Reactions to the Supreme Court Nomination of John G. Roberts

[-Cp]

The Associated Press
Published: Jul 19, 2005
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBIV8JVCBE.html


Reactions to President Bush's nomination of John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court:
"The president has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that is not the end of our inquiry. The Senate must review Judge Roberts' record to determine if he has a demonstrated commitment to the core American values of freedom, equality and fairness." - Senate minority leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

"Judge Roberts is the kind of outstanding nominee that will make America proud. He embodies the qualities America expects in a justice on its highest court: someone who is fair, intelligent, impartial and committed to faithfully interpreting the Constitution and the law." - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

"We are extremely disappointed that President Bush has chosen such a divisive nominee for the highest court in the nation, rather than a consensus nominee who would protect individual liberty and uphold Roe v. Wade." - NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Roberts "rules based on the application of existing laws and specific facts of the cases before him, rather than making new laws or creating new policies based on personal opinion." - Sean Rushton, director of the conservative Committee for Justice.

"I look forward to the Committee's findings so that I can make an informed decision about whether Judge Roberts is truly a guardian of the rule of law who puts fairness and justice before ideology." - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

"Senate Democrats, especially those seeking re-election next year, should know that we will be watching them carefully. If they again attempt to attack a nominee's faith or pro-life convictions, their constituents will know about it and they will be held accountable." - Father Frank Pavone, national director, Priests for Life.

"Judge Roberts is an exceptional judge, brilliant legal mind, and a man of outstanding character who understands his profound duty to follow the law." - Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

"The burden is on a nominee to the Supreme Court to prove that he is worthy, not on the Senate to prove he is unworthy." - Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

"He's the kind of judge that all of us want - someone committed to applying the law impartially rather than legislating from the bench." - Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

"I'm hopeful that in the coming weeks we can avoid vicious character assassinations and attacks in this confirmation process." - Sen. George Allen, R-Va.

"I look forward to a full process, a direct vote up or down of a majority, not a supermajority, and also really a healthy debate about the role of the courts." - Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.

"Who knows about this guy?" - Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa.

"I can't help but think that he will continue to impress as a person of fairness, thoughtfulness and just the kind of judge who will bring a nonpolitical approach to judging. ... I think he's going to be well received." - Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

"He's brilliant. ... He's someone who is I think obviously well respected on both sides of the aisle. At a time when circuit court nominees were being filibustered left and right, he just really sailed through his confirmation. Given that, I think the president did what he promised during the campaign. He looked for the best and the brightest and he chose someone who would meet the test, the high test, that Supreme Court justices would be required to meet." - Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.

"This is a task so important that partisan politics must be set aside." - Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas.

 

[Annie]

Nope, after consulting with over 70 members of Congress, there is a lack of partisanship, which is what the democrats SAID they wanted,

The Associated Press
Published: Jul 19, 2005
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBIV8JVCBE.html


Reactions to President Bush's nomination of John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court:
"The president has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that is not the end of our inquiry. The Senate must review Judge Roberts' record to determine if he has a demonstrated commitment to the core American values of freedom, equality and fairness." - Senate minority leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

"Judge Roberts is the kind of outstanding nominee that will make America proud. He embodies the qualities America expects in a justice on its highest court: someone who is fair, intelligent, impartial and committed to faithfully interpreting the Constitution and the law." - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

"We are extremely disappointed that President Bush has chosen such a divisive nominee for the highest court in the nation, rather than a consensus nominee who would protect individual liberty and uphold Roe v. Wade." - NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Roberts "rules based on the application of existing laws and specific facts of the cases before him, rather than making new laws or creating new policies based on personal opinion." - Sean Rushton, director of the conservative Committee for Justice.

"I look forward to the Committee's findings so that I can make an informed decision about whether Judge Roberts is truly a guardian of the rule of law who puts fairness and justice before ideology." - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

"Senate Democrats, especially those seeking re-election next year, should know that we will be watching them carefully. If they again attempt to attack a nominee's faith or pro-life convictions, their constituents will know about it and they will be held accountable." - Father Frank Pavone, national director, Priests for Life.

"Judge Roberts is an exceptional judge, brilliant legal mind, and a man of outstanding character who understands his profound duty to follow the law." - Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

"The burden is on a nominee to the Supreme Court to prove that he is worthy, not on the Senate to prove he is unworthy." - Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

"He's the kind of judge that all of us want - someone committed to applying the law impartially rather than legislating from the bench." - Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

"I'm hopeful that in the coming weeks we can avoid vicious character assassinations and attacks in this confirmation process." - Sen. George Allen, R-Va.

