On the recordSeptember 29, 2005
as I announced on this floor last week, I intend to vote against the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States. In my meetings with John Roberts, I found him to be a very nice person. I like him. I respect his legal skills. I respect much of the work he has done in his career. For example, his advocacy on the environmental side of the Lake Tahoe takings case several years ago was remarkably good. He decided the law did not look too good to him, so he figured the way to win the case was to argue to the Court the facts, and he did that and he won the case. So I admire his legal skills, as I think everyone in this body does. But at the end of the day, I have had many unanswered questions about the nominee, and because of that, I cannot justify a vote confirming him to this lifetime position. Each one of the 100 Senators applies his or her own standard in carrying out the advice and consent clause of the Constitution. That is a constitutional role that we have. I know that elections have consequences, and I agree that Presidents are entitled to a measure of deference in appointing judicial nominees. After all, the Senate has confirmed well over 200 of President Bush's nominees, some of whom possess a judicial philosophy with which I disagree. But deference to the President can only go so far.…
Source
govinfo.gov




