Ted Kennedy on Judge John Roberts
Posted by Moonage on 20 Jul 2005 | Tagged as: National Politics, The Legal Process
I had to wait a little longer for Kennedy’s comments, but I knew I wouldn’t be disappointed. Here it is straight from the horse’s, uh, mouth.
Among some highlights:
Will he protect average Americans when their rights are abused by powerful corporations?
Name the last time a private indivual suing a corporation has landed in the Surpeme Court?
Will he ensure that private companies arenąt allowed to pollute our rivers and lakes and our air?
Name the last time a private company has been sued by the EPA and it wound up in the Supreme Court?
Will he separate his personal ideology from the rule of law and protect the rights and freedoms of all Americans, not just the powerful or the wealthy.
Kennedy starts off by naming two ethical situations, then questions whether he can seperate his ethical positions from the rule of the law. Which do you want, Ted? And, why seperate the rights of all Americans and seperate out the "powerful or the wealthy"? That seems to me to be an ethical assumption on Ted’s part.
Justice OąConnor set a high standard. She tried to bring the nation together, and she respected the Constitution. She was a mainstream conservative who used her ability and respect for the rule of law to find solutions that would strengthen us as a nation, as the Constitution intended.
Mr. Roberts must demonstrate that he meets that standard before the American people, and he will have an opportunity to do so before the Senate Judiciary Committee before the coming weeks.
If O’Connor was a "mainstream conservative", that was her personal ideology. Kennedy is now expecting Roberts to prove he meets the same personal ideology while at the same time proving he can seperate his personal ideology from the rule of the law for all Americans, not just the wealthy. You wanna try that hat trick?
I welcome the opportunity to question Mr. Roberts, and believe that the American people will know at the end of this process whether he should advance to the Supreme Court.
And I welcome the opportunity to see Judge Roberts debate Ted Kennedy. God, do I ever. This, boys and girls of Massachusetts, is what you have elected to the Senate for a lifetime.
4 Comments »
on 13 Sep 2005 at 12:13 pm 1.RichardBronosky said …
Great post. I will be back often.
This is interesting (3rd paragraph, last sentence):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/06/AR2005090601728_pf.html
Apparently Sen. Kennedy is against narrow interpretation of the law. So he wants Supreme Court justices to enforce opinion? No wonder he is against conservative judges.
on 13 Sep 2005 at 12:36 pm 2.Moonage
said …
Good read Richard. For those not willing to visit the Post, this is the comment cited:
“What the American people have seen is this incredible disparity in which those people who had cars and money got out and those people who were impoverished died,” Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said in an interview.”
Kennedy is now linking Hurricane Katrina with the US Constitutional process. He has always wanted judges that interpret the Constitution instead of honoring it. And yeah, that creates a disparity that will never resolve his liberal philosophies.
I plan on posting the entire Roberts-Kennedy exchange as soon as it’s available.
on 14 Sep 2005 at 1:05 pm 3.Bryan Kerwick
said …
The hearings have been great entertainment.
There are several things I noticed that are so obvious it is freightening. The combatative Senators who attempted to engage Judge Roberts into making statements that would help defeat his nomination made themselves look like angry children babbling incoherently. It is a sorry day we Americans keep electing these fools but alas 2006 is near.
Sen. Arlen Specter either wants to be out of his chair or he wanted to cut off the Democrats on their Roe argument. I’m not sure which but I tend to think he doesn’t want his chair.
The intellectual disparity between Judge Roberts and the Senators was scary. We once again need to visit the discussion of how best to attract the “best and brightest” into the political arena. Judge Roberts clearly shows what a huge difference there is between our elected officials and what we really should be looking for. Roberts is brilliant and the Senators are, well you get the drift if you watch the hearings.
As soon as Roberts is confirmed, which he will be, the Janice Rogers Brown show will be even more entertaining.
Anthony, taking any bets on this one? Woodford and Marlboro’s are still the stakes.
on 14 Sep 2005 at 1:21 pm 4.Moonage
said …
I’m not willing to bet against Brown. I’d be surprised if it is, less surprised if it’s not. I only know of one blog that even mentioned Roberts to any great degree before Bush nominated him. That leads me to feel there is a pool of available talent out there. If Brown meets all of Bush’s criteria, she certainly has the media attention. If she doesn’t, I’m sure there are some that do.