PFA attempts to rewrite history by citing so-called ‘Ginsburg rule,’ Neas says
Progress for America – an organization that works to ensure the confirmation of ultraconservative activist judicial nominees – announced a misguided campaign to persuade senators to not hold thorough hearings on the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court.
People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas issued the following response:
“When there is a consensus nominee with a well known judicial philosophy, the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings are often relatively brief and there is no need for extensive and detailed questions. But when a nominee is not a consensus choice and/or does not have a well known judicial philosophy, the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings must be much more comprehensive and the questioning much more detailed.
“Like Sandra Day O’Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a consensus nominee. The top Republican senator on the Judiciary Committee, Orrin Hatch, told President Clinton that Ginsburg was acceptable before she was even nominated. In addition, she had a long and detailed record from her time as a federal judge. In her case, there was no need for extended hearings.
“Even so, in her hearings, Justice Ginsburg did answer questions about issues such as her position on the right to privacy and a woman’s right to choose. Progress for America’s claims to the contrary are blatantly false.
“But that’s beside the point. The Roberts nomination is entirely different from the Ginsburg nomination. John Roberts is not a consensus nominee. His record from his time as federal judge is severely limited. His records from the years he spent as a political appointee in the White House and solicitor general’s office are being slow-rolled or withheld altogether. There are parts of his record that are still hidden from view, and apparently the White House and its far-right allies want it to stay that way. One can only wonder what they’re trying to hide.