Kennedy Says Roberts and Alito Misled Us
Posted by on July 31, 2006 at 02:40 PM
The Washington Post featured an article over the weekend by U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA). In it, he claims former Supreme Court nominees and current Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito misled the Senate Judiciary Committee on their judicial philosphies.
Now that the votes are in from their first term, we can see plainly the agenda that Roberts and Alito sought to conceal from the committee. Our new justices consistently voted to erode civil liberties, decrease the rights of minorities and limit environmental protections. At the same time, they voted to expand the power of the president, reduce restrictions on abusive police tactics and approve federal intrusion into issues traditionally governed by state law.
As a geek who followed the committee hearings obsessively, I wholeheartedly agree. While most Republican senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee decided that the proceedings were no more than a chance to suck up to the future justices, Democratic senators on the committee asked the tough questions. However, they were for the most part not answered by either nominee. John Roberts refused to answer most questions of substance on his rulings and professional experience, claiming he didn't want to be bound to follow his answers when deciding cases. Please note: this is not a good argument.
Sen. Kennedy argues in his piece that Roberts and Alito purposely evaded questions on their views, yet their votes on Supreme Court cases show them as the ultra-conservatives the Democratic committee members figured they were. Unfortunately, because the nominees would not answer questions, the American public effectively had the wool pulled over their eyes -- until now. A sampling:
During Roberts's hearing, I asked him about his statement that a key part of the Voting Rights Act constitutes one of "the most intrusive interferences imaginable by federal courts into state and local processes." In response, he suggested that his words were nothing more than an "effort to articulate the views of the administration . . . for which I worked 23 years ago."
Today -- too late -- it is clear that Roberts's personal view is the same as it was 23 years ago. In League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry , the Supreme Court held that Texas's 2003 redistricting plan violated the Voting Rights Act by protecting a Republican legislator against a growing Latino population. Roberts reached a different view, concluding that the courts should not have been involved and that it "is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race."
Similarly, Alito had a pattern of ruling against individuals in Fourth Amendment cases -- including a case involving the strip-search of a 10-year-old girl. When questioned, he insisted that one of the judiciary's most important roles "is to stand up and defend the rights of people when they are violated." But Alito cast the deciding vote in Hudson v. Michigan , in which the court decided -- contrary to almost a century of precedent -- that evidence gathered during an unconstitutional search of a suspect's home could be used to convict him.
But all is not lost - today we launch 100actions.com, where an action a day will help Democrats win in state legislature races, take back the Senate (where having a majority would've allowed us to block right-wing extremists like Roberts and Alito), and compete in every race in every state across the country.
Comments (10) «
Too bad people like Joe Lieberman voted for cloture ensuring Alito and Roberts would get shoe-horned by the Rubber Stamp Republicans.
Hi Zofyne,
Come on down to the OPEN THREAD, I know it is buried, but there you can voice your concerns with like minded people from all over the country.
ACTUALLY I forgot, where is the Middle East Crisis thread?
And why is this Press Release not made into a Thread, so that people may voice their concerns. Isn't that what the Democratic Party stands for. Seems kind of odd, that an important release is not made into a Thread.
Zofyne -
Amen! Lieberman claims with such a straight face that his jowels alkmost lose their wrinkles that he voted "against" Alito, Yes he did. But he also voted for cloture...i.e., against filibuster)...the ONLY action that Democrats had available to defeat the worst USSC nominee this country has seen in the last 80 years.
Just as a reminder (and a pop quiz follows, kiddies) here are the gutless Dems who voted for cloture:
Akaka (HI)
Baucus (MT) (DLC)
Bingaman (NM) (DLC)
Byrd (WV)
Cantwell (WA) (DLC)
Carper (DE) (DLC)
Conrad (ND) (DLC)
Dorgan (ND) (DLC)
Inouye (HI) (DLC)
Johnson (SD) (DLC)
Kohl (WI) (DLC)
Landrieu (LA) (DLC)
Lieberman (CT) (DLC)
Lincoln (AR) (DLC)
Nelson (FL) (DLC)
Nelson (NE) (DLC)
Pryor (AR) (DLC)
Rockefeller (WV)
Salazar (CO) (DLC)
So...on to the quiz...
Does anyone see a trend here?
The only reason I'm not voting against Max Bachus this time, is that he isn't up for re-election until 2008. I want him to run so I can vote against him.
Montana hasn't had a chance with 2 rubber-stamp Republicans and a Republi-lite.
The Rebli-lites sold us down the river and now we're stuck with a Supreme Court that wants to change the Constitution.
is anyone really surprised by the supreme court, hand-picked federalist judges to support the neocon regime? this is precisely why the entire process of "appointments" needs to be changed. the laws of this land cannot ebb and flow with popular, or dictatorial opinion! social law is much like physical law. any force against the natural social law always results in social chaos, which is exactly what all the neocons want, or should i say neofascists!
People say they are mad at Democratics who voted for the war and for voting for Roberts and Alito. WHY? They were lied too just like all Americans.
Just because they are in office does not mean that they cannot be lied too. I was for the war at first until I found out what a lier George bush is. There are a lot of Democratics who are in the same boat when they thought that the president of the United states would not lie. Nor did they think that Supreme Court Justices would put the the people last over the president.
Wake up people. We have been lied to ever since they stole the election. Like I said. We do not have a chance in this country if people dont wake up and vote Democratic.
I am sick all ready from being lied to since 2001, when bush was sworn in. This, The Supreme Court of OUR United States is going against the will of the people and precident has been set for them to follow for years. I was a registered republican until 1988 when I moved to Arkansas. I survived several governors of both parties, attended watch parties including the 2000 Florida hand off to the republicans. This is nothing less than a slap in the face of all Americans, including the 10 year old girl. I have 3 daughters and I can truly feel sorry for her, and the humiliation she will have to live with because we have the most crooked court in the history of the country.
If I am wrong, missed the point or hit it, please let me know.
Thanks
Carl
No, the real Democrats supported the filibuster, but they were put down by the Republi-lite sell-outs, who are more interested in their own personal power and fortune than helping the people who elected them.
We need to fire the Republi-lites, who have divided the Democrats, and get this party back to it's true base.
Why is it that the congress critters are always claiming that they were misled when anyone with a lick of common sense like us Democratic Voters knew what they were really like?
This is just more BS from twisting in the wind Kerry and the other DLC folk.
« Hide Comments
Comments are now closed for this entry.
