|
Hillary to confirm bush court nomination { July 25 2005 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/05072503.htmlhttp://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/05072503.html
Monday July 25, 2005
Hillary Clinton to Vote To Confirm Judge Robert's Supreme Court Nomination Says Clinton Insider
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 25, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - According to an 'exclusive' report printed on DrudgeReport.com, the popular conservative online news portal, a Hillary Clinton insider has said that Senator Clinton intends to vote to confirm Judge Roberts, "unless some unforeseen development occurs."
"Look, we're not thrilled President Bush is in office and gets to make these choices," said the source, "but we have to make the best of the situation until the next election!...[Hillary] is simply doing what is right for the country, not MOVEON.ORG."
MOVEON.ORG is one of the liberal activist groups that have come out swinging against Roberts, asking their supporters to request that their senators oppose Robert's nomination. "In nominating John Roberts," claims MOVEON.ORG, "the president has chosen a right wing corporate lawyer and ideologue for the nation's highest court instead of a judge who would protect the rights of the American people." In attempt to discredit Robert's from the liberal perspective, MOVEON.ORG points an accusing finger saying that "[Roberts] wrote that Roe v. Wade should be 'overruled,' and as a lawyer argued (and won) the case that stopped some doctors from even discussing abortion."
In the meantime, a poll conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs, of 752 American adults has shown that 47% of Americans believe that the senate should confirm Roberts, while 24% believe that the senate should not confirm Roberts, and 29% are unsure. A similar telephone poll conducted by TNS of 500 Americans and released by the Washington Post concluded that 59% of Americans believe that the senate should confirm Roberts, with 23% opposed, and 18% having no opinion.
The same TNS poll asked the following further, and pertinent question: "Should the senators vote to confirm Roberts if they believe he has the right background and qualifications to serve on the high court, but disagree with his judicial philosophy and legal opinions?" 53% answered 'yes', the senate should confirm him even if they disagree with his judicial philosophy and legal opinions, while 41% said no, and 6% had no opinion.
It is expected that during the senate hearings into Roberts' nomination, Roberts will likely be grilled on his personal opinions about certain hot-button topics, most notably abortion and gay rights.
If the 1993 senate hearing that saw Roberts confirmed to the appellate court is any indication, Republicans can expect a heated battle over Robert's confirmation. According to audio clips unearthed last week by television host Sean Hannity, the 1993 hearing was so hostile that the generally soft-spoken Utah Senator Orrin Hatch publicly blasted New York senator Charles Schumer for asking "dumbass questions."
"Some [of Schumer's questions] I totally disagree with. Some I think are dumbass questions, between you and me," said the senator. "I am not kidding you," Hatch continued. "I mean, as much as I love and respect [Schumer], I just think that's true."
When asked if he would like to retract the unusually vehement opinion Senator Hatch responded: "No, I am going to keep it exactly the way it is. I mean, I hate to say it. I mean, I feel badly saying it between you and me. But I do know dumbass questions when I see dumbass questions."
So far, however, Democrats have avoided reactionary tactics, recognizing that with Roberts, Bush has chosen a man with an impeccable record. Roberts himself has gone on record explaining that his remarks concerning the overruling of Roe V. Wade were written in his capacity as a lawyer for the original Bush administration, and did not reflect his personal opinion, while consistently demurring from answering further questions about abortion. Other liberal activist groups have pointed to Robert's wife's involvement with the pro-life group Feminists for Life as evidence of his pro-life sympathies; but Washington on the whole has not embraced this view, proving loathe stoop to the point of calling into question the activities of those who are close to Roberts when they have been unable to find any 'dirt' on Roberts personally.
Conservative approval of Roberts, on the other hand, focuses almost entirely on his judicial philosophy, which philosophy reveals a judge bent only on applying the law; many conservatives are looking to Roberts as the perfect candidate to provide relief from an increasingly activist Supreme Court. The reason that pro-abortion advocates are concerned is that even many liberals will agree that the 'right' to abortion is an untenable right under Constitutional law. Given Robert's traditional 'apply the law' philosophy it is likely that Roberts would vote to overturn Roe V. Wade. (For more info read Edward Whelan's column "Abortion & Justice": http://www.nationalreview.com/whelan/whelan2005072...)
|
|
