A response from Sen. Leahy

[wtbymark]

got this email this morning, any comments?

Dear Mr. XXXXXX:



Thank you for contacting me about the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. to the Supreme Court of the United States . I appreciate hearing from you.



I take my constitutional responsibility with respect to advice and consent seriously. I am one vote out of 100, but I recognize that I am entrusted with protecting the rights of nearly 620,000 Vermonters as well as the 280 million other citizens of our nation.



I want a Supreme Court that acts in its finest tradition as a source of justice. The Supreme Court must be an institution where the Bill of Rights and human dignity are honored.



The Chief Justice is responsible for the way in which the judicial branch administers justice for all Americans. He must know in his core that the words engraved in the Vermont marble on the Supreme Court building are not just "Under Law" but "Equal Justice under Law." It is not just the rule of law that he must serve, but the cause of justice under our great charter.



I have not been entirely pleased with the nomination process thus far. Though Chairman Specter and I worked together to hold efficient and fair hearings, I have been extremely disappointed by the lack of cooperation from the Administration. There could and should have been consultation with the Senate on the nomination of someone to succeed Chief Justice Rehnquist and to serve as the 17th Chief Justice of the United States. There was none. The Bush Administration committed another disservice to this nomination by withholding information that has traditionally been shared with the Senate. The Administration treated Senators' requests for information with little respect. They stonewalled entirely the narrowly tailored request for a selection of Roberts' work papers from his time at the Office of the Solicitor General. The precedent from Chief Justice Rehnquist's hearing and others of course goes the other ! way.



For these and other reasons, the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States presented a close question and one that I had to carefully weigh and decide. This is a question that holds serious consequences for all Americans, today and for generations to come. I have approached this nomination with an open mind, as I do with all judicial nominations.



I made no secret of my concerns about this nomination. In advance of the hearing, I met twice with Judge Roberts and for nearly three hours in all, raised my concerns. I provided him additional opportunities to respond during the hearing. I told him that I was concerned that he would undercut fundamental rights of privacy or equal protection. However, Judge Roberts assured me in his testimony that he recognizes Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey as established precedents of the Supreme Court that are entitled to respect. I told him that I was concerned that he would not act as an effective check on the abuse of presidential power. However, over the course of our meetings and the hearings, he assured me that he can and will act as a check on the executive branch when necessary and will respect congressional authority.



In my judgment, in my experience, but especially in my conscience, I find it is better to vote for John Roberts than against him. Ultimately, my Vermont roots have always told me to go with my conscience, and they do so now.



Judge Roberts is a man of integrity. I can only take him at his word that he does not have an ideological agenda. For me, a vote to confirm requires faith that the words he spoke to us have meaning. I can only take him at his word that he will steer the court to serve as an appropriate check on potential abuses of presidential power.



I respect those who have come to different conclusions, and I readily acknowledge the unknowable at this moment, that perhaps they are right and I am wrong. Only time will tell whether Judge Roberts proves to be the kind of Chief Justice he says he would be, if he truly will be "his own man." I hope and trust that he will be.



Thank you again for contacting me. Please keep in touch.





Patrick Leahy
UNITED STATES SENATOR

[bahrbearian]

1. "I can only take him at his word"

Thats the problem isn't it ?

[electropop]

9. Never take the BFEE at their word!

Is Leahy losing it? Doesn't he know, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice....Can't get fooled again." How many times does Bush have to trick him before he stops falling for it?

[Child_Of_Isis]

2. I find it is better to vote for John Roberts than against him

Wonder what the hell that means?

[ChowChowChow]

3. means he will be looking for some payback from the Chimp

nothing more nothing less...He needs to be fired.....

[In Truth We Trust]

4. SELL OUT!

[txaslftist]

5. Sen. Leahy has to go with what he knows...

...not speculate on what he can't know.

Seriously, folks, what is the man supposed to do? It is not as if he can prevent Roberts from being confirmed. He could filibuster, but to what avail? The only thing that would accomplish is a showdown in the Senate, where the Republicans throw out the filibuster rules and Roberts (and the next nominee, don't forget) get a straight, minimal discussion, up or down vote.

I think Leahy made the right call here, and I appreciate both the tenor and the candor of his letter.

[electropop]

10. What he knows is that Roberts is sneaky and secretive...

but the positions we have been able to glean from the minimal writings available are horrible. What more does Leahy need for a 'NO' vote? Maybe some courage? Is he afraid that Frist will start anthraxing people again?

[Amy6627]

11. He should go on what he knows and must vote against him!

What we know about Roberts:

He upheld the decision that says it's ok to hold US Citizens indefinitely without charges or access to council.

He went to Florida in 2000 and help orchestrate the group to stop counting votes and get B*sh appointed.

He is part of the Federalist Society, a group that wants to end civil liberties.

So on what we know about Roberts IS enough to vote against him! This administration would not have nominated him if he was not behind their agenda 1000%.

This administration is driving the country like they stole it, because they DID! They are trying to get as much damage done as fast as they can, Roberts is one of THEM!

[beam me up scottie]

14. Did you read the letter?

Sen. Leahy cannot go by what "we" know.
He is bound by duty to make his judgement based upon what he knows.
His letter makes it clear that if he had had enough reason to vote no, he most certainly would have.

