Sen. Boxer to oppose Supreme Court nominee Roberts
 

Sen. Boxer to oppose Supreme Court nominee Roberts
Posted on Wed, Sep. 21, 2005
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., announced Wednesday that she will oppose the nomination of John Roberts to be Supreme Court chief justice.

"I said I could only vote for a nominee who would protect the rights and the freedoms of the people that I represent ... This nominee fails that bar," Boxer said on the Senate floor.

"I don't buy into this reasoning either: Let's support this nominee because the next one might be worse," she said.

The announcement by California's junior senator, a liberal who opposes many Bush nominees, was not a surprise. Still unknown is how the state's senior senator, Dianne Feinstein, will vote when the Judiciary Committee convenes Thursday to decide on the nominee.

Feinstein, a moderate, is the only woman on the Judiciary Committee.

Boxer's announcement came as a number of other Democrats were revealing their decisions on the nominee to replace Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

The Senate Judiciary Committee's senior Democrat, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, announced his endorsement for Roberts. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, liberal stalwart Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and former presidential candidate John Kerry of Massachusetts decided, like Boxer, to vote no.

Boxer said she was concerned about the views Roberts expressed in memos written while a lawyer in the Reagan administration, and about his failure to assist in the release of his writings from his years in the solicitor general's office under the first President Bush.

"With so many of our fundamental rights hanging in the balance, it is not good enough, in my view, to simply roll the dice, hoping a nominee will change his past views," Boxer said.

YAY Thats my girl! I really LOVE her! :nod:

Was there ever any doubt? :wavey: I know you hate him, but Kerry says he's voting no too.

Kick!!! I hope Feinstein does, too. It's good a couple other people have some balls as well.
Thanks for posting. :woohoo:

Not on my part, I love Boxer. :D If they were smart, they would run her in '08 instead of that shill Hillary.

I don't hate him, I just think he's an incompetent fool who suffers from foot-in-mouth syndrome. :laugh:

What is up with Leahy? :confused:

apparently he made his decision after a confab with Bushwad...which by all accounts was a one sided discussion (Bush musta been asleep).

Maybe he is saving his clout for the next nominee? on the surface his reason seems legit (he says he thinks Roberts is a man of honor and he is counting on him not changing horses in midstream philosophically speaking) Isnt Leahy the expert on Constitutional Law?

Either one would work for me. But I have to say I'd go with Ms. Clinton.

ok, I'll bite: WHY? why would YOU of all people hope for Hilary running instead of Barbara Boxer? there's something disingenuous about your post.......unless you are engaging in veiled sarcasm, in which case nevermind.

If I may venture a guess, he was implying that neither of them are electable, thus it would make it that much easier for the Republican candidate to win. Of course, Hillary might as well BE a Republican candidate, so maybe that's why he favors her... more of a win/win situation for conservatives if the first scenario doesn't play out ;).

The thought of Boxer as president gives me warm fuzzies all over. I don't think she wants to, though.

Because he thinks that Hillary is a loser candidate (which she is, to be perfectly frank). Why wouldn't he want the Dems to nominate a surefire loser? She has as much of a chance of winning as Noam Chomsky.

I thought it was because she was secretly just like all the rest of the scummy ones, only...slightly less scummy... :confused:

There's that, too. Good thinking. :xoxo:

I squeal at the thought of her running. I agree that she never would, but we can dream, anyway. Unless the Dems can rally behind and support a candidate like Moseley Braun or Kucinich or Boxer, a candidate who will bring liberalism back to the party, I can't imagine myself being enthusiastic about any of their choices.

ok....I thot as much. :shrug:

Boxer or Clinton? Hillary is uber-scummy. Boxer is a saint next to that monstrosity. :laugh:

WOO HOO BOXER FOR PRESIDENT 2008!! Let's start a campaign

Chris

Now THERE would be an interesting candidate....I really admire that man~

I know. I meant I that's what I thought your reason was for not wanting Hill, not the whole "she can't win" thing.

I love him. "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance" is one of his best reads; a very good book. Have you ever read it?

Oh, she's scummy for sure, but she also could *never* win. Never in a million years, she'd be positively slaughtered. :shocked:

theres already a website that sells tshirts and buttons and bumperstickers and all that...it was posted on this board awhile back when Boxer stood up and challenged the Senate to investigate the Ohio Voting fraud...I forget who runs it but she is determined to get Boxer to run~ I hope she succeeds! :thumbsup:
here's the link

I know, but my point is I didn't think that was your reason. Boxer couldn't win, either. :shrug: (IMO)

No, I have something along the lines of Conversations with Noam Chomsky, which I cant find dangit~ it was a series of essays on various topics. and now Im ticked because I couldnt find it to get the exact title. sorry.........

I'm not sure if she could win, but I'm positive she'd fare better than Hillary. :laugh:

You're kidding?! Name recognition alone... :shrug:

I think Boxer would carry California, which is quite a lot of electoral votes, not too shabby ya know......

Not shabby, but hardly the whole country. I don't think all the middle would vote for either of them. Can't decide who they would hate more... :laugh:

Nah, thats easy: they hate Hilary more. btw: is it spelled Hillary or Hilary?
I get confused :lol:

Wow, I'm shocked he's actually going to make a stand. Its a day late and a dollar short but I'll take it! Ms Boxer is a godsend.

She really is. To run her will just be dumb and a waste of money. She is not electable. People don't trust her.

Whyever not? I certainly do.......

That's what I thought, but I think when everyone learns really what Boxer is all about, they wouldn't go for it. You know, she's right, she has some integrity, she's actually 50% or so working for the actual people she represents, she understands the issues and can explain them without using strawman, and misdirection, and blah etc.
She has balls, she often stands up strongly for what she believes...

naw...America is to dumb for that...ie..."I don't think they're ready for this jelly...her platform's too bootylicious for 'us', bayb." ;) :laugh:

And rightly so, to some extent. She isn't the worst, and she's extremely intelligent, and she almost...has integrity...but not quite. Although, compared to *most* politicians, she would be better.

*Hilly and Boxer are both Scorpios, kick ass*

Well, she would get my vote. But the other side hates her and spreads their venom and lies and you know how big that propoganda machine is. People take what they are spoon fed. Plus she is a woman. I think many wouldn't vote for her because of that. Sadly, many still do not see a woman as capable of being president. But wouldn't that be something?

Well, I havent heard any venomous things about her really, only the ballsy "damn the torpedoes" kinda attitude I can get behind. I think the other side hates Hillary more (btw: did we decide Hilary or Hillary?) They are already undermining her "possibly" running which I find hilarious! What are they SO afraid of?

Um, no offense, but you've ignored the part where she's been shady, wishy washy, and solely politically motivated. :)
Of course I'd vote for her before the other. I have some large measure of respect for her, but it's tempered by her obvious political pandering.

You do? You might as well trust the Resmuglicans, then.

She wouldn't get my vote. Not in a million years would I be caught voting for that woman. My dream team would include:

Carol Moseley Braun: President
Dennis Kucinich: Vice President
Jamie Rubin: Secretary of State
Anderson Cooper: Secretary of Take No ****

But, alas, it's a dream. I gotta get my feet back on the ground and wake up to the fact that this country will be in the ****ter for my entire span on this Earth.

I still don't understand how Hillary is a definite loser candidate. There have been polls comparing possible 08 candidates, and have put Hillary against various republicans and she has come out on top of the polls..While I know polls dont determine much, they definetely say SOMETHING..

Those are polls taken before the Republican smear machine has revved up for the actual election. If she runs and gets the nom, it'll be WWIII.