Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Re: Nominee Roberts from Democratic Senate Campaign Committee

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:44 AM
Original message
Re: Nominee Roberts from Democratic Senate Campaign Committee
Subject: Supreme Court Update: John Roberts Nominated
Date: 7/20/2005 10:36:15 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time

From: info@dscc.org
Reply To: notice-reply-wib6e3x4155ibxd@action.dscc.org
To: autorank (not my real name, seriouslyy)




This just hit my mailbox from Chuck Schumer, D, NY, of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee (DSCC). Looks like they want to take a long look at Roberts. Good news that Reid had Schumer do this.
-------------------

Dear auto,

We know the name of George Bush's nomination to the Supreme Court: John Roberts. The Senate is ready to exercise its constitutional power of advice and consent. In order to determine if Judge Roberts will earn Senate approval we must take the time to carefully collect all the facts. I am committed to asking the tough questions necessary to learn his judicial philosophy and method of legal reasoning.


What is certain is that the same high standards of judicial integrity still apply. Earlier this month, I told you that it was critical for George Bush's Supreme Court nomination to be fully committed to protecting the rights and freedoms of every American. Like any good judge, the nominee must approach the law with an open mind, not a narrow political agenda. And we must be confident that the nominee will meet the highest ethical standards and be free of conflicts of interest.


Discovering whether a nominee meets these standards is precisely what it means for the Senate to exercise its constitutional power of advice and consent over the President's appointments. You have my word that Democrats in the Senate will take our constitutional duty seriously. I am prepared to ask Judge Roberts to speak freely and openly about his views on important national issues like the First Amendment, civil rights, and religious liberty. The views of the nominee will affect Americans for a generation and cannot be glossed over. America deserves a new Supreme Court justice who can unite the country and is committed to serving the broad national concern, not just powerful special interests.


Like a wise judge, we must not rush to judgment. Supreme Court justices serve for a lifetime and there is a process to ensure that their credentials and qualifications are closely evaluated. That process must be allowed to occur. For a decision that could affect decades of jurisprudence, it is far more important that it is done right than that it is done quickly.


Now that we have a nominee, the Senate has a duty to collect all the facts about his judicial philosophy and carefully consider his candidacy for the nation's highest court. I will be sure to keep you updated on our progress, but, for now, Senate Democrats are committed to a full and thorough review process. Only then can our great nation be confident that the next Supreme Court justice is fully committed to protecting the rights and freedoms of every American.


Sincerely,


Sen. Charles Schumer, DSCC Chair




Paid for by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, www.dscc.org, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
second edition Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
1. Well thought out and written with practical concerns and questions.
for this nominee. We do need to take a long, well researched look at this guy. Dem's then need to ask the correct questions. After all, this guy is only 50, he could be on the Supreme Court for another 30 years. That is a long time to have an effect on rulings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. The age is bothersome.
Have you seen this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

This is THE reason to nail this guy in any way possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Jul 28th 2014, 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC