicial nominees, he suggested he might not be inclined to avoid that fight with the next nominee. He said he planned to present Mr. Bush with a list of acceptable candidates on Wednesday and said Democrats would consider it "a real poke in the eye with a sharp stick" if Mr. Bush were to name any one of 10 federal appeals court judges who had been blocked by filibuster in the past, including some who are on President Bush's short list as Supreme Court candidates.

    Asked if that would warrant a filibuster, Mr. Reid said, "That would warrant my being real upset."
    [/b][/quote]
    The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life. -TR

    OFFICIAL LOUNGE SPONSOR OF NEW YORK CITY, TEDDY ROOSEVELT AND THE MARYLAND TERRAPINS

    Madyaks2 Thought Of The Day: I'm just as dumb as madyaks1.

  • #2
    QUOTE(lasvegasreb @ Sep 20 2005, 09:37 PM) Quoted post

    By voting against Roberts, Harry Reid is representating a Nevada that I'm not familiar with.[/b][/quote]

    You also seem to be not familiar with the "advise and consent" role of the United States Senate in confirming Supreme Court Justices. Reid is more than entitled to vote against Roberts if he feels Roberts hasn't been sufficiently forthcoming, and if the White House has not been sufficiently forthcoming (as they most certainly have not, in refusing to release his Solicitor General papers).

    And since Reid sailed to victory last year and won't be coming up again until 2010, I don't think he's sweating too much.
    Official sponsor of the St. Louis Cardinals

    "This is a heavyweight bout indeed."--John Rooney, Oct. 27, 2011

    Comment


    • #3
      QUOTE(kah @ Sep 20 2005, 11:54 PM) Quoted post

      QUOTE(lasvegasreb @ Sep 20 2005, 09:37 PM) Quoted post

      By voting against Roberts, Harry Reid is representating a Nevada that I'm not familiar with.[/b][/quote]

      You also seem to be not familiar with the "advise and consent" role of the United States Senate in confirming Supreme Court Justices. Reid is more than entitled to vote against Roberts if he feels Roberts hasn't been sufficiently forthcoming, and if the White House has not been sufficiently forthcoming (as they most certainly have not, in refusing to release his Solicitor General papers).

      And since Reid sailed to victory last year and won't be coming up again until 2010, I don't think he's sweating too much.
      [/b][/quote]

      Pure bullshit, Kah, and I know you're smart enough to acknowledge it.

      It's a purely strategic move with a Supreme Court nomination for the favor of the constituents of the Democratic Party. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that -- he could choose to vote against Roberts because he didn't like the color of his eyes -- but at least be honest about it. He is well qualified for The Supreme Court and the "advice and consent" provision was never meant to be a political roadblock for the president. Historically, on both the left and right, the Senate's role was to keep extremists off the Court. Do you wish to argue that Roberts is an extremist?

      All I'm asking, be honest, Harry.

      His decision represents the further breakdown in civic society that, in many ways, Reid and others have helped usher in. Here's a guy who refused to participate in any debates during his election campaign and yet had the balls to run with the slogan "Independent. Like Nevada."

      Uh huh.
      The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life. -TR

      OFFICIAL LOUNGE SPONSOR OF NEW YORK CITY, TEDDY ROOSEVELT AND THE MARYLAND TERRAPINS

      Madyaks2 Thought Of The Day: I'm just as dumb as madyaks1.

      Comment


      • #4
        Roberts is a homosexual. Reid knows this although the general public does not. He is voting with his constituents on this one.

        Comment


        • #5
          QUOTE(lasvegasreb @ Sep 20 2005, 10:43 PM) Quoted post

          There's absolutely nothing wrong with that[/b][/quote]

          Then what whas the point of your post?

          QUOTE
          the "advice and consent" provision was never meant to be a political roadblock for the president.[/b][/quote]

          False, I'm afraid. Simply wrong. Advice and consent means advice and consent. Harry Reid does not consent. Sorry if it bothers you. (Actually, speaking for myself and my party, no I'm not). And since Roberts is going to be confirmed anyway, I don't see what the big deal is. Are you angry because the vote is not going to be 100-0?

