I thank Senator Murray because she has a way of putting things quite succinctly and clearly and I appreciate her coming to the floor. There is a very interesting editorial today in USA Today, and I want to quote from it. The first part says there is no question that the President has chosen someone with similar views to Judge Rehnquist. This is what they say: But, if the men are similar, the nation is different now from what it was when Rehnquist joined the Court 33 years ago, and that difference raises provocative questions for Roberts as Senate confirmation hearings begin today. This is how they say it has changed since Judge Rehnquist's hearings: In particular, the United States has become a far more tolerant society. In 1972, racial segregation was still being dismantled. Women, like African-Americans, were routinely deprived of equal opportunity. The notion that Americans possess a right to privacy, established by the landmark 1965 Supreme Court case that overturned state laws against birth control, was still taking root. This editorial goes on to ask if Roberts would make it difficult for Congress to extend those gains or even turn back the clock, concluding: His record leaves plenty of room for doubt. Now, this is USA Today. It is not considered a liberal newspaper.…
Barbara Boxer: “I thank Senator Murray because she has a way of putting things quite succinctly and clearly and I appreciate her coming…”
On the recordSeptember 12, 2005
Source
govinfo.govShare
More from Barbara Boxer
Jan 23, 2025
Good on Gavin Newsom for being the bigger person to show up and say, Mr. President, I'm glad you're here.
Jan 2, 2022
It`s just not healthy for a society that prides itself on a thriving middle class to be losing the middle class.
Nov 21, 2021
I mean, President Biden is a good human being. I know him forever. All he wants is for people to have it easier, to have it better, to be able to deal with this pandemic, and get people back to work. And this Build Back Better a bill is so…
Sep 1, 2021
Mitch McConnell did away with the filibuster, okay, for Supreme Court judges. Now, that hit me right here because I defended the filibuster for Supreme Court judges, and that was the reason it still was there. He did away with it, single…





