John Kerry will vote "NO" on Roberts

[EnfantTerrible]

Monday, I shared with you my Brown University speech setting out what needs to be said and done at this critical moment for our country. Today, in that same spirit of clarity and conviction, I want to tell you how I will vote on the nomination of John Roberts to serve as Chief Justice of the United States.

I will vote against this vitally important nomination.

Win or lose on this vote, it is essential that we act on our deepest convictions. And I refuse to vote for a Supreme Court nominee who came before the Senate intent on demonstrating his ability to deftly deflect legitimate questions about his views, opinions and philosophy.

John Roberts owed the American people far more than that.

If he is confirmed - and he may well be - the Roberts Court will shape the course of constitutional law for decades to come. It will decide dozens of cases that will define the depth and breadth of freedom in America - our commitment to civil rights, our dedication to civil liberties, our devotion to privacy and a woman's right to choose.

With that much at stake, Judge Roberts needed to show us where his heart is.

Instead he recited case law and said little about what he really thought. He needed to engage the Senate Judiciary Committee and the American people in a genuine conversation. He failed that test. And, while I recognize that other members of the Senate will legitimately make a different choice, I will vote "NO" on the Roberts nomination.

Click here to read excerpts from the statement announcing my position on the Roberts nomination. I urge you to read them - and, whatever the outcome of the Roberts vote, I encourage you to join me in insisting on a far more complete and extensive process on the critical nomination President Bush must now make to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Please contact your Senators now. Tell them where you stand on the Roberts nomination and tell them that you insist on full, fair, and forthcoming hearings on the person George W. Bush puts forward for the pivotal seat now occupied by Justice O'Connor.

Sincerely,

John Kerry

[cosmik debris]

1. So what?

Is he going to do anything to stop the coronation?

It is just silly posturing. It means nothing if he is not willing to take action to stop the Roberts nomination. Just blowing smoke!

[jsamuel]

2. disagree

I think he has learned something.

Voting no is not a "moderate" position. Votes for the court are usually in the high 90's.

It is nice to see him stand up for his convictions. (Wish the rest of the Dems would have done the same with the Iraq War)

[cosmik debris]

3. He might as well vote against the full moon

The moon won't care, nothing will change.

The only action that has any meaning is to try to stop the nomination. The Democrats in general are not willing to invest the "capital" to do this, so all this voting is just a formality. Roberts will be approved, as will any other nominee that the Dems decline to filibuster.

In the baseball analogy, we have given Roberts an intentional walk to get to the next batter. But the only strategy we have is the bean-ball or the intentional walk. Neither choice is particularly honorable or effective.

[WinkyDink]

4. Should have voted "NO"

on the Resolution preceding the Invasion.