Sen. Boxer to oppose Supreme Court nominee Roberts

dissention · #1 09-21-2005, 07:16 PM

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.

irishgrl · #2 09-21-2005, 07:18 PM

YAY Thats my girl! I really LOVE her!

EnchantedSLN · #3 09-21-2005, 07:43 PM

Was there ever any doubt?

I know you hate him, but Kerry says he's voting no too.

amber · #4 09-21-2005, 07:51 PM

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

dissention · #5 09-21-2005, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnchantedSLN

Was there ever any doubt?

Not on my part, I love Boxer.

If they were smart, they would run her in '08 instead of that shill Hillary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnchantedSLN

I know you hate him, but Kerry says he's voting no too.

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

gldstwmn · #6 09-21-2005, 08:39 PM

What is up with Leahy?

irishgrl · #7 09-21-2005, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

What is up with Leahy?

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?

Brwn_eyes0511 · #8 09-21-2005, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

Not on my part, I love Boxer.

If they were smart, they would run her in '08 instead of that shill Hillary.

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

irishgrl · #9 09-21-2005, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

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.

EnchantedSLN · #10 09-21-2005, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishgrl

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

.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

If they were smart, they would run her in '08

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

dissention · #11 09-21-2005, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishgrl

ok, I'll bite: WHY? why would YOU of all people hope for Hilary running instead of Barbara Boxer?

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.

amber · #12 09-21-2005, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

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...

dissention · #13 09-21-2005, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnchantedSLN

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

.

There's that, too. Good thinking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnchantedSLN

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

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.

irishgrl · #14 09-21-2005, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnchantedSLN

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

ok....I thot as much.

dissention · #15 09-21-2005, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amber

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

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