home

Sen. Harry Reid to Oppose John Roberts

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid says he will vote against the nomination of John Roberts for Chief Justice of the United States.

Reid scheduled a speech on the Senate floor for mid-afternoon, at which he was expected to make his announcement public.

I suspect several other Democrats will also vote against Roberts. He didn't answer their direct questions about his views on abortion, civil rights and other important issues, sticking to his script about respecting precedent. His hearings were more like a law school class at which he was lecturer-in-chief.

As big as the abortion issue is to many folks, civil liberties in the broader context (Patriot Act, increased governmental snooping, etc.) the death penalty and criminal justice are my primary areas of concern. Roberts just about got a pass on all those issues from the Senators, and I'm not happy about that. Still, Roberts will be confirmed, and the real fight is yet to come - over Justice O'Connor's replacement. I'm holding my big guns for that one.

Update: From Sen. Reid's statement (received by e-mail):

“I was very impressed with Judge Roberts when I first met him, soon after he was nominated. But several factors caused me to reassess my initial view.

“Most notably, I was disturbed by the memos that surfaced from Judge Roberts’s years of service in the Reagan Administration. These memos raise serious questions about the nominee’s approach to civil rights.

“It is now clear that as a young lawyer, John Roberts played a significant role in shaping and advancing the Republican agenda to roll back civil rights protections. He wrote memos opposing legislative and judicial efforts to remedy race and gender discrimination. He urged his superiors to oppose Senator Kennedy’s 1982 bill to strengthen the Voting Rights Act and worked against affirmative action programs. He derided the concept of comparable worth and questioned whether women actually suffer discrimination in the workplace.

“No one suggests that John Roberts was motivated by bigotry or animosity towards minorities or women. But these memos lead one to question whether he truly appreciated the history of the civil rights struggle. He wrote about discrimination as an abstract concept, not as a flesh and blood reality for countless of his fellow citizens. The memos raised a real question for me whether their author would breathe life into the Equal Protection Clause and the landmark civil rights statutes that come before the Supreme Court repeatedly.

“Nonetheless, I was prepared to look past these memos, and chalk them up to the folly of youth. I looked forward to the confirmation hearings in the expectation that Judge Roberts would repudiate those views in some fashion. Instead, the nominee adopted what I consider a disingenuous strategy of suggesting that the views expressed in those memos were not his views, even at the time the memos were written. He claimed that he was merely a “staff lawyer” reflecting the positions of his client, the Reagan Administration.

“Anyone who has read the memos can see that Roberts was expressing his own personal views on these important policy matters. In memo after memo, the text is clear. It is simply not plausible for the nominee to claim that he did not share the views that he expressed.

“For example, there is a memo in which he refers to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as “un-American.” If Judge Roberts had testified that this was a twenty year old bad joke, I would have given the memo no weight. But instead, he provided a tortured reading of the memo that simply does not stand up under scrutiny.

“In another memo Judge Roberts spoke about a Hispanic group that President Reagan would soon address, and he suggested that the audience would be pleased to know that the Administration favored legal status for the “illegal amigos” of the audience members. The use of the Spanish word “amigos” in this memo is patronizing and offensive to a contemporary reader.

“I do not condemn Judge Roberts for using the word “amigos” twenty years ago in a non-public memo, but I was stunned when at his confirmation hearing he could not bring himself to express regret for using the term, or recognize that it might cause offense.

“My concerns about these Reagan-era memos were heightened by the fact that the White House rejected a reasonable request by Committee Democrats for documents written by Judge Roberts when he served in the first Bush Administration. After all, if memos written twenty years ago are to be dismissed as not reflecting the nominee’s mature thinking, it would be highly relevant to see memos he had written as an older man in an even more important policymaking job.

“The White House claim of attorney-client privilege to shield these documents is utterly unpersuasive. Senator Leahy asked Attorney General Gonzales for the courtesy of a meeting to discuss the matter and was turned down. This was simply a matter of stonewalling.

“The failure of the White House to produce relevant documents is reason enough for any Senator to oppose this nomination. The Administration cannot treat the Senate with such disrespect without some consequences.

“In the absence of these documents, it was especially important for the nominee to fully and forthrightly answer questions from Committee members at his hearing. He failed to do so adequately. I acknowledge the right – indeed, the duty – of a judicial nominee to decline to answer questions regarding specific cases that will come before the court to which the witness has been nominated. But Judge Roberts declined to answer many questions more remote than that, including questions seeking his views of long-settled precedents.

