Washington, D.C. -- U.S. Senator Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI) today voted against Judge John Roberts as the 17th Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court and submitted the following remarks:
"I approached this nomination as I do any nomination: with an open mind. I take my role of advice and consent on nominations seriously. That is why I joined a group of my colleagues in the Senate to respectfully ask the President to make available documents from Roberts's time in the Solicitor General's office. These documents could have provided valuable insight into how Roberts views important Constitutional questions, and I am disappointed that the White House did not fulfill this request. The White House owes not only the Senate, but also the American people, access to this information.
"And so I am left to wonder about Judge Roberts's positions on critical questions regarding our Constitution and our way of life. I continue to hope that Judge Roberts shares my understanding that the Constitution provides robust protections guaranteeing the equality of all Americans. I hope that Judge Roberts's view of the Constitution is not as narrow as I have been led to believe.
"However, neither the White House nor Judge Roberts has convinced me. On the contrary, they have given me reasons for alarm. Because the White House failed to respond to requests for Judge Roberts's more recent work at the Solicitor General's office, the memoranda Judge Roberts wrote as a young lawyer in government service are all I have to go on. These memos raise serious concerns for me about Judge Roberts's commitment to protecting fundamental rights. Judge Roberts's expressed views on civil rights, the Voting Rights Act, and the right to privacy convey a view of the Constitution that I simply do not agree with.
"I recognize that these memos were written a long time ago, which is why I reserved judgement until Judge Roberts had the opportunity to clarify his position on these issues at the hearings. I listened carefully for Judge Roberts to dispel concerns about these memoranda, hoping that Judge Roberts would clarify the values that would guide his deliberations as Chief Justice. While Judge Roberts would occasionally distance himself from his old memos, stating that he was simply an employee doing what his boss had asked of him, he never fully explained where he stands on these important issues now.
"Consequently, I am left with the memos to piece together Judge Roberts's judicial philosophy. These memos concerned me not only for the ideas they conveyed, but also the language that Judge Roberts chose to express his ideas. To me, phrases such as 'illegal amigo,' 'Indian giveaway,' and 'supposed right to privacy' convey an unacceptable lack of respect for the people whose rights and freedoms Judge Roberts would be entrusted to protect. It disappointed me that, when asked whether he regretted his flippant tone, Judge Roberts not only deflected responsibility but also failed to articulate any semblance of regret for these hostile words.
"For these reasons, I cannot vote for this nominee. This was not an easy decision for me. I have great respect for my many friends--both inside and outside this body--who have come to a different conclusion. I hope the President will use his next nomination to appoint a justice whom all Senators can agree upon, and if doubts arise, the White House will choose to resolve rather than exacerbate them."
