Leahy Says He Will Vote to Confirm Chief Justice Nominee
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

WASHINGTON, Sept. 21 - The ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee said today that he would vote to confirm Judge John G. Roberts Jr. as the 17th chief justice of the United States, having concluded that the nominee is "a man of integrity" who is not shackled to an "ideological agenda."

Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont announced his intention on the Senate floor, less than 24 hours after the Democratic minority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, said he would vote against Judge Roberts. Mr. Leahy's support diminished what little suspense remains over Judge Roberts's prospects.

Mr. Leahy, in words not unlike those of Mr. Reid, said the nomination "presents a close question and one that each senator must carefully weigh and decide."

"Ultimately," Mr. Leahy said, "my Vermont roots have always told me to go with my conscience, and they do so today."

Mr. Leahy said he had concluded that as chief justice Judge Roberts would not automatically defer to presidential authority, and that he would not try "to overrule or undercut the right of a woman to choose" abortion.

The senator said the nominee should have been more candid in answering questions before the Judiciary Committee, and that President Bush had been high-handed in nominating Judge Roberts without consulting with lawmakers. But those factors should not stand in the nominee's way, the senator said.

Only one other Democrat on the committee, Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, has announced his position on the nomination. On Tuesday, Mr. Kennedy said, as expected, that he would vote no, and today his fellow Massachusetts senator, John Kerry, said he would vote against Judge Roberts on the Senate floor.

"I still find that something is missing," Mr. Kerry said, complaining that the administration had withheld some vital information about the nominee, and that Judge Roberts had not helped matters with his answers before the committee.

Judge Roberts is assured of all 10 Republican votes on the committee, so with Mr. Leahy's support the committee vote stands to be at least 11 to 7 in his favor. Moreover, at least some of the Democrats who have not stated their positions are believed to be considering voting for the judge. Once the nomination gets to the Senate floor, the nominee is likely to sail through, because Republicans have 55 seats in the Senate and Mr. Reid has said Democrats will not try to block the nomination by a filibuster.

Mr. Reid and his Republican counterpart, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, met with President Bush this morning to discuss the second vacancy. The Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and Senator Leahy were also invited.

Mr. Specter said afterward that he had urged Mr. Bush to delay naming a choice to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. "The president was noncommittal," Mr. Specter told The Associated Press, adding, "The body language was not very positive."

Mr. Frist said he had urged the president to move quickly, perhaps within the next 10 days. If the nomination comes quickly, a new justice could be seated by Thanksgiving, Mr. Frist said. The president is widely believed to be considering a woman or Hispanic for his next choice.

Mr. Reid's announcement on Tuesday that he would oppose the confirmation of Judge Roberts surprised both the White House and fellow Democrats still conflicted about how to vote.

Many Senate observers expected Mr. Reid, who comes from a Republican-leaning state and is opposed to abortion, to support Judge Roberts.

And the Democratic leader himself said Tuesday that he had earlier given the White House a list of nominees who would be objectionable and that Judge Roberts was not on it.

In announcing his decision in a lengthy speech on the Senate floor, Mr. Reid questioned Judge Roberts's commitment to civil rights and said he was "very swayed" by the civil rights and women's rights leaders who testified Thursday in opposition to the nomination - and with whom Mr. Reid met privately that same day. Liberal advocacy groups, who raise millions of dollars to support Democratic candidates and who have been putting intense pressure on Democrats to oppose the nomination, were elated.

With the White House considering how to fill a second Supreme Court vacancy, Mr. Reid could be using his vote on Judge Roberts to send a message to President Bush to fill that position with a moderate, in the mold of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a critical swing vote, who is retiring. Along with three other senior senators, Mr. Reid met Mr. Bush for breakfast today to discuss the vacancy.

Explaining his decision on Judge Roberts, Mr. Reid said in his Senate speech that he simply had "too many unanswered questions" about the nominee, who he complained had refused to distance himself from seemingly callous writings while a lawyer for the Reagan administration, including a memorandum in which he used the term "illegal amigos" to refer to illegal immigrants.

"I'm not too sure," Mr. Reid later told reporters, "if his heart is as big as his head."

How much influence Mr. Reid will have over his fellow Democrats is unclear; he has said repeatedly that each senator is free to vote his conscience on the nomination, and several Democrats, including those on the Judiciary Committee, said Tuesday that they were still torn.

One centrist Democrat, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, said Tuesday that he had "not seen anything that would cause me to vote against" confirmation of Judge Roberts to be the nation's 17th chief justice.