“Finally, I was very swayed by the testimony of civil rights and women’s rights leaders against confirmation. When a civil rights icon like John Lewis says that John Roberts was on the wrong side of history, Senators must take notice.

“I like Judge Roberts. I respect much of the work he has done in his career, such as his advocacy for environmentalists in the Lake Tahoe takings case several years ago. In the fullness of time, he may well prove to be a fine Supreme Court Justice. But I have reluctantly concluded that this nominee has not satisfied the high burden that would justify my voting for his confirmation based on the current record.

“Based on all of these factors, the balance shifts against Judge Roberts. The question is close, and the arguments against him do not warrant extraordinary procedural tactics to block the nomination. Nonetheless, I intend to cast my vote against this nominee when the Senate debates the matter next week.”

< Say Hello | Donated Food from UK for Katrina Victims Being Destroyed >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Sen. Harry Reid to Oppose John Roberts (none / 0) (#1)
    by Linkmeister on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    Maybe I missed it, but I didn't hear much about the Commerce clause or executive branch privilege, either.

    Re: Sen. Harry Reid to Oppose John Roberts (none / 0) (#2)
    by nolo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    He was very squirmy about the commerce clause.

    Re: Sen. Harry Reid to Oppose John Roberts (none / 0) (#3)
    by Lww on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    Can someone please tell me who are the obstructionists in this process ? Clinton's nominees get a 96-3 and 89-9 bipartisan confirmation vote and everything is fine... What gives?

    Re: Sen. Harry Reid to Oppose John Roberts (none / 0) (#4)
    by nolo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    Clinton hadn't campaigned on a promise to change the direction of Supreme Court jurisprudence. Plus, his nominees were very mainstream jurists.

    Re: Sen. Harry Reid to Oppose John Roberts (none / 0) (#5)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    LWW, So your argument is that a vote is a vote is a vote and all nominees are identical? I see.

    Re: Sen. Harry Reid to Oppose John Roberts (none / 0) (#6)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    Clinton consulted with repubs before nominating, that's how they got bipartisan support.

    Re: Sen. Harry Reid to Oppose John Roberts (none / 0) (#7)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    Keep holding those guns, TL. They'll look nice in the group photo if Harry let's you into it. This is just dumb politics. John Roberts was about the best you could reasonably hope for from this President. He's more conservative than you would prefer, but a lot less conservative than another Scalia would be. Now, instead of cooperating and gaining some leverage on the next pick, the Democrats are telegraphing the fast that they will be voting en masse against Roberts. The only thing they get out of this is the well-deserved reputation as sore-losers who will vote against a guy on grounds that they would scream bloody murder over if they were applied to a liberal nominee. The result? Bush will pick someone much further to the right to replace O'Connor, since he knows he can't rely on any support from the Democrats anyway and there is therefore nothing to lose in pissing them off even more (and much to be gained with his own rabid base). I wonder if Antonin has a brother?

    Re: Sen. Harry Reid to Oppose John Roberts (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    Those of us in the Goldwater faction of the Republican Party are uneasy about Roberts because of his apparent willingness to see the Commerce Clause as almost infinitely elastic. For my part, I'm really less concerned about how hypocritical Democrats may be with respect to the confirmation process or the fillibuster rule(s). Hypocrisy doesn't say anything about the rightness or wrongness of a thing. It's ludicrous to assume that the process of selecting judges isn't political. Everybody knows it. The two parties take turns pretending that it isn't. I do think that Clinton generally ran rings around the Republicans in Congress during his two terms in office. The Democrats facing Bush are much more combattive. The nomination that will be REALLY interesting will be O'Connor's replacement.

    Re: Sen. Harry Reid to Oppose John Roberts (none / 0) (#9)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    Plus, his nominees were very mainstream jurists.
    Ginsburg was "mainstream"? Your definition is certainly different than mine.

    Re: Sen. Harry Reid to Oppose John Roberts (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:07 PM EST
    Roberts will be fine. The Democrats on the otherhand are in for a tough road ahead. If they vote as a bloc then they are telegraphing their next moves. The only thing they will have left is the filibuster and the Republicans will remove that obstacle through parlimentary proceedure. The Dems will have effectively removed themselves from the Advise and Consent clause. So all they will be able to do is howl with impotence to their enablers in the MSM while the Bushies will install their justice. Negatism doesn't sell and right that's all the Dems are selling.

