Bayh says No to John Roberts

Evan Bayh will vote NO on John Roberts, the Supreme Court Chief Justice nominee.

Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh said Friday he will vote against the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to be the next chief justice of the United States because not enough is known about how Roberts will act.

"I cannot (conclude he'll be a great justice) because so much essential to reaching a considered judgment about this nominee remains unknown," Bayh said in a statement. "And that is not enough for a lifetime appointment to our nation’s highest court, a court from which there is no appeal, a court that is the ultimate arbiter of our most basic rights and freedoms."

This news is pleasing considering as little as I know about John Roberts because not many papers are being released. Plus, Roberts' records on equality issues like civil rights does not look so good. Here is the statement in full, of what was not on the Indy Star website:

Statement of Senator Bayh on Judge John Roberts

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Evan Bayh today released the following statement on the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States:

"The outcome of John Roberts’ confirmation process is not in doubt. He will be the next Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Like all Americans regardless of party, I hope and pray that he will be a great Chief Justice. Time will tell.

"But I am troubled that I must hope and pray for that result and cannot conclude it with greater certainty. I cannot because so much essential to reaching a considered judgment about this nominee remains unknown. And that is not enough for a lifetime appointment to our nation’s highest court, a court from which there is no appeal, a court that is the ultimate arbiter of our most basic rights and freedoms.

"It did not need to be this way. When I introduced Judge Roberts at his confirmation hearing, I said that I looked forward to a full and clarifying discussion of his views. Regrettably, that did not happen.

"A more forthcoming process - one in which the White House released all important, relevant documents and one in which questions were answered forthrightly - could have filled in the empty spaces, resolved doubts and warranted my support. The nominee was not well-served by a process designed to maintain ambiguity rather than resolve it. Voting to confirm a nominee to the Supreme Court must be more than an act of faith.

"Much of my thinking involves what it means for the Senate to "advise and consent," who bears the burden of proof and how to resolve ambiguity and address the unknown.

"‘Advise and consent’ must mean more than ascertaining collegiality and strength of resume. Those things are essential, but not enough. More important are a nominee’s beliefs. On this score, in too many important areas, we can only speculate.

"John Roberts had less than two years on the Court of Appeals and issued very few opinions to shed light on his approach as a judge to significant constitutional issues.

"Prior to that, he was a lawyer in private practice. A successful lawyer, but according to his own testimony, the beliefs he represented were his clients, not his own. So there’s little to be learned from that time in his career beyond what we already know - he’s an effective advocate for others’ beliefs. The question is, what are his own?

"And then we get to his public service.

"His statements on equal rights and discrimination against woman while serving in the executive branch are extremely troubling. For example, he argued that a high school student who was sexually harassed by a teacher had no remedy under Title IX-the Supreme Court disagreed with him in a unanimous decision.

"Unlike some, I don’t believe that Judge Roberts’ statements as a young lawyer must reflect his views today. My views have certainly evolved since my twenties, and I assume that Judge Roberts’ have as well. However, all we can do is assume, because when presented with the opportunity to disavow the positions in his memos, Roberts refused. His answer, that he was a lawyer arguing the position of the Administration, doesn’t address these concerns. For a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest court, assumption alone does not meet the burden of proof.

"Nor has this burden been met by someone who seeks to resolve doubt by generalities such as, ‘I will follow the rule of law.’ Surely, more is needed. But in too many instances, this is all we have.

"So, as an American and fellow Hoosier, I wish soon-to-be Chief Justice Roberts well. I hope he will strike the right balance between the role of the judiciary and the other branches of government, between the role of the executive branch and the legislative branch, between the role of the federal government and the states, and between individual rights enshrined in our Constitution and the rights of the majority as determined by election, between the need for dynamic change in the law and the importance of stability. I hope. I hope, because based on the record before us, it is impossible to know.

"Regrettably, therefore, I cannot vote to confirm, not because I oppose John Roberts, but because we simply do not know enough about his views on critical issues to make a considered judgment. And that is the standard that must be met for a lifetime appointment to our nation’s highest court."