Kerry Statement on Roberts Nomination

Statement by John Kerry on Nomination of John G. Roberts
19 July 2005



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement by John Kerry on the Nomination of John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court

"Americans deserve a Supreme Court that is fair, independent, ethical and served by justices committed to our constitutional freedoms rather than an ideological agenda. Justice O'Connor refused to use her position as a means to advance a political agenda. In replacing her, we must be confident Judge Roberts will do the same.

"We know Judge Roberts is no Sandra Day O'Connor, and the White House has sent a clear signal. There are serious questions that must be answered involving Judge Roberts' judicial philosophy as demonstrated over his short time on the appellate court. The Senate must learn whether he has clear consistent principles upholding Constitutional standards like civil rights and the right to privacy in Roe v. Wade. These issues are in serious question if you take even a cursory glance at his record.

"The American people expect the Senate to fulfill its duty to conduct a thorough, independent review of any nominee, and I intend to do exactly that. I hope Judge Roberts and the White House are forthcoming about his qualifications, background and constitutional philosophy so the Senate can act with all the facts. There's too much at stake to do anything less."

You rock kiddo!

Great statement. Doesn't sound like World War 3 is starting, but explicitly reserves the right to raise legitimate questions based on legal opinions. Good stuff.

So it probably isn't too smart to start WW3 without them. I really need to read more on the guy to see just how bad he is. I'm thinking Kennedy bad at the moment, the justice not the senator, but you knew that.

I really am. If Scalia was a ten for me then Roberts sounds like an 8. Not great. But the packaging is great and it will be difficult to find 40 votes to block.

"Christian Coalition of Alabama President John Giles stated, "We have watched this President very closely over the past four years outline his plans and unflinchingly execute even in the wake of public uncertainty. The decision to nominate Judge John G. Roberts will not only be one of the most important executive actions of this presidency, but will impact a half century. President Bush has guaranteed he would appoint a U.S. Supreme Court Justice with a Thomas-Scalia type judicial demeanor. The President has once again followed through on his word of honor and in my view, appointed an originalist-strict constructionist who will apply the constitution and will not legislate from the bench. From our brief yet pleasant research, Judge John G. Roberts is a major step to correct judicial activism that has plagued this court for decades."

This kind of praise, coming from them...

:scared:

I'm watching Tucker Carlson (Rachel Maddow is on xoxoxo)

It's driving them - the righties - crazy because the dems haven't come out with a strong statement yet.:nopity:

who had worked with him in the past compared him to Rhenquist, and predicted a sharp rightward tilt, compared to O'Conner, who this judge considered a moderate (!).

Sounds great! I wonder how much of a hand Kerry himself has in the kinds of statements. (I'm not being critical, I'm just thinking out loud.)

after Chimmpy's speech (which I neglected to watch) and he said something very similar. Basically he said (paraphrasing) "we're going to have lots and lots of questions for Roberts, and we expect answers". I think Leahey spoke too, but I missed that part.

This is a great statement on Kerry's part. Thanks for posting!

but more details as he is on the Judiciary Committee.

I have the feeling that Reid is good at coordinating the reaction of senators.

http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/05/07/2005719F47.html

Sounds like he's jumping the gun a bit to me. Fulfilling exactly what the right wing said, we'd attack anybody Bush appointed. Seems to me the better approach would be to let the American people learn about the guy, and build an opposition as we go. This is too partisan, too quick, I think.

"It is disappointing that when President Bush had the chance to bring the country together, he instead turned to a nominee who may have impressive legal credentials, but also has sharp partisan credentials that cannot be ignored.

"Democrats take very seriously the responsibility to protect the individual rights of all Americans and are committed to ensuring that ideological judicial activists are not appointed to the Supreme Court. The Senate Judiciary Committee will now have the opportunity to see if Judge Roberts can put his partisanship aside, and live up to a Supreme Court Justice's duty to uphold the rights and freedoms of every American and the promise of equal justice for all."

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=50577

He'll need to prove he can do the job.

No immediate dismissal, which is good.

I just prefer the statements that don't jump to partisanship immediately, tactics difference I guess.

this guy is defeintly not a great justice. But as far as Bush picks go, he isn't a disaster (at least not yet). I'd like to learn more about him.

:)

I also would like to know more about him, I expected Bush to pick Gonzales honest. I agree, this is a good statement.

if he wasn't then i think Bush may have nominated him. it certainly would have given the Republicans an area they could use to appeal to Latino voters in the future.

but another thing is that the religious right were pretty opposed to Gonzales because of some decision he made in an abortion related case. and Bush would not have had the Dems because of the torture thing and he wouldn't have had his own base behind him. it would probably have been an easy defeat.

Roberts seems to support upholding Roe V Wade despite at one time arguging against it. I read up on the guy, we have to learn more obviously, but from what I know so far, he could turn out to be what O'Connor was, a swing vote. Surpeme Court justices are always gonna be surprises.

Republicans don't really want to get rid of Roe V Wade. at least not the Republican leadership who depend on the issue to keep the religious right wing supporters.

but before they have always blamed Democrats. either the Dem controlled congress or the dem president. but this time the Republicans control everything so they can no longer do that so easily.

the one thing i keep thinking is what if Roe V Wade WAS overturned. most americans support Roe v Wade. i can't see any way that it can help the Republicans and in the long term i see it only hurting them.

the Republicans from Alabama and Wyoming wont care but the ones from Ohio, New Mexico, Arizona and other moderate leaning states might be influenced.

but as you say, Supreme Court justices will always been surprises.

and I think Roberts will be a more moderate.

We already knew that Bush would never name a moderate.

The problem is that Roe vs Wade is only the top of the iceberg.

This guy has virtually no opinion in his name (only 2 years on the federal bench), and the ones he made were nearly unanimously bad.

The rest of the cases he argued for, he argued for customers, private or public. So they really will have to ask a lot of questions to know who he is really.

We have to ask questions and not just let him slide through.

and they found something at the last minute.

Anyway, Bush called Roberts at 12.35 pm.

I really thought that he would try to pander to the hispanic community by picking Gonzales, I guess he realizes that being friends with the Christian right is more important.