          QUOTE
          All I'm asking, be honest, Harry.[/b][/quote]

          Sounds pretty honest to me. Reid doesn't like what we've heard about Roberts' past record, doesn't think Roberts was forthcoming enough in the committee hearings, and is pissed about the White House refusing to release Roberts' papers from his time as Solicitor General. More than enough reason not to vote for him. I personally am glad to see Reid is voting no.

          You seem to be subscribing to the viewpoint that a lot of Republicans cling to, that, if the President nominates a candidate for a position, and that candidate is "qualified", then all Senators are obligated to vote to confirm him. That is wrong. Harry Reid isn't obligated to do shit. If Reid doesn't like Roberts' stated viewpoints, he's free to vote "no". If Reid doesn't like the color of Roberts' eyes, as you yourself stated, he's free to vote "no".

          QUOTE
          His decision represents the further breakdown in civic society that, in many ways, Reid and others have helped usher in. [/b][/quote]

          Oh come on, this is total nonsense. Yes, our society is breaking down because Harry Reid will vote against John Roberts. Ridiculous.

          QUOTE
          Here's a guy who refused to participate in any debates during his election campaign and yet had the balls to run with the slogan "Independent. Like Nevada."

          Uh huh.[/b][/quote]

          Dude was Senate Minority Whip for a long time, LVR. Shouldn't come as a surprise that he does, in fact, exercise a leadership role in the Democratic Party.
          Official sponsor of the St. Louis Cardinals

          "This is a heavyweight bout indeed."--John Rooney, Oct. 27, 2011

          Comment


          • #6
            I subscribe to the long-held belief, at least up till a decade or two ago held by the two political parties in this country, that unless Bush or a future Democratic president nominated an extremist, the president should be able to nominate and see approved who he wants on the Court.

            Same with Federal court nominations, which seem to already be embroiled in the type of filibustering that we should soon expect during Supreme Court nominations.

            Apparently, you would like to see a more political role in the voting of Federal judges, which brings us back to Harry. What he's doing is politically motivated under the guise of qualifications or not forthcoming or whatever excuse Democrats would like to give. Perhaps I'm looking for a more intelligent discourse than what's possible nowadays, but if Harry came out and said something like, "I feel this decision needs to be made for the strength of the Democratic Party", then I would respect his decision a lot more. At least his no vote wouldn't be under the cover of civil rights or some other insult to Judge Roberts' record that goes against the relative precedent of "advice and consent."

            And no, Kah, Reid's vote won't bring down Western Society. But like refusing to debate any of your opponents and using your name and political notoriety to be elected to another term rather than actually conducting a campaign, Reid continues a trend of weakening the democratic process in favor of an ever-more politically charged system that leaves little bearing upon what the people actually want.
            The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life. -TR

            OFFICIAL LOUNGE SPONSOR OF NEW YORK CITY, TEDDY ROOSEVELT AND THE MARYLAND TERRAPINS

            Madyaks2 Thought Of The Day: I'm just as dumb as madyaks1.

            Comment


            • #7
              QUOTE(lasvegasreb @ Sep 20 2005, 11:23 PM) Quoted post

              I subscribe to the long-held belief, at least up till a decade or two ago held by the two political parties in this country, that unless Bush or a future Democratic president nominated an extremist, the president should be able to nominate and see approved who he wants on the Court.[/b][/quote]

              Well, that's the thing. I don't believe such a state of affairs ever existed.
              Official sponsor of the St. Louis Cardinals

              "This is a heavyweight bout indeed."--John Rooney, Oct. 27, 2011

              Comment


              • #8
                QUOTE
                I subscribe to the long-held belief, at least up till a decade or two ago held by the two political parties in this country, that unless Bush or a future Democratic president nominated an extremist, the president should be able to nominate and see approved who he wants on the Court.[/b][/quote]

                I agree with that statement.... And I think the majority of congress does too.
                But that isn't what the constitution says, this guy has a right to vote no if he feels that way.
                Be passionate about what you believe in, or why bother.

