Other Columns by Lisa Sarrach
Lisa Sarrach Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

Let's take a look at the statements of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee who voted against sending John Roberts to the full Senate for his confirmation vote, shall we?

Diane Feinstein -- "I can not in good conscience cast a 'yea' vote, I'm the only woman on this committee, and when I started I said that was going to be my bar, and he didn't cross my bar."

Joe Biden -- "But I have serious doubts that Judge Roberts will fall into the category of the justices from Chief Justice Marshall to Souter, Kennedy, Ginsburg, O'Connor, who look at the Constitution, quoting Marshall, as "a Constitution ... intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs." That's an expanding document. It's a close call, and I hope he will prove me wrong, but I believe he will not. I plan on voting no."

Ted Kennedy -- "Based on the record available, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Judge Roberts's view of the rule of law would include as paramount the protection of basic rights. The values and perspectives displayed over and over again in his record cast doubt on his view of voting rights, women's rights, civil rights, and disability rights."

Sen. Durbin -- For some, the vote was deeply personal. Mr. Durbin and Mrs. Feinstein in particular seemed troubled that they could not crack Judge Roberts's veneer as a calm, collected lawyer. Mr. Durbin, quoting the Bible, lamented that he could not discern whether Judge Roberts had "an understanding heart." NY Times-9-23-05

Senator Schumer -- "Judge Roberts, if you want my vote, you need to meet two criteria. First, you need to answer questions fully so we can ascertain your judicial philosophy. And second, once we have ascertained your philosophy, it must be clear that it is in the broad mainstream. Judge Roberts, if you answer important questions forthrightly and convince me that you are a jurist in the broad mainstream, I will be able to vote for you. If you do not, I will not be able to vote for you."

And we can't forget the erstwhile co-president and all but assured candidate for the White House in 2008, Hillary (this time I'll be president all by myself) Clinton as she felt compelled to issue a statement before the full Senate vote declaring Roberts unfit because he's hostile to civil rights, women's rights and voting rights even though she respects his intellect, character and legal skills -- what compartmentalization, what political skills, what a woman!!

Why would these senators vote against the sure confirmation of this esteemed and almost universally respected and revered Supreme Court nominee? Well, there are a few answers, one more insidious then the next. First they need to pay heed to their political base, i.e., the special interest groups, who raise the money they need to run their political PACS and their re-elections. Second, they can't do their job so they expect the Court to do it for them and third, they hate President Bush and anything he wants, they don't.

>> Continued -- Page 1 2