"I look forward to a full process, a direct vote up or down of a majority, not a supermajority, and also really a healthy debate about the role of the courts." - Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.

"Who knows about this guy?" - Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa.

"I can't help but think that he will continue to impress as a person of fairness, thoughtfulness and just the kind of judge who will bring a nonpolitical approach to judging. ... I think he's going to be well received." - Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

"He's brilliant. ... He's someone who is I think obviously well respected on both sides of the aisle. At a time when circuit court nominees were being filibustered left and right, he just really sailed through his confirmation. Given that, I think the president did what he promised during the campaign. He looked for the best and the brightest and he chose someone who would meet the test, the high test, that Supreme Court justices would be required to meet." - Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.

"This is a task so important that partisan politics must be set aside." - Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas.

 

[Bonnie]

MoveOn Sees Conspiracy in Roberts Timing

MoveOn, the left wing political action group, sees a White House conspiracy in the announcement of President Bush's new Supreme Court nominee.



When the White House revealed that the President would release the name of his pick Tuesday night, MoveOn quickly issued a press release suggesting the timing of the announcement was simply a "wag the dog" effort to help Karl Rove.

Story Continues Below

The MoveOn release reads:
"President Bush has apparently speeded up the announcement of his Supreme Court nominee to deflect public attention from the Karl Rove scandal."

Evidence of the timing conspiracy?

MoveOn cites an unnamed "Republican strategist" who told Reuters Tuesday that the announcement "helps take Rove off the front pages for a week."

MoveOn reiterated its contention the "the President should keep his pledge to the American people and fire Karl Rove for his involvement in disclosing the identity of a covert CIA officer."

No matter that Rove claims he never released Plame's name or that he learned of her CIA connection through a reporter, Robert Novak.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/19/205218.shtml


LOL, LOL, LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Annie]

Man talk about desperate!

:baby:

 

[Bonnie]

NARAL: Roberts Will Overturn Roe v. Wade

NARAL, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, immediately lashed out at President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court.

"If Roberts is confirmed to a lifetime appointment, there is little doubt that he will work to overturn Roe v. Wade," a NARAL statement said Tuesday night.



"As deputy solicitor general under the first President Bush, he argued to the Supreme Court that 'Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled,' " NARAL also claimed.
Abortion will likely be the most contentious issue surrounding Judge Roberts and his nomination.

When Bush nominated Roberts to the D.C. Court of Appeals in 2003, NARAL complained:

"We believe he was nominated in large measure because of his narrow view of constitutional rights, and it is for this same reason that the Senate should reject his nomination."

The pro-abortion group was particularly irked by Roberts' argument: "The Court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution." Republicans control the Senate's Judiciary Committee by 10-to-8, and the full Senate with 55 seats.

Unless the Democrats filibuster, Roberts is a clear favorite to win confirmation.

If the Democrats do launch a filibuster, Republicans may finally unleash "the nuclear option" and do away with the Senate rule that allows a minority to block the majority will.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/19/221340.shtml



:funnyface

 

[ScreamingEagle]

"I look forward to the Committee's findings so that I can make an informed decision about whether Judge Roberts is truly a guardian of the rule of law who puts fairness and justice before ideology." - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

In other words - "let's figure out how we are going to oppose this guy
because he doesn't support OUR ideology!"

 

[Annie]

NARAL: Roberts Will Overturn Roe v. Wade




http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/19/221340.shtml



:funnyface

Yep, them be of the school, 'our way or the highway.' Time will tell...

 

[Bonnie]

If Gabby has slit her wrists with an Oreo yet ?? j/K

 

[pegwinn]

In other words - "let's figure out how we are going to oppose this guy
because he doesn't support OUR ideology!"

Yeah, but look at lots of dems faces about now. Here, a quick sample of your basic born again liberal democrat (bald)

 

[-Cp]

STATEMENT BY SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY ON NOMINATION OF JOHN ROBERTS TO U.S. SUPREME COURT
SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY ^ | July 19, 2005 | EDWARD M. KENNEDY


Posted on 07/19/2005 708 PM PDT by mdittmar


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Laura Capps/Melissa Wagoner (202) 224-2633 This is a critical moment for this country¹s future. If John Roberts is confirmed, he will have a vital role in setting the direction of the country for generations to come.

