Women: Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts is apparently no friend of you. And Ted Kennedy makes two very salient points: Kennedy makes clear the Senate MUST have relevant documents from 16 cases Roberts handled as deputy solicitor general from 1989 to 1993; they are important, the American people have the right to see them, there is precedent for seeing them and they will illuminate the thinking of Roberts. Kennedy also says that Roberts -- from everything we have seen -- puts his own personal agenda ahead of the law, not even seeing the right to vote as something that should be defended with vigor. As Kennedy says in a Washington Post op-ed column:
Specifically, and contrary to the intent of overwhelming majorities in both the House and the Senate, it appears that Roberts proposed a very narrow and crabbed interpretation of the Voting Rights Act that would essentially eviscerate the meaning of that law. Fortunately, his view did not prevail. But if a nominee to the Supreme Court believes in such a strained and narrow interpretation of such a fundamental right, then I believe he is not qualified to serve in that important position.Kennedy says Roberts was out of the mainstream and unless Roberts shows his thinking has evolved from that young Reagan warrior, he should not be given the privilege of a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court.
No one has an automatic right to a lifetime position on the Supreme Court. A nominee to the high court must first demonstrate that he has a core commitment to constitutional rights and liberties.... Judge Roberts's early record raises serious questions about his commitment to core constitutional values, and the Senate must have the requested information to fully and faithfully execute its constitutional obligation.