                Comment


                • #9
                  QUOTE(lasvegasreb @ Sep 20 2005, 10:37 PM) Quoted post

                  By voting against Roberts, Harry Reid is representating a Nevada that I'm not familiar with.

                  Of course, there would need to be several more pieces of evidence, but let me give you political exhibit A of how national leaders lose local elections..


                  QUOTE
                  Top Democrat Says He'll Vote No on Roberts
                  By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

                  WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 - The Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said Tuesday that he would oppose the confirmation of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice, surprising both the White House and fellow Democrats still conflicted about how to vote.

                  In becoming the first Democrat to declare formally how he intended to vote, Mr. Reid may have made it more difficult for fellow Democrats to support Judge Roberts. Many Senate observers expected Mr. Reid, who comes from a Republican-leaning state and is opposed to abortion, to support Judge Roberts.

                  And the Democratic leader himself said Tuesday that he had earlier given the White House a list of nominees who would be objectionable and that Judge Roberts was not on it.

                  In announcing his decision in a lengthy speech on the Senate floor, Mr. Reid questioned Judge Roberts's commitment to civil rights and said he was "very swayed" by the civil rights and women's rights leaders who testified Thursday in opposition to the nomination - and with whom Mr. Reid met privately that same day. Liberal advocacy groups, who raise millions of dollars to support Democratic candidates and who have been putting intense pressure on Democrats to oppose the nomination, were elated.

                  With the White House considering how to fill a second Supreme Court vacancy, Mr. Reid could be using his vote on Judge Roberts to send a message to President Bush to fill that position with a moderate, in the mold of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a critical swing vote, who is retiring. Along with three other senior senators, Mr. Reid is expected to meet Mr. Bush for breakfast Wednesday to discuss the vacancy.

                  Explaining his decision on Judge Roberts, Mr. Reid said in his Senate speech that he simply had "too many unanswered questions" about the nominee, who he complained had refused to distance himself from seemingly callous writings while a lawyer for the Reagan administration, including a memorandum in which he used the term "illegal amigos" to refer to illegal immigrants.

                  "I'm not too sure," Mr. Reid later told reporters, "if his heart is as big as his head."

                  How much influence Mr. Reid will have over his fellow Democrats is unclear; he has said repeatedly that each senator is free to vote his conscience on the nomination, and several Democrats, including those on the Judiciary Committee, said Tuesday that they were still torn.

                  One centrist Democrat, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, said Tuesday that he had "not seen anything that would cause me to vote against" confirmation of Judge Roberts to be the nation's 17th chief justice.

                  Last Thursday, as Mr. Reid was weighing his decision, representatives of about 40 advocacy groups met with him in the Capitol; the reason, they said, was to underscore the threat they believe Judge Roberts poses to Democrats' core causes, racial and gender equality. Hovering in the background was a political argument, that if Democrats vote in favor of Judge Roberts, they will be held liable by voters for the decisions he makes on the court.

                  "He got the message loud and clear, didn't he?" Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, said of Mr. Reid on Tuesday.

                  One of the most memorable presentations, those in attendance said, came from Theodore M. Shaw, general counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, who told Mr. Reid that his group rarely took a position on nominations.

                  "We appear before the Supreme Court - who in their right mind would want to poke their finger in the eye of the next chief justice?" Mr. Shaw recalled saying. But, he added, "Based on what we know, this is not a nominee that we can let go by unopposed."

                  Those who attended the meeting said they came away not knowing what Mr. Reid would decide.

                  "He listened carefully, he listened thoughtfully," said Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Council on Civil Rights and an organizer of the session. "He did not respond to challenges or views that were presented. I do think he felt this should be a vote of conscience and I think in the end he voted his conscience, and I think at the end of the day that speaks volumes about his leadership."

                  Mr. Reid and his Republican counterpart, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, have been invited to meet with President Bush on Wednesday morning to discuss the second vacancy. The Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and the committee's senior Democrat, Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, have also been invited.

                  With a vote in committee scheduled for Thursday, the eight Democrats on the judiciary panel met Tuesday to discuss the nomination. They emerged tight-lipped, saying they wanted to speak to the entire Democratic caucus before announcing their votes. Several, including Mr. Leahy, said they had not yet reached a decision.

                  "I'm close," Mr. Leahy said. Asked if he would know by the end of the day, he said, "I may. You won't."

                  By day's end, only one of the panel's eight Democratic members, Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, had announced his position. As expected, he will vote no.

                  "This is really a leap of faith, isn't it?" Mr. Kennedy told reporters. "I mean, I think there are those that took the leap in terms of the war, there were those that took the leap in terms of taxes and now they're being invited to take the leap again in terms of Judge Roberts, and" - here, Mr. Kennedy paused for effect - "I don't think I'm going to be among them."

                  The White House reacted coolly to Mr. Reid's announcement. A spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said it departed from Senate tradition in which members have "based their decisions on the qualifications of the nominee, not on whether or not the person doing the nominating was in their same party."

                  Mr. Reid said there was no single reason he decided to vote against the nomination, and in his speech he described the decision as "a very close question." But he made plain that an important factor was the White House's refusal to release legal memorandums written by Judge Roberts when he was deputy solicitor general in the first Bush administration. "The administration cannot treat the Senate with such disrespect without some consequences," he said.

                  The records issues is a matter of principle to many Democrats. Senator Ken Salazar, Democrat of Colorado and a member of the so-called Gang of 14 who struck a bipartisan compromise to avoid a showdown over President Bush's judicial nominees, said Tuesday that he had recently called Harriet Miers, the White House counsel, to tell her that disclosing the documents could make the difference in his vote and that of his colleagues.

                  "I think it is the right of the American people to get that information," Mr. Salazar said. "She said she would consider my request. I don't think they are going to do it."

                  While Mr. Reid said the records fight does not warrant a filibuster, the parliamentary tactic Democrats have used to block other judicial nominees, he suggested he might not be inclined to avoid that fight with the next nominee. He said he planned to present Mr. Bush with a list of acceptable candidates on Wednesday and said Democrats would consider it "a real poke in the eye with a sharp stick" if Mr. Bush were to name any one of 10 federal appeals court judges who had been blocked by filibuster in the past, including some who are on President Bush's short list as Supreme Court candidates.

                  Asked if that would warrant a filibuster, Mr. Reid said, "That would warrant my being real upset."
                  [/b][/quote]
                  [/b][/quote]


                  I rather doubt the average Nevadan (?) gives a shit how Reid votes on Roberts. No one is paying attention to this nomination.

                  And further, were the issue raised, I'd think the average Nevadan would be in favor of full disclosure of Roberts' legal records. The average Nevadan (there he is again) will think, "What have they to hide?"
                  Your friends list is empty

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    QUOTE(kah @ Sep 20 2005, 11:54 PM) Quoted post

                    And since Reid sailed to victory last year and won't be coming up again until 2010, I don't think he's sweating too much.
                    [/b][/quote]

                    This actually answers a question I have had for a while now. As I rememeber, Reid was thought of as a moderate when he because the minority leader, which makes sense considering that Nevada is a politically conservative state. It seems like Reid has shifted to the left since he became the democratic leader. I was wondering if he would be up for re-election in '06 or '08, because then it would be interesting to see how Nevada views his recent actions. It made me think that something similar to what happened with Daschle could happen to Reid, but 2010 is too far away to look at that.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      From The San Francisco Chronicle, that well-known bastion of conservatism:

                      QUOTE
                      Unable to dent the 50-year-old Roberts on intellectual grounds after three days of questioning, Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats began to ask whether he has the heart and humanity to lead the nation's third branch of government. ...

                      Democrats readily concede that Roberts, an appellate court judge since May 2003 and a former lawyer in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, is a formidable intellect with an impressive command of the law. For his part, Roberts has portrayed himself as a careful, fair lawyer, eschewing any ideology but "modesty and stability."

                      But the eight Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee -- and other Democratic senators -- are being pressured by liberal interest groups unified against Roberts. As the hearings continued today, the committee Democrats seemed to be searching for a way to explain to their constituents a vote against the nominee.

                      Roberts took pains throughout his testimony to cite famous liberal jurists and court opinions. He announced that he does not believe in reading the Constitution for its original intent, such as conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.