The Supreme Court is often the last line of defense for the freedoms and liberties for hundreds of millions of Americans. Few responsibilities of the Senate are more important than reviewing the qualifications of nominees for the Supreme Court. Every Senator, Republican or Democrats, has a responsibility to determine whether Mr. Roberts deserves to join the currently closely divided court when so much is at stake. It¹s wrong for any Senator to be a rubberstamp.

All of us in the Senate who have been through this process know the importance of this process. Every American ought to be asking some tough questions right now about whether Mr. Roberts is fit to serve on the highest court in the land.

Will he protect average Americans when their rights are abused by powerful corporations?

Will he ensure that private companies aren¹t allowed to pollute our rivers and lakes and our air?

Will he protect and preserve the progress we¹ve made on equal opportunity and fairness for all Americans?

Will he separate his personal ideology from the rule of law and protect the rights and freedoms of all Americans, not just the powerful or the wealthy.

Justice O¹Connor set a high standard. She tried to bring the nation together, and she respected the Constitution. She was a mainstream conservative who used her ability and respect for the rule of law to find solutions that would strengthen us as a nation, as the Constitution intended.

Mr. Roberts must demonstrate that he meets that standard before the American people, and he will have an opportunity to do so before the Senate Judiciary Committee before the coming weeks.

No nominee, especially a nominee who is well known to have argued ideological positions on issues important to the American people, should be confirmed without full and candid disclosure and discussion of those positions and their importance to him.

I welcome the opportunity to question Mr. Roberts, and believe that the American people will know at the end of this process whether he should advance to the Supreme Court.

We have a responsibility to the Constitution and to the American people and their children and grandchildren to get this right.


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

 

[Bonnie]

Kennedy

We have a responsibility to the Constitution and to the American people and their children and grandchildren to get this right.

I find this line particularly funny

 

[Adam's Apple]

STATEMENT BY SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY ON NOMINATION OF JOHN ROBERTS TO U.S. SUPREME COURT
SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY ^ | July 19, 2005 | EDWARD M. KENNEDY


Justice O'Connor set a high standard. She tried to bring the nation together, and she respected the Constitution. She was a mainstream conservative who used her ability and respect for the rule of law to find solutions that would strengthen us as a nation, as the Constitution intended.

Justice O'Connor evidentally has so much appreciation for George W's stated views about judges who serve on the Supreme Court that she chose to resign during his administration so he would be the one to select her replacement. I'll bet she is personally applauding his excellent choice of John Roberts.

 

[Annie]

Here's a roundup of how the 'right' and the 'left' are reacting:

http://www.citizen-journal.net/mt-weblog/archives/2005/07/getting_to_know.php#more

YOU have to go to the links, but you can get the gist:

Citizen Journal

« Roberts | Main | Morning Blend - Wednesday, July 20, 2005 »
July 19, 2005
Getting to know the opposition

Links are below the fold (to organizations and what they've said about John Roberts).

On the "pro" side: Michelle Malkin; Tim Chapman says he's "rock solid." (But it's way more fun to watch the loony left, so click below.)

Emily Bazelon and David Newman at Slate sum things up:

Roberts has been floated as a nominee who could win widespread support in the Senate. Not so likely. He hasn't been on the bench long enough for his judicial opinions to provide much ammunition for liberal opposition groups. But his record as a lawyer for the Reagan and first Bush administrations and in private practice is down-the-line conservative on key contested fronts, including abortion, separation of church and state, and environmental protection.

Roberts is opposed by the following organizations:

Alliance for Justice:

As expressed in one case where he would have invalidated a provision of the Endangered Species Act, his exceedingly restrictive view of federal law-making authority – more restrictive than the current Supreme Court’s – could threaten a wide swath of workplace, civil rights, public safety and environmental protections. In his years of service as a political appointee in the administrations of Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Judge Roberts also helped craft legal policies that sought to weaken school desegregation efforts, the reproductive rights of women, environmental protections, church-state separation and the voting rights of African Americans.

Americans for Democratic Action

Feminist Majority asks for "Emergency Donations" to "save Roe."

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights:

While D.C. Circuit Court Judge John Roberts's experience as a judge is limited, what little record he has on the bench raises grave concerns about his ideology and judicial philosophy, calling into question his elevation to the Supreme Court.

National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association:

John Roberts is a D.C. Circuit Court judge who clerked for Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, worked in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, and went into private practice during the Clinton years. As Deputy Solicitor General, he co-authored a brief for the government in Rust v. Sullivan in which he argued that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overturned. He also co-authored an amicus brief in support of Operation Rescue and six individuals who had obstructed access to reproductive health care clinics.

National Organization for Women:

As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts filed an amicus curiae brief in NOW's case against Operation Rescue — in support of Operation Rescue, of course and in support of named individuals who routinely blocked access to clinics. At the Supreme Court level, that case was called Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic (it was NOW v. Operation Rescue at the trial and appellate levels). The brief argued that the protesters’ behavior did not discriminate against women and that blockades and clinic protests were protected speech under the First Amendment. The case helped us push congressional passage of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.

NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund

Naral (they've already posted the following form letter, for people who can’t type and think at the same time:

As your constituent, I am urging you to oppose John Roberts, President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court.

If Roberts is confirmed to a lifetime appointment, there is little doubt that he will work to overturn Roe v. Wade. As Deputy Solicitor General under the first President Bush, he argued to the Supreme Court that "Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled....

(Belated h/t to Volokh for the link to the list.)

 

[Bonnie]

Do we dare see this as a positive sign??

WASHINGTON, July 19 - President Bush nominated John G. Roberts, a federal appeals court judge with a distinguished résumé and a conservative but enigmatic record, as his first appointment to the Supreme Court on Tuesday night, moving to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor with a candidate he hopes will be hailed by the right and accepted by the left.

Charles Dharapak/Associated Press
John G. Roberts and President Bush at the White House on Tuesday night.
"He has the qualities that Americans expect in a judge: experience, wisdom, fairness and civility," Mr. Bush said in an unusual televised appearance from the White House Cross Hall just after 9 p.m., as Mr. Roberts and his family looked on.

He added, "I believe that Democrats and Republicans alike will see the strong qualifications of this fine judge."

Mr. Bush's dramatic prime-time announcement ended more than two weeks of speculation set off by Justice O'Connor's surprise retirement announcement, and a day of frantic rumors in which first one then another candidate was reported to be the leading choice, amid hints from some Republicans that he might choose a woman to succeed the Supreme Court's first female justice.

Instead, word came shortly before 8 p.m. that Mr. Bush's choice was Judge Roberts, 50, a summa cum laude graduate of Harvard College, former managing editor of the Harvard Law Review and clerk to William H. Rehnquist, who was then an associate justice on the Supreme Court. Since 2003, Judge Roberts has served on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to which he was confirmed by unanimous consent of the Senate.

Mr. Bush has made no secret of his desire to impose a more conservative stamp on the Supreme Court, and he apparently named Mr. Roberts with confidence that he would help him do so.

Almost instantly, the conservative and liberal interest groups that have spent years preparing for a Supreme Court vacancy swung into action.

The conservative Progress for America called Judge Roberts a "terrific nominee," while Naral Pro-Choice America denounced him as an "unsuitable choice," and a "divisive nominee with a record of seeking to impose a political agenda on the courts."

But significantly, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader of the body that will determine Judge Roberts's fate, was much more subdued, hewing to the Democrats' stated strategy of demanding a thorough vetting of any nominee by describing Judge Roberts as "someone with suitable legal credentials," whose record must now be examined "to determine if he has a demonstrated commitment to the core American values of freedom, equality and fairness."

In his campaign for the presidency five years ago, Mr. Bush pledged to appoint judges like Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, staunch conservatives with well-established judicial philosophies.

While Judge Roberts has impeccable Republican credentials and a record of service in the Reagan and first Bush administrations dating to 1981, his paper trail of opinions is comparatively thin, and he is not seen as a "movement conservative."

Justice O'Connor had long ago emerged as the fulcrum of the current court, a pivotal vote on abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty and religion. Judge Roberts's detailed views on many of those issues are less known.

Abortion rights groups fault him for arguing, as deputy solicitor general for the first Bush administration in 1990, in favor of a government regulation banning abortion-related counseling in federally financed family planning programs.

He also helped write a brief then that restated the administration's opposition to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that established the constitutional right to abortion, contending, "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

But when pressed in his 2003 confirmation hearings for his own views, he said: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land," and added, "There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

Such comments have made Judge Roberts somewhat suspect in the eyes of some social conservatives. But he arouses nothing like the opposition that conservatives leveled at another potential nominee, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, whose views on abortion are more uncertain.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/politics/politicsspecial1/20nominee.html?th&emc=th

 

[Annie]

Do we dare see this as a positive sign??





http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/politics/politicsspecial1/20nominee.html?th&emc=th

Tempered good news, but they've got the 'caveats' there for the future backing of not 'Sandra Day' enough.