« Sekulow's Thoughts | Main | Biden asks long questions.... »

From the Alliance for Justice's Inside Scoop:

"We’ve had our first judicial filibuster. Or at least a filibuster by a judge. In the sharpest exchange of the hearings thus far, Senator Kennedy questioned Roberts about voting rights and other civil rights issues."

Rather than giving clear, succinct answers to these questions, Roberts chose to opine at length on the Reagan Administration's views and the state of the law rather than give his own views. Roberts also tried to toe a fine line of making sure conservatives would not become angered if he disavowed his Reagan-error memos advocating the restriction of certain aspects of the Voting Rights Act without agreeing that he believed in the statements he wrote. We heard a response of “I was merely representing my client.” No agreement, no disavowal even when asked about memos in which he had specifically given his own views, such as the application of Title IX to schools that receive federal financial aid. But, the measures that Roberts advocated would have so undermined advances in civil rights and equality, they must be disavowed. As a Supreme Court justice, John Roberts would become one of nine ultimate authorities on the protection of rights. A restrictive and dismissive view of such critical protections does not bode well for his potential position as an adjudicator and protector of hard-won rights and freedoms.

Posted by Marc Ambinder | 12:17 PM