My GOD the trolls are out in force tonight

September 29, 2005

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote in favor of the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be the Chief Justice of the United States. This has not been an easy decision, but I believe it is the correct one. Judge Roberts' impeccable legal credentials, his reputation and record as a fair-minded person, and his commitment to modesty and respect for precedent have persuaded me that he will not bring an ideological agenda to the position of Chief Justice of the United States and that he should be confirmed.

I have often noted that the scrutiny that I will apply to a President's nominee to the Supreme Court is the highest of any nomination and that the scrutiny to be applied to the position of Chief Justice must be the very highest. I have voted for executive branch appointments, and even for court of appeals nominees, whom I would not necessarily vote to put on the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, because the Supreme Court, alone among our courts, has the power to revisit and reverse its precedents, I believe that anyone who sits on that Court must not have a pre-set agenda to reverse precedents with which he or she disagrees and must recognize and appreciate the awesome power and responsibility of the Court to do justice when other branches of Government infringe on or ignore the freedoms and rights of all citizens.

Roberts Dissent Reveals Strain Beneath Court's Placid Surface

By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: March 23, 2006
WASHINGTON, March 22 — A Supreme Court decision on Wednesday in an uncelebrated criminal case did more than resolve a dispute over whether the police can search a home without a warrant when one occupant gives consent but another objects.

Snip...

Writing for the majority, Justice David H. Souter said the search was unreasonable, given the vocal objection of the husband, Scott Randolph. True, Justice Souter said, the court had long permitted one party to give consent to a search of shared premises under what is known as the "co-occupant consent rule." But he said that rule should be limited to the context in which it was first applied, the absence of the person who later objected.

Snip...

Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony M. Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined the majority opinion, as did Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who explained himself in a concurring opinion notable for its ambivalent tone. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. did not vote, as he was not a member of the court when the case was argued.

The dissenters, in addition to Chief Justice Roberts, were Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. In his opinion, the chief justice took aim at the majority's description of social custom, as well as its reliance on that description to reshape "a great deal of established Fourth Amendment law."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/23/politics/23scotus.htm

“I can’t in good conscience vote to confirm Judge Roberts to a lifetime leading our third and co-equal branch of government when his confirmation hearings contained no genuine legal engagement, no real exchange of information, and no substantive discussion. The confirmation exercise has become little more than an empty shell. I cannot vote to confirm someone to lead the very branch of government responsible for ensuring equal opportunity and justice when he refuses to say where he stands on things as fundamental as how he would interpret our Constitution.

“The White House’s refusal to release documents presented a significant obstacle to getting the facts, but the biggest roadblock has been Judge Roberts himself. He has evaded serious and legitimate questions and forced the Senate to exercise its Constitutional responsibility of advice and consent virtually in the dark.

“What little we do know about Judge Roberts’ record gives me real concern. We need a Chief Justice who respects our Constitution and also considers the real-life implications of his decisions. Whether it’s voting rights, Title IX, affirmative action, the Geneva Conventions or choice, Judge Roberts has consistently worked to put such high legal hurdles in place that they are virtually impossible for even the most worthy cases to overcome. America deserves a Chief Justice who will ensure that every single one of us – man or woman, rich or poor, black or white – will be treated with dignity, respect and fairness under the law.”

# # #

“Sen. Feingold says he intended his resolution to prompt congressional investigations into the president’s actions on these issues. Republican leaders so far have been reluctant to allow that,” said David Carle, a Leahy spokesman. “Sen. Leahy believes in first things first, and the first thing is Congress doing its oversight duty in investigating the Bush administration’s illegal domestic wiretapping.”

http://www.vermontguardian.com/dailies/032006/032006.shtml

Press Release of Senator Boxer
Boxer Asks Presidential Scholars About Former White House Counsel's Statement that Bush Admitted to an 'Impeachable Offense'


Monday, December 19, 2005

Washington, D.C.– U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today asked four presidential scholars for their opinion on former White House Counsel John Dean’s statement that President Bush admitted to an “impeachable offense” when he said he authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge.

Boxer said, “I take very seriously Mr. Dean’s comments, as I view him to be an expert on Presidential abuse of power. I am expecting a full airing of this matter by the Senate in the very near future.”

Boxer’s letter is as follows:

On December 16, along with the rest of America, I learned that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge. President Bush underscored his support for this action in his press conference today.

On Sunday, December 18, former White House Counsel John Dean and I participated in a public discussion that covered many issues, including this surveillance. Mr. Dean, who was President Nixon’s counsel at the time of Watergate, said that President Bush is “the first President to admit to an impeachable offense.” Today, Mr. Dean confirmed his statement.

This startling assertion by Mr. Dean is especially poignant because he experienced first hand the executive abuse of power and a presidential scandal arising from the surveillance of American citizens.

Given your constitutional expertise, particularly in the area of presidential impeachment, I am writing to ask for your comments and thoughts on Mr. Dean’s statement.

Unchecked surveillance of American citizens is troubling to both me and many of my constituents. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer

United States Senator

“This is what the Administration was trying so desperately to hide when it attacked Ambassador Wilson and compromised national security by outing his wife. It is shameful that to this day Republicans continue to attack Ambassador Wilson rather than condemning the fact that those sixteen words were ever spoken, and that so many lies were told to cover it up. How are the same Republicans who tried to impeach a President over whether he misled a nation about an affair going to pretend it does not matter if the Administration intentionally misled the country into war?