September 22, 2005
"I believe I must vote against [Roberts'] confirmation. I do not believe that the Judge has presented his views with enough clarity and specificity for me to in good conscience cast a vote on his behalf."So there's not really an issue with his qualifications. It's just that he didn't pass the Chuckie Schumer test - spell out plainly how you would rule on any number of cases that may come before you.
So reads her official statement. Well neither did Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993, and rightly so. Such testimony would encourage one side or another to bring cases before SCOTUS with the idea that he or she has already "pre-judged" the case.
Hillary is trying really, really hard to present a "moderate" face to potential voters for her Presidential run in 2008. But if she doesn't mollify
her base the hard-Left moonbats, she won't be a Senator in 2007.
Watch many a Dem Senator pull this same stunt - with the same rationale - next week, when Roberts' nomination goes before the full Senate. If he's confirmed with 65 total votes, it would be a miracle.
And once again, Democrats will show the average voter that it doesn't matter who Bush nominates - no matter how qualified - he or she will be "unacceptable" to the moonbat Left, who is in the driver's seat for the Dems.
112 queries taking 0.0855 seconds, 213 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.