Justice Roberts - Legitimate Concerns

Statement of Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) on the Roberts nomination

"The nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States is a matter of tremendous consequence for future generations of Americans. It requires thoughtful inquiry and debate, and I commend my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee for their dedication to making sure that all questions were presented and that those outside of the Senate had the opportunity to make their voices heard. After serious and careful consideration of the Committee proceedings and Judge Roberts’s writings, I believe I must vote against his confirmation. I do not believe that the Judge has presented his views with enough clarity and specificity for me to in good conscience cast a vote on his behalf.
The Constitution commands that the Senate provide meaningful advice and consent to the President on judicial nominations, and I have an obligation to my constituents to make sure that I cast my vote for Chief Justice of the United States for someone I am convinced will be steadfast in protecting fundamental women’s rights, civil rights, privacy rights, and who will respect the appropriate separation of powers among the three branches. After the Judiciary Hearings, I believe the record on these matters has been left unclear. That uncertainly means as a matter of conscience, I cannot vote to confirm despite Judge Roberts’s long history of public service.
In one memo, for example, Judge Roberts argued that Congress has the power to deny the Supreme Court the right to hear appeals from lower courts of constitutional claims involving flag burning, abortion, and other matters. He wrote that the United States would be far better off with fifty different interpretations on the right to choose than with what he called the “judicial excesses embodied in Roe v. Wade.” The idea that the Supreme Court could be denied the right to rule on constitutional claims had been so long decided that even the most conservative of Judge Roberts’s Justice Department colleagues strongly disagreed with him.
When questioned about his legal memoranda, Judge Roberts claimed they did not necessarily reflect his views and that he was merely making the best possible case for his clients or responding to a superior’s request that he make a particular argument. But he did not clearly disavow the strong and clear views he expressed, but only shrouded them in further mystery. Was he just being an advocate for a client or was he using his position to advocate for positions he believed in? The record is unclear.
It is hard to believe he has no opinion on so many critical issues after years as a Justice Department and White House lawyer, appellate advocate and judge. His supporters remind us that Chief Justice Rehnquist supported the constitutionality of legal segregation before his elevation to the high court, but never sought to bring it back while serving the court system as its Chief Justice. But I would also remind them of Justice Thomas’s assertion in his confirmation hearing that he had never even discussed Roe v. Wade, much less formed an opinion on it. Shortly after he ascended to the Court, Justice Thomas made it clear that he wanted to repeal Roe.
Adding to testimony that clouded more than clarified is that we in the Senate have been denied the full record of Judge Roberts’s writings despite our repeated requests. Combined, these two events have left a question mark on what Judge Roberts’s views are and how he might rule on critical questions of the day. It is telling that President Bush has said the Justices he most admires are the two most conservative justices, Justices Thomas and Scalia. It is not unreasonable to believe that the President has picked someone in Judge Roberts whom he believes holds a similarly conservative philosophy, and that voting as a bloc they could further limit the power of the Congress, expand the purview of the Executive, and overturn key rulings like Roe v. Wade.
Since I expect Judge Roberts to be confirmed, I hope that my concerns are unfounded and that he will be the kind of judge he said he would be during his confirmation hearing. If so, I will be the first to acknowledge it. However, because I think he is far more likely to vote the views he expressed in his legal writings, I cannot give my consent to his confirmation and will, therefore, vote against his confirmation. My desire to maintain the already fragile Supreme Court majority for civil rights, voting rights and women’s rights outweigh the respect I have for Judge Roberts’s intellect, character, and legal skills."

Katrina - Paying the Piper

Thankfully, for the sake of the people in its wake, the federal government seems to be preparing much better for Hurricane Rita than it did for Hurricane Katrina. Those preparations put the lie to the spinmeisters of the Bush Administration and its apologists that it did not have the authority to act prior to Katrina - for there certainly has been no new authorization to act passed by Congress since Katrina.
 
The cleanup of Katrina is estimated to cost at least $200 billion. With Hurricane Rita now in the gulf, headed for the Texas coast, who knows what the cleanup cost for that will be. Presumably, George Bush is not going to do any less for Texas than he has promised for Louisiana, Mississippi, etc.
 
Responsible members of Congress are concerned about how we are going to pay for the cleanup. Unfortunately, the initial answers coming from the Republican majority and the Bush Administration seem to be focused on the backs of the less advantaged citizens among us.
 
One thing seems certain. The issue of how to pay for the cleanup would be much simpler with the $236 billion dollar budget surplus that the Clinton Administration left the Bush Administration than it is with the estimated $331 billion budget deficit for the current fiscal year that the Bush Administration has saddled us with

O'Reilly - United Nations

On September 14, in his radio commentary on the Westwood One network, Bill O'Reilly made the following statement about the United Nations:

O'REILLY: “Bush to address the U.N., says we must be steadfast in battling terrorism. I'm sure all the U.N. people fell asleep. They don't really care about anything over there at all. I just wish Katrina had only hit the United Nations building, nothing else, just had flooded them out. And I wouldn't have rescued them.”

While it could be argued that Mr. O'Reilly was engaging in hyperbole, in essence he was advocating the deaths of many Americans and people of other nationalities who work at the UN to support his ideological agenda. I find this type of inflammatory rhetoric abhorrent and unacceptable.

If you agree with my conclusion that this commentary is unacceptable, I urge you to contact Westwood One and/or Mr. O'Reilly to voice your concern. Contact Information is below. I have also included a copy of the message that I sent which may or may not assist you in your message.

Bill O'Reilly - oreilly@foxnews.com
Westwood One Radio Network:
Westwood One Bart Tessler Sr. VP, Network News / Talk Programming 202.457.7998
shane_coppola@westwoodone.com
________________________________________
E:mail to Westwood One:
On his September 14 radio program on your network, Bill O'Reilly stated that he wished Katrina had hit the United Nations building and that he would not have rescued the people who work there. While Mr. O'Reilly has a Constitutional right to air his opinion, I question whether this kind of rhetoric should be acceptable to your network, no matter how many listeners he attracts.

Do you really wish to be known as the network which supports the advocacy of killing Americans (and the people of many other nations who work at the United Nations) for partisan ideological reasons? At the very least, a repudiation of the comment is warranted, if not a thorough review of whether Mr. O'Reilly represents the type of commentator that your network wishes to employ and support.

Thank you for your consideration.

Judge Roberts - Qualified?

That Judge Roberts is technically qualified for the position of Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court is beyond question. What is not beyond question is whether Judge Roberts has a fundamental understanding that the underlying purpose of the law is to provide justice for the people.

Judge Learned Hand, regarded as one of the finest jurists in United States history, once admonished his colleagues that “If we are to keep democracy, there must be a commandment: Thou shalt not ration justice.” Contrary to Judge Hand’s admonition, Judge Roberts’ record as a member of two administrations, as a private attorney, and as a judge clearly indicates an attempt to restrict citizens’ access to the courts and justice. Denial of access to the courts and the right to be heard is a perverse method to deny justice.

Judge Roberts has said that he “loves the law.” When he is confirmed, I hope that he learns to love the people more whom the law is intended to protect.