…With what Jessica over at Bush v. Choice has to say about Senator Barbara Boxer’s statement about Roberts, and how she (Boxer) would *gasp* not vote for Roberts, if she believed that he wouldn’t support women’s reproductive rights as a Supreme Court Justice. I think like her too.
Sen. Barbara Boxer said she would vote against John Roberts’ nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, if she remains convinced he doesn’t support abortion rights.
Boxer, fearing a more conservative court could lead “to the days of back alley illegal abortions,” said pointedly of President Bush’s pick to succeed Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: “Judge Roberts cannot duck this issue.”
“I need to know exactly where he stands and I need to know whether he would fight to protect the rights and freedoms of the American people,” said Boxer, D-Calif. “If I don’t believe he will, I won’t vote for him.”
Now, if she really does that, I will really like her. A pro-choice Democrat that acts and votes like a pro-choice Democrat?! What a rarity these days for that to happen. Or the Democrats, especially pro-choice Dems, doing something other than selling-out.
Oh, Barbara B. is one of three members of Congress that I don’t want to slap repeatedly; I’ve always been a fan of her, and she only confirmed the correctness of my fan-dom by standing up and challenging both the election results of 2004 and Condi Rice’s appointment to Sec. of State.
She’s ferociously pro-choice, and always has been. I don’t see her changing her stance any time soon.
I am not concerned about whether Roberts personally supports choice or not, frankly it is no ones business, as long as he can keep those personal leanings from interpreting the Constitution as opposed to the intent of the protections. I prefer that Jurists judge the laws as they are written, and we get our Representatives to write laws that reflect compassion, equality and protect self-determination without impinging upon the freedoms of others. As long as it is up to Jurists to “interpret” broad or vague legislation, we are subject to this seesaw of emotional conflagration. The European countries, France, Briton etc. do not have these troubles as they have spelled out in the law the rights regarding this issue. We need to get our Representatives to act, and take the gray out of the law. I would expect that many on this Blog can be rational in interpreting their personal prejudices when judging me should I be in front of them as Jurists, (in fact, I would pray that many of you were on a jury judging me should I find myself in that position) I see no reason why a person such as Robert’s could not do as well in this regard. Blessings.
I know Roberts’ has openly stated in the past that he is ‘pro-life’ but, like Rock, I would really really hope he doesn’t let his personal feelings get in the way. I mean, I personally would adore a law that makes illegal all anti-gay language, but hey, that’s not legal in this country and shouldn’t be made such.
But, like RowanCrisp, Boxer is definitely one of the dems I don’t want to kick in the arse, so if she continues this (which I have the feeling she will, given her record) then it would definitely be a good thing … gonads on a Dem, who would have thunk it?
Occasionally, I disagree with Boxer on some votes, but FTMP, I agree with her, and if she says she won’t vote to confirm him, she won’t.
I disagree with Diane Feinstein, our other senator, much more, but I think she’ll follow suit with Boxer.