                      Roberts declared he believes privacy, the foundation of abortion and gay rights rulings, is an enumerated Constitutional right.
                      He adroitly sidestepped every rhetorical trap laid by Republicans and Democrats to get him to state his views on current controversies.

                      Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., called Roberts' performance a "tour de force." But committee Democrat after Democrat, from Sen. Edward Kennedy D-Mass., to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., raised the issue of Roberts' "heart."[/b][/quote]

                      Once again, let me point out that voting against him has nothing to do with Roberts' jurisprudence or qualification for The Supreme Court, which has historically been the judgment and use of "advice and consent."

                      It has to do with the Democratic Party pimping itself out to NARAL and other leftist groups that control the party. By all rights, it seems that Bush has nominated a moderate; what more do they want?

                      And yet, Reid obstructs. This is going to backfire on the Democrats.
                      The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life. -TR

                      OFFICIAL LOUNGE SPONSOR OF NEW YORK CITY, TEDDY ROOSEVELT AND THE MARYLAND TERRAPINS

                      Madyaks2 Thought Of The Day: I'm just as dumb as madyaks1.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        QUOTE(lasvegasreb @ Sep 21 2005, 02:07 PM) Quoted post

                        From The San Francisco Chronicle, that well-known bastion of conservatism:

                        QUOTE
                        Unable to dent the 50-year-old Roberts on intellectual grounds after three days of questioning, Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats began to ask whether he has the heart and humanity to lead the nation's third branch of government. ...

                        Democrats readily concede that Roberts, an appellate court judge since May 2003 and a former lawyer in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, is a formidable intellect with an impressive command of the law. For his part, Roberts has portrayed himself as a careful, fair lawyer, eschewing any ideology but "modesty and stability."

                        But the eight Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee -- and other Democratic senators -- are being pressured by liberal interest groups unified against Roberts. As the hearings continued today, the committee Democrats seemed to be searching for a way to explain to their constituents a vote against the nominee.

                        Roberts took pains throughout his testimony to cite famous liberal jurists and court opinions. He announced that he does not believe in reading the Constitution for its original intent, such as conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.

                        Roberts declared he believes privacy, the foundation of abortion and gay rights rulings, is an enumerated Constitutional right.
                        He adroitly sidestepped every rhetorical trap laid by Republicans and Democrats to get him to state his views on current controversies.

                        Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., called Roberts' performance a "tour de force." But committee Democrat after Democrat, from Sen. Edward Kennedy D-Mass., to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., raised the issue of Roberts' "heart."[/b][/quote]

                        Once again, let me point out that voting against him has nothing to do with Roberts' jurisprudence or qualification for The Supreme Court, which has historically been the judgment and use of "advice and consent."

                        It has to do with the Democratic Party pimping itself out to NARAL and other leftist groups that control the party. By all rights, it seems that Bush has nominated a moderate; what more do they want?

                        And yet, Reid obstructs. This is going to backfire on the Democrats.
                        [/b][/quote]

                        Says who?
                        Be passionate about what you believe in, or why bother.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Who cares about Reid he is a loser.

                          How will Hillary vote? Appease the leftist kooks or try to fool people into thinking she is a "moderate"? Hehe.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            When was the last unanimous vote to approve a Supreme Court Justice LVR?
                            Sponsor of Alex Pieterangelo.

                            ..."I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." George Best

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              QUOTE(dooz @ Sep 21 2005, 02:11 PM) Quoted post

                              Who cares about Reid he is a loser.

                              How will Hillary vote? Appease the leftist kooks or try to fool people into thinking she is a "moderate"? Hehe.
                              [/b][/quote]

                              Uh, he's my Senator and also the Democratic Minority Leader.

                              So I care a little, yes.

                              Thanks for the intelligent post. Perhaps a debate with StlJoe may be more your speed.
                              The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life. -TR

                              OFFICIAL LOUNGE SPONSOR OF NEW YORK CITY, TEDDY ROOSEVELT AND THE MARYLAND TERRAPINS

                              Madyaks2 Thought Of The Day: I'm just as dumb as madyaks1.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X