[Amy6627]

16. Yes I did read his letter. And with all we do know about Roberts

I find it quite disturbing that Leahy said,

"Judge Roberts is a man of integrity. I can only take him at his word that he does not have an ideological agenda. For me, a vote to confirm requires faith that the words he spoke to us have meaning. I can only take him at his word that he will steer the court to serve as an appropriate check on potential abuses of presidential power".

Roberts has shown us what kind of man he is, which is at the very least unethical. (He met with B*sh to discuss this nomination while he was deciding B*sh's case about holding US citizens indefinitely!)

We must believe our eyes and not what they are telling us. When a man shows you who he is we MUST believe him. Roberts has shown us what kind of man he is with his actions. His words are meaningless!

[beam me up scottie]

17. "WE" are not in the position Sen. Leahy is in.

"WE" can afford to let our gut instincts and emotions dictate how we vote.

Senator Leahy cannot.

He took an oath of office and takes his responsibility seriously enough to not ignore the law when he makes his decisions.

I expect nothing less from him, no matter how emotional I become.

[shance]

6. That is close to being the most spineless response I have read.

It is obvious his self protection and comfort supercedes the rights of women and minorities.

I hope Vermonters will call his office today and let him know he's acting out of cowardice and not conviction.

[beam me up scottie]

8. Most Vermonters are not that shallow.

Most would not condemn a man for voting his conscience.

Especially when he has a stellar record fighting for our civil liberties.

[Amy6627]

12. Voting for Roberts will undo all the fighting Leahy has done for our

civil liberties!

[beam me up scottie]

13. No, it will not.

His voting against his conscience, for purely emotional reasons would be dishonest, an abuse of power and also ineffective.

It would make him the equivalent of those we seek to oust from the Senate.

[Amy6627]

15. There are facts that exist right now, not emotions that prove

Roberts will not uphold the Constitution based on thing he has done and supported as a judge such as:

He upheld the decision that says it's ok to hold US Citizens indefinitely without charges or access to council.

He went to Florida in 2000 and help orchestrate the group to stop counting votes and get B*sh appointed.

He is part of the Federalist Society, a group that wants to end civil liberties.

So on what we know (not feel) about Roberts IS enough to vote against him! This administration would not have nominated him if he was not behind their agenda 1000%.

This administration is driving the country like they stole it, because they DID! They are trying to get as much damage done as fast as they can, Roberts is one of THEM!

[beam me up scottie]

18. You obviously do not understand the difference

between what "we" supposedly know and what the Senator had to base his decision on.

Read it again.

He tried to find a reason that would allow him to vote no.

He fought tirelessly for the records that might have given him such a reason.

In the end, had to go with what he had.

[Amy6627]

19. You obviously do understand what is at stake here! "We" don't

"supposedly" know what kind of Chief Justice he will be, based on his decisions and actions, we know. His actions and decisions are FACTS not feelings!

[beam me up scottie]

20. Right.

Nobody understands except you.

Certainly not me, no, I wouldn't have a clue.:eyes:

Listen up, julia.

I have a feeling I was fighting for women's rights long before you even knew you were one.

I helped set up the underground the last time our rights were threatened and I'll be one of the first ones to do it again.

So the next time you feel yourself getting carried away by your emotions and telling anonymous posters on DU that they don't understand what's at stake, you'd best take a step back and breathe.

And think.

Hysteria is not the answer.

Pole-axing our elected representatives, ESPECIALLY the honest ones who tirelessly fight for our rights, because we aren't happy with a decision they made without having the slightest idea what constraints they are under, is not the answer.

This man knows what this may mean.

He is asking us to understand that he had to do his job.

And he did.

Honestly and honourably.

And if you can't tell from this letter how much this is eating away at him, then I can't help you.

I know Patrick Leahy.

And he did what he had to do.



And the people who want him drawn and quartered are the spitting image of the Republicans that wanted to do the same to Jim Jeffords a few years back.

And Sen. Jeffords was just following his conscience as well.



Peace

[Amy6627]

21. It's the same old DLC shit, pick your battles! That's how the Dem

got in this fucked up mess. We need to fight each and every time, not just when we will win. Roberts is an extremist and if you can't see that then NO ONE can help you!

[beam me up scottie]

22. I give up.

I just Fed-ex'd you a case of kleenex.

Have at it.

[Amy6627]

23. Good.

I hope the spine I sent you fits!

[beam me up scottie]

24. I see my estimation of your age

was correct.

Keep up the hysteria, it really reflects well on women.

Especially in politics.

Thanks from someone who has spent years trying to shed that particular stereotype.

[beam me up scottie]

7. I stand behind the Senator.

As I have done in the past.

Anyone who knows this man knows how difficult this must have been for him.

He voted his conscience and that is what he should do.

Anything less would make him no better than the dishonest criminals that hold the majority in both houses.

As a native Vermonter, I voted for Sen. Leahy in every election.

As a resident of a red state filled with crooked politicians, I appreciate his honesty and candour even more.

[wtbymark]

25. Thank you for all the replies

I hope that Sen. Leahy can read this, I may send him a copy. In this democratic forum it is good to see the various views.

My personal reaction was disappointment at first, then I did realize that Roberts replacing Rehnquist is a simile, the next nominee will be the real fight. I think (and hope) that Sen. Leahy will put on the gloves for that one.