Brown Says He Would Have Voted Against Confirming Chief Justice John Roberts And Associate Justice Sam Alito
Brown Says He Would Have Voted Against Confirming Both John Roberts And Sam Alito To The Supreme Court. “As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, DeWine heartily supported both of President Bush’s appointments to the nation’s highest court, John Roberts and Samuel Alito. As a member of the House, Brown had no vote on judicial nominations. But if he had been in the Senate, he says, he would have voted against both men. Brown says he was concerned about Roberts’ views on executive power, desegregation and privacy rights, and felt that Alito had favored employers over workers in his past rulings.” (Elizabeth Auster, Op-Ed, “About As Different As Candidates Can Get,” The Plain Dealer, October 22, 2006)
“A Spokesperson For Rep. Sherrod Brown . . . Said Brown Would Vote Against Alito If Given The Opportunity.” (David Mikhail And Andrew Barr, “Dem Senate Challengers Would Reject Samuel Alito,” January 25, 2006)
Roberts And Alito Are Both Eminently Qualified Jurists
The Cincinnati Enquirer Called Roberts A “Brilliant, Top-Rated Jurist” Who Has An “Open-Minded, Even-Handed Respect For The Constitution.” “Roberts is a brilliant, top-rated jurist, and his restraint in not exceeding court authority is not only what's needed in the next chief justice but also in the next nominee President Bush will name to succeed moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a frequent swing vote. . . . Those looking for a chief justice to champion their cause in America's culture wars won't find such an activist judge in John Roberts. But he is likely to surprise both supporters and detractors at times with his open-minded, even-handed respect for the Constitution. He should be confirmed.” (Editorial, “Confirm Roberts As Chief Justice,” The Cincinnati Enquirer, September 21, 2005)
The Plain Dealer Said Alito Is “A Nominee Of Sterling Reputation And Demonstrated Intellect, Possessed Of A Broad, If Not Encyclopedic, Knowledge Of The Law.” “What Americans saw was a nominee of sterling reputation and demonstrated intellect, possessed of a broad, if not encyclopedic, knowledge of the law who patiently and repeatedly led his interrogators through his reasoning in reaching his opinions. All the while he declined politely – and correctly – to speculate on how he might approach questions likely, in several forms, to reach the high court.. In short, Alito established that he is well suited to fill the seat being vacated by retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.” (Editorial, “Alito Endures,” The Plain Dealer, January 15, 2006)
“Judge Samuel Alito … Gained The American Bar Association's Highest Rating For A Supreme Court Nominee … The ‘Well Qualified’ Rating – The Highest – Is The Same One That Alito Earned In 1990 When Bush's Father, George H.W. Bush, Nominated Him To The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court Of Appeals.” (Jesse J. Holland, “Alito Receives ‘Well Qualified’ Rating From ABA,” The Associated Press, January 4, 2006)
Brown Couldn’t Be Bothered To Evaluate Alito’s Record Himself, So He Plagiarized The Criticisms Of A Blogger
In November 2005, Brown Sent A Letter To Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) Expressing His “Concerns” About Supreme Court Nominee Judge Samuel Alito’s Rulings Involving Labor Issues. “Congressman Sherrod Brown (OH-13) today sent a letter to U.S. Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) expressing concern about DeWine’s support for U.S. Supreme Court Nominee Judge Samuel Alito. . . . [Brown said,] ‘Judge Alito’s labor record is worrisome for America’s workers. In representing Ohio, which has suffered staggering job loss, workers’ concerns must be our priority.’” (Congressman Sherrod Brown, Press Release, “Brown Calls On Dewine To Examine Alito Labor Record,” November 4, 2005)
However, The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer Revealed That “Roughly 90 Percent” Of Brown’s Letter Was Plagiarized – Taken From A Blogger Without Giving Credit. “Brown’s language was crisp -- and was plagiarized. Roughly 90 percent of what Brown, an Avon Democrat, wrote in his letter was lifted from an Internet posting by a blogger, as Brown’s office acknowledged Monday when The Plain Dealer presented the similarities. Brown had not credited the blogger, Nathan Newman of NathanNewman.org, or any other source.” (Stephen Koff, “Brown’s Alito Letter Lifted From Blogger,” The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer, November 8, 2005)
Brown Has Demonstrated That He Doesn’t Understand How To Evaluate Judicial Nominees
Brown Claimed Both Roberts And Alito Were “Hostile To Employees.” “And Alito and Roberts and almost every appointee the Republicans have offered on any level -- I’m not a lawyer, I don’t know this that well -- but almost every judge they’ve nominated has been someone who’s pretty hostile to employees, who sides with employers, whether it’s the unions or whether it’s just the employee without a union -- more likely because they have even less power. We’ve seen that with judge after judge after judge.” (Editorial, “A Talk With Sherrod,” The American Prospect Website, March 13, 2006)
In Particular, Brown Only Concerned Himself With Whether Alito Ruled In Favor Of Workers Or Management, Never The Merits Of Alito’s Decisions. “I took a different approach to the Judge Alito nomination than almost anybody else in Congress. I generally agree with my party on the issues that the mainstream Democratic Party was critical of Judge Alito on, but I think where Democrats missed the issue was talking about Alito’s record on workers rights, on employees, and in the workplace. Judge Alito consistently handed down decisions in opposition to overtime, in opposition to family medical leave, to mine safety, to several, I believe, to minimum wage -- I’m not sure on that one -- on several issues that affected age discrimination. He always sided with the boss against employees.” (Editorial, “A Talk With Sherrod,” The American Prospect Website, March 13, 2006)
During His Confirmation Hearings, Chief Justice John Roberts Exposed This View Of Judicial Decisions As Fundamentally Flawed. “[Judge John] ROBERTS: I had someone ask me in this process, I don’t remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, ‘Are you going to be on the side of the little guy,’ and you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy is going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution. That’s the oath. The oath that a judge takes is not that ‘I’ll look out for particular interests; I’ll be on the side of particular interests.’ The oath is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that’s what I would do.” (Judge John Roberts, Hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, September 15, 2005)
Related
Lincoln Logs Blog has more on Sherrod Brown and judges.
