WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 - Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said today that he will vote against the confirmation of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to be the 17th chief justice of the United States, in part because he does not know enough about him.
"No one doubts that John Roberts is an excellent lawyer and an affable person," Mr. Reid said on the Senate floor. "But at the end of this process, I have too many unanswered questions about the nominee to justify a vote confirming him to this enormously important lifetime position."
The move comes as a surprise; many Senate observers expected Mr. Reid, who comes from a Republican-leaning state, to support Judge Roberts. But with a second vacancy on the court, Mr. Reid could be using his vote to send a message to the White House, which must replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a critical swing vote on the court.
Democrats have insisted that Mr. Bush replace Justice O'Connor with a moderate, and Mr. Reid has already declared that several candidates the White House is considering would be unacceptable to Democrats.
"The stakes for the American people could not be higher," Mr. Reid said of the Roberts nomination. "The retirement of Justice O'Connor and the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist have left the Supreme Court in a period of transition. On key issues affecting the rights and freedoms of Americans, the court is closely divided. If confirmed, Judge Roberts, who is only 50 years old, will likely serve as chief justice and leader of the third branch of the federal government for decades to come."
It is about time that the Democrats finally start growing a backbone!
One of the biggest problems that I have with Roberts is that I still don't know much about him. At the confirmation hearings, Roberts pretty much avoided, deflected, or refused to answer any questions about how he views a number of issues on the grounds that they may come up in future court cases. So by refusing to answer these questions, we are to assume that you're qualified to be the Chief Justice, even though we have no idea what you stand for? I didn't like that--especially since if Roberts does get on the bench, he will be handing down rulings until 2030 or beyond.
The second thing I have always been worried about was Roberts work at the solicitor general's office during the Reagan and first Bush administrations. It seems that this current Bush administration refuses to release a number of documents that Roberts had written, while working in the government, claiming a right of confidentiality in consultations between the lawyer-client (in this case, the client is the U.S. Government). So these papers could not be released to the American public--even though the American public is the ultimate boss of who to hire and fire of their elected employees of the U.S. Government. And since Roberts is being introduced to the American public for his new government job, the American public should have a right to know what is in those papers that Roberts had written for the government. Either way, the American publics opinion doesn't really count in this Bush administration, the Roberts papers are buried, and the Democrats have lied down and died on that issue.
What I really wanted the Democrats to do was to filibuster Roberts. Filibuster Roberts until the White House does release all of those papers that Roberts had written while he was working at the solicitor general's office. That way we could understand Roberts' views and his mode of thinking. And if there were questions in those papers, then Roberts should have to answer for them. I doubt that will ever happen. Democrats and Republicans are afraid of the 'nuclear option' that the filibuster of a Supreme Court justice would cause--even though we nearly went nuclear over the federal appeals court justices. But here's the problem. If the Democrats do not use the filibuster against Roberts now, who is to say what selections Bush will pick for replacing O'Conner? Why not threaten to filibuster Roberts unless the White House relinquishes and gives up those papers (Of course, we know that Bush will refuse, therefore the Democrats would have to filibuster anyway, the Republicans would try to change the rules, and we'd have gridlock in the Senate).
Fine. Do it. Start opposing this corrupt administration! Don't lie down and die--stand up and fight against the extremism. This is a small step where Harry Reid is opposing Roberts. Now start taking larger steps, and start acting like a true opposition party, where the party in power has to truly give up something in compromise. Don't play the cheap, demeaning rubber-stamp that the Democrats have been doing for the last five years.
No comments:
Post a Comment