Any progressive who doesn't like Joe Biden has NOT read this:

[usregimechange]

Statement of
The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
United States Senator
Delaware

September 12, 2005

PRINTABLE VERSION
Senator Biden's Opening Statement at the Confirmation Hearings for John G. Roberts, Jr. to become Chief Justice of the United States

Judge Roberts, welcome.

Judge, as you know, there is a genuine intellectual struggle going on in our country over whether our Constitution will continue to protect our privacy and continue to empower the federal government to protect the powerless.

For 70 years, there has been a consensus in our Supreme Court on these issues. And this consensus has been fully embraced by the American people.

But there are those who strongly disagree with this consensus – and they seek to unravel it. And, Judge, you have the unenviable position of being right in the middle of this fundamentally important debate.

And, quite frankly, we need to know on which side you stand. For whoever replaces Chief Justice Rehnquist, as well as Justice O’Connor, will play pivotal roles in this debate.

But for tens of millions of our people this is more than an academic debate.

For the position you take in this debate will affect their lives in very real and personal ways – for the next three decades. There is nothing they can do about it after this moment.

I believe in a Constitution – as our Supreme Court’s first great Chief Justice, John Marshall, said in 1819 – and I quote “intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.”

At its core, the Constitution envisions ever increasing protections of human liberty and dignity for its citizens and a national government empowered to face unanticipated “crises.”

Judge, herein lies the crux of the intellectual debate I referenced at the outset – whether we will have ever increasing protections for human liberty and dignity or whether those protections will be diminished.

In 1925, the Constitution preserved the rights of parents to determine how to educate their kids, striking down a law that required children to attend public schools. In 1965, the Constitution told the state to get out of a married couple’s bedroom, by striking down a state law prohibiting married couples from using contraceptives. In 1967, the Constitution defended the right of a black woman to marry a white man. And in 1977, the Constitution stopped a city from making it a crime for a grandmother to live with her grandchildren.

And, fortunately, even when the Supreme Court, at first, took our Constitution away from the promise and hope of our Constitution’s ennobling phrases; in the end, we have kept the faith.

In 1873, for example, the Court said states could forbid women from being lawyers. It took a hundred years to undo this terrible mistake. But the Court eventually got it right.

In 1896, the Supreme Court said “separate but equal” was lawful. It took 58 years for the Supreme Court to outlaw racial segregation, throwing that doctrine in the dustbin of history. But the Court ultimately got it right.

In the early 1900s, the Court rendered the federal government powerless to outlaw child labor and to protect workers. It took until 1937 for the Supreme Court to see the error in its ways. But the Court finally got it right.

At every step, we’ve had to struggle against those who saw the Constitution as frozen in time. But time and again, we have overcome, and the Constitution has remained relevant and dynamic thanks to a proper interpretation of the ennobling phrases purposefully placed in our great “civic Bible.”

And once again – when it should be even more obvious we need increased protections for liberty – as we look around the world and see thousands persecuted for their faith, women unable to show their faces in public, and children maimed and killed for no other reason than which tribe they were born into.

And once again – when it should be obvious we need a more energetic national government to deal with the challenges of a new millennium – terrorism, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, pandemic disease, and religious intolerance.

Once again, our journey of progress is under attack from the Right.

There are judges, scholars, and opinion leaders – good and honorable people – who believe the Constitution provides no protection against government intrusions into our highly personal decisions – decisions about birth, marriage, family, death, and religion. There are those who would slash the power of our national government, fragmenting it among the states. Incredibly, some have even argued that the Constitution eliminates the federal government’s ability to respond to disasters like Katrina.

Judge, I don’t believe the Constitution these individuals long for could have led to the America our Founders envisioned. Like the Founders, I believe our Constitution is as big and as grand as this great nation.

Our constitutional journey did not stop with women barred from being lawyers, with 10-year-olds working in coal mines, or with black kids forced into different schools than white kids just because the Constitution nowhere mentions “sex discrimination,” “child labor,” or “segregated education.”

Our constitutional journey did not stop then, and it must not stop now. For we will be faced with equally consequential decisions in the 21st Century: can microscopic tags be implanted in a person’s body to track his every movement; can patents be issued for the creation of human life; can brain scans be used to determine whether a person is inclined toward criminal or violent behavior?

Judge, I need to know whether you will be a Justice who believes that the constitutional journey must continue to speak to these consequential decisions – or that we’ve gone far enough in protecting against government intrusion into the most personal decisions we make.

Judge, that’s why this is a critical moment. Those elected officials on the Far Right, such as Mr. DeLay and others, have been unsuccessful at implementing their radical agenda in the elected branches – so they pour their energy and resources into trying to change the Court’s view of the Constitution.

And now they have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity – the filling of two Supreme Court vacancies, one of which is the Chief Justice’s – the first time that’s happened in 75 years.