Last Thursday, as Mr. Reid was weighing his decision, representatives of about 40 advocacy groups met with him in the Capitol; the reason, they said, was to underscore the threat they believe Judge Roberts poses to Democrats' core causes, racial and gender equality. Hovering in the background was a political argument, that if Democrats vote in favor of Judge Roberts, they will be held liable by voters for the decisions he makes on the court.

"He got the message loud and clear, didn't he?" Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, said of Mr. Reid on Tuesday.

One of the most memorable presentations, those in attendance said, came from Theodore M. Shaw, general counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, who told Mr. Reid that his group rarely took a position on nominations.

"We appear before the Supreme Court - who in their right mind would want to poke their finger in the eye of the next chief justice?" Mr. Shaw recalled saying. But, he added, "Based on what we know, this is not a nominee that we can let go by unopposed."

Those who attended the meeting said they came away not knowing what Mr. Reid would decide.

"He listened carefully, he listened thoughtfully," said Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Council on Civil Rights and an organizer of the session. "He did not respond to challenges or views that were presented. I do think he felt this should be a vote of conscience and I think in the end he voted his conscience, and I think at the end of the day that speaks volumes about his leadership."

With a vote in committee scheduled for Thursday, the eight Democrats on the judiciary panel met Tuesday to discuss the nomination. They emerged tight-lipped, saying they wanted to speak to the entire Democratic caucus before announcing their votes. Several, including Mr. Leahy, said they had not yet reached a decision.

"I'm close," Mr. Leahy said. Asked if he would know by the end of the day, he said, "I may. You won't."

By late Tuesday, only one of the panel's eight Democratic members, Senator Kennedy, had announced his position.

"This is really a leap of faith, isn't it?" Mr. Kennedy told reporters. "I mean, I think there are those that took the leap in terms of the war, there were those that took the leap in terms of taxes and now they're being invited to take the leap again in terms of Judge Roberts, and" - here, Mr. Kennedy paused for effect - "I don't think I'm going to be among them."

The White House reacted coolly to Mr. Reid's announcement. A spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said it departed from Senate tradition in which members have "based their decisions on the qualifications of the nominee, not on whether or not the person doing the nominating was in their same party."

Mr. Reid said there was no single reason he decided to vote against the nomination, and in his speech he described the decision as "a very close question." But he made plain that an important factor was the White House's refusal to release legal memorandums written by Judge Roberts when he was deputy solicitor general in the first Bush administration. "The administration cannot treat the Senate with such disrespect without some consequences," he said.

The records issues is a matter of principle to many Democrats. Senator Ken Salazar, Democrat of Colorado and a member of the so-called Gang of 14 who struck a bipartisan compromise to avoid a showdown over President Bush's judicial nominees, said Tuesday that he had recently called Harriet Miers, the White House counsel, to tell her that disclosing the documents could make the difference in his vote and that of his colleagues.

"I think it is the right of the American people to get that information," Mr. Salazar said. "She said she would consider my request. I don't think they are going to do it."

While Mr. Reid said the records fight does not warrant a filibuster, the parliamentary tactic Democrats have used to block other judicial nominees, he suggested he might not be inclined to avoid that fight with the next nominee. He said he planned to present Mr. Bush with a list of acceptable candidates on Wednesday and said Democrats would consider it "a real poke in the eye with a sharp stick" if Mr. Bush were to name any one of 10 federal appeals court judges who had been blocked by filibuster in the past, including some who are on President Bush's short list as Supreme Court candidates.

Asked if that would warrant a filibuster, Mr. Reid said, "That would warrant my being real upset."

David Stout contributed reporting from Washington for this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/21/politics...agewanted=print

I think Reid nailed it. It's not that he is "conservative". It's that he doesn't care about people, and the effects of interpretive law on peoples lives. I believe he is a "Classist" at heart, and comes from a mind set of "infinitely finer clay"! I don't think he is a rabid racist or mysoginist, but lives in his head, rather than his heart.

I think he is also a bit of a "throwback", as regards women's and minority rights, but even more so than that, he is a "Corporatist" and deludes himself that he is a "Strict Constructionist". In fact he is going to be an activist for Corporate rights over the average Americans, which has NO basis in the Constitution!

Robert Reich's testimony as well as the heros of the Civil Rights and Women Rights battles in this country have come out warning about this guy! That would weigh heavily on me as well. I also consider the refusal to answer reasonable questions arrogant, and with the WH hiding his more recent writings, I consider that close, if not equal to lying!

Maybe Howard Dean needs to take a quick trip back to their home state and have a chat with Leahy. Talk a bit of sense into him.

Here is a message from John Edwards. He is asking us to contact our Senators and tell them to vote no on Roberts.

September 21, 2005



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

See my response to this insanity at the Judical folder

:hexe: