Obama vs. Clinton on the confirmation of judge John Roberts

I don't want to cherrypick paragraphs or write a push-poll asking whose statements were best. Barack Obama's or Hillary Clinton's, on the confirmation of ultra-right wing judge John Roberts a couple of years ago.

Both opposed the confirmation of judge John Roberts.

But in my opinion, after reading both senators' statements, I get the impression that Obama was strugling with himself while opposing Roberts' confirmation. It's almost as if he said "aww man, I really like Roberts but I'm running for the Democratic nomination and I have to oppose him". He had pretty nice things to say about him.

Hillary Clinton's statement seem much more firm and skeptical about Roberts.
There is no doubt that Hillary's judgement when it came to the Iraq war was ATROCIOUS, but in this particular case, Obama sounded a bit naive and believing that Roberts had a chance to turn out to be a good judge.

You be the judge. Which views do you like best?

Obama's statement
Clinton's statement

But lemme just make a wild guess.

John Edwards Does Not Exist?

http://saveourcourts.org/the_facts/remote-page.jsp?itemID=28349090


John Edwards Statement Opposing Roberts Nomination

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the most important judge on the most important court in our country, responsible for protecting and upholding the rights and freedoms outlined in our Constitution. I have carefully reviewed Judge John Roberts' testimony and listened to him give unsubstantial, boilerplate answers and avoid answering even the most basic questions about his own views today.

Based on everything I have seen and read from Judge Roberts' work in the Reagan Administration, his past opinions, and his most recent testimony, I wanted you to be the first to know that I must oppose his nomination to be our country's Chief Justice.

I do so because we do know the views and positions he took prior to the recent hearings. Judge Roberts opposed efforts to remedy discrimination on the basis of sex and race. He opposed measures to protect voting rights. He denigrated the right to privacy and a woman's right to choose. He wanted to allow Congress to strip away courts' jurisdiction over controversial subjects.

Although he has presented himself as a supporter of judicial restraint, I do not see enough evidence that Judge Roberts would show restraint when his own political commitments are at stake. In light of his past positions, I believe he had an affirmative obligation to make the case to those who might confirm him that he repudiates the positions that he had previously advocated in his professional career. He made a choice and refused to meet that obligation. I cannot support someone who I am not convinced will preserve the liberties and freedoms that are enshrined in our Constitution and our laws.

Please join me in fighting for the principles and values that each of us cherish. Contact your Senators and tell them to vote no on Judge Roberts' nomination.

this isn't the msm so why toe their line?

A Clinton/Obama thread has Edwards injected and GUESS WHAT-he better represents DU than either of those mentioned....Keep it going-JEDNE...NGU

NEVER GIVE UP!

Which was his introductory point. It is so clear that even a Scalia and Ginsburg can agree.

But on those 95% of cases where the law is not clear, Obama says, "it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak."

So he doesn't trust the man's heart and voted no. Civil and thoughtful decision.

A lot better than disenfranchising voters in 3 states.

watching votes in the Senate I notice that Obama did not cast a vote until Senator Clinton had cast her first. I am not talking about the initial calling of the roll so a senator can vote I am talking about later after the first roll call vote is taken when senators can come from meetings or their offices and cast a vote. Obama was usually there within 5 minutes after HRC voted....