Skip to main content

View Diary: Surrender Dems (442 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Edwards Against Roberts (none)
    Email from John Edwards today:

    The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the most important judge on the most important court in our country, responsible for protecting and upholding the rights and freedoms outlined in our Constitution. I have carefully reviewed Judge John Roberts' testimony and listened to him give unsubstantial, boilerplate answers and avoid answering even the most basic questions about his own views today.

    Based on everything I have seen and read from Judge Roberts' work in the Reagan Administration, his past opinions, and his most recent testimony, I wanted you to be the first to know that I must oppose his nomination to be our country's Chief Justice.

    I do so because we do know the views and positions he took prior to the recent hearings. Judge Roberts opposed efforts to remedy discrimination on the basis of sex and race. He opposed measures to protect voting rights. He denigrated the right to privacy and a woman's right to choose. He wanted to allow Congress to strip away courts' jurisdiction over controversial subjects.

    Although he has presented himself as a supporter of judicial restraint, I do not see enough evidence that Judge Roberts would show restraint when his own political commitments are at stake. In light of his past positions, I believe he had an affirmative obligation to make the case to those who might confirm him that he repudiates the positions that he had previously advocated in his professional career. He made a choice and refused to meet that obligation. I cannot support someone who I am not convinced will preserve the liberties and freedoms that are enshrined in our Constitution and our laws.

    Please join me in fighting for the principles and values that each of us cherish. Contact your Senators and tell them to vote no on Judge Roberts' nomination.

    -- John

    Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

    by philgoblue on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 02:37:54 PM PDT

    •  It's *still* *all* *about* *Hamdan*. (none)
      Only one thing missing: you should have mentioned the Hamdan decision, which claimed that the Geneva Conventions were unenforceable and severely denigrated the right of habeas corpus.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site