    Re: Sen. Harry Reid to Oppose John Roberts (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:07 PM EST
    Bush isn't just a lame duck at this point. He's a wounded, almost dead duck. 58 percent disapproval rate will finally give the Democrats a spine like nothing else has before.

    Re: Sen. Harry Reid to Oppose John Roberts (none / 0) (#13)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:07 PM EST
    Ginsburg was "mainstream"?
    If you don't like the appointment of Ginsburg, you should blame Orrin Hatch, you know, the republican senator from Utah. In his own words:
    Our conversation moved to other potential candidates. I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer's name but had not thought about Judge Ginsberg


    Re: Sen. Harry Reid to Oppose John Roberts (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:08 PM EST
    "....Reid to Oppose John Roberts"
    Surprise, surprise, Sgt Carter.


    Re: Sen. Harry Reid to Oppose John Roberts (none / 0) (#16)
    by nolo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:08 PM EST
    Personally, I think things like equal rights under the law for women are now -- and should be -- mainstream. And advancing women's rights is the main area in which Justice Ginsburg had been occupied as a practicing lawyer. Moreover, there was nothing standing out in her opinions as an appellate court judge (other than a demonstrated competence in understanding administrative law issues, IMHO). So yeah, I think she's pretty mainstream. Plus, she was recommended to Clinton by Orrin Hatch, of all people.

    Re: Sen. Harry Reid to Oppose John Roberts (none / 0) (#17)
    by ntnelson on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:08 PM EST
    A former general Counsel for the ACLU can hardly be considered mainstream. And her voting record has thus far demonstrated just how out of the mainstream she is.

    Re: Sen. Harry Reid to Oppose John Roberts (none / 0) (#18)
    by nolo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:08 PM EST
    ntnelson, give me some examples of votes by Ginsburg that you consider to be evidence that she is not "mainstream."

    Re: Sen. Harry Reid to Oppose John Roberts (none / 0) (#19)
    by ntnelson on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:08 PM EST
    To name a few: 1. Finding a statute unconstitutional that bans partial birth abortion. (which as I'm sure you know was supported by numerous lefties) 2. The recent Kelo decision regarding eminent domain. (way out of the mainstream) 3. Finding it unconstitutional to have a ten commandments display on public property. This is out of the mainstream, just look at public opinion polling. (This was her decision in both cases. Even Breyer parted with the lefties in one of the cases)

    Re: Sen. Harry Reid to Oppose John Roberts (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:09 PM EST
    NOLO above said the Clinton's nominations to the SC were "mainstream jurists"???????????? Ginsberg was the GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE ACLU -- hardly a "mainstream jurist", at least to non-extremists.

    Re: Sen. Harry Reid to Oppose John Roberts (none / 0) (#21)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:09 PM EST
    Once again slowly for the mentally challenged: g i n s b u r g w a s o r i n h a t c h 's i d e a. confirmed 96 - 3. And it is amazing how much rethuglicans hate the constitution and don't want see it upheld.

    Re: Sen. Harry Reid to Oppose John Roberts (none / 0) (#22)
    by ntnelson on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:09 PM EST
    Ginsburg was Hatch's idea, and it was a terrible idea. Hatch blew it. Plain and simple. The Republicans should have never let someone like that through. I don't think wanting to interpret what the constitution says is hating the constitution. I think making up liberal rights which are not even implied in the constitution is much closer to "hating" the constitution. For example: the right to an abortion is a FUNDAMENTAL right and encompassed in the term "liberty." (Roe v. Wade). Conservatives would rather leave issues which are clearly not addressed in the constitution to the political process via legislation or a constitutional amendment. How is that "hating" the constitution? If you guys could win an election, acheiving your goals through the political process might not sound so terrible.

    Re: Sen. Harry Reid to Oppose John Roberts (none / 0) (#23)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:09 PM EST
    Have to agree with justpaul on this one. Just as I opposed fillibustering all along, so too do I think it's a silly idea to vote against Roberts here. Does Reid or anyone else think they can somehow hold off appointees for the next 2-4 years. The very idea is stupid. So too is it stupid to think that Bush is ever going to nominate a justice not hostile to privacy. Roe is dead. Lawrence is dead. Privacy rights in general are dead. They were all pronounced dead the morning after Bush was reelected. Roberts sucks, I doubt he'll turn out a white different from Scalia. But he's what we're gonna get.