Judge, I believe with every fiber of my being that their view of the Constitution and where the Country should be taken would be a disaster for our people.

Like most Americans, I believe the Constitution recognizes a general right to privacy.

I believe the rights of women must be nationally and vigorously protected.

I believe the federal government must act as a shield to protect the powerless against major economic interests.

I believe the federal government should stamp out discrimination – wherever it occurs.

And I believe the Constitution inspires and empowers us to achieve these goals.

Judge, if I looked only at what you’ve said and written in the past, I’d feel compelled to vote NO. You dismissed the Constitution’s protection of privacy as a “so-called right,” you derided agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission that combat corporate misconduct as “constitutional anomalies,” and you dismissed “gender discrimination” as merely a quote, “perceived problem.”

This is your chance to explain what you meant by what you have said and what you have written.

The Constitution provides for one democratic moment before a lifetime of judicial independence, when we the people of the United States are entitled to know as much as we can about the person we are entrusting with safeguarding our future and the future of our children and grandchildren.

This is that moment. That’s what these hearings are about.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/member_statement.cfm?id=1610&wit_id=97


http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/02/01/svOBAMA_wideweb__470x323,0.jpg

[gateley]

1. There's more to Biden than a lot of people want to acknowledge. nt

[roguevalley]

25. Joe Biden screwed every person who has a credit card or who has

financial trouble and wants to bankrupt. he had a chance to help people against the machine and he followed his master's bidding. That is what I loathe about Joe Biden.

RV, who was a fan of him about a zillion years ago until lately.

[OrwellwasRight]

44. True. And Disappointing. However,

He does represent Delaware, long a credit card company hub due to its friendly corporate laws. So if anyone can be excused for voting for that, it would be him on the grounds of representing state interests.

I know, it is a very weak excuse. You don't have to tell me. But other than Feingold, none of them are pure. They all vote shitty on something. Obama and FISA, e.g.

[cascadiance]

54. But in my book corporate corruption is THE issue that needs to be fixed next term...

... and it will be VERY hard without adequate leadership at the top to fight it. In my book, there are likely better people than Biden that will be more apt to fight this battle.

[OrwellwasRight]

56. I hear you, but

#1, The VP historically has such little influence on policy that I don't think he could interfere with attempts to deal with corporate corruption; and

#2, I think there are two (probably many more issues) separate issues here. Biden's bankruptcy vote in my book wasn't about corporate corruption. Corporate corruption to me is Enron, TYCO, insider trading, cooking the books, lying to the SEC, illegal dumping of toxic waste, etc. I don't think Biden is for any of that or would vote to allow it, or would vote against trying to stop it.

Corporate power and greed is a separate issue, of how they get tax breaks and loopholes, are allowed to put arbitration clauses in consumer contracts, etc. I think the bankruptcy bill falls in this category, and as I said I share your criticism of Biden's vote.

In fact, I think Biden could be more strongly pro-consumer of he no longer represented Delaware.

Just a thought anyway.

But he is not my dream VP.

My dream VP (whom you'll probably also disapprove of) is Steny Hoyer. No, I absolutely don't think he is perfect or has a perfect voting record.

However, I watch him on CSPAN almost daily, and he is a well-spoken attack dog, perfect for the veep's job.

Smart, articulate, can engage in and win just about any debate, has a safe seat that we wouldn't lose to an R, has some military background, comes from a near-South, part-rural state, and would be able to say all the mean things necessary to say during the campaign. And do it all with a winning smile and great demeanor.

Ok, have at. Take me to task. Just wanted to get it out there, and let you know that I am not defending Biden for any other reason than I think he would be OK. Not perfect -- just OK.

[progressivebydesign]

47. Ugh. I forgot about that!! I have not forgiven him for that.

Delaware.. the tiny little place with more corps per square mile, and Biden doing the bidding for the credit card sharks. Yeah.. that'll play well in the heartland. We can win without Delaware... I'd be shocked if it was him.

[cascadiance]

53. Yup, the above statement MIGHT persuade me if he expressed concern for "corporate personhood" ruling

and challenged the nominations for SCOTUS on whether they felt the notion of "corporate personhood" was a result of judicial (or even court clerk) activism and perhaps should be overturned by someone who claims to be a heavy advocate of the original constitution in court rulings.

IF he were to have said something like that, it might make me think again about whether he's got too many ties to corporate America or not. The bankruptcy bill for me though is what glares out to me as a big question mark for his true character on these sorts of issues.

[roguevalley]

55. yes. it is a mark of TRUE character to step out against the status

quo and stand up for those for whom leadership is NECESSARY - the poor and vulnerable- and not shill for the fat asses that own us lock stock and barrel. He did this with clear eyes and violated millions. It is a character moment when you stand up for what is RIGHT no matter the costs. When Barack stood against the war, it was a character moment. Biden shilling for the corps shows his. If anything happens to barack, GOD FORBID, he is the next in line. That I find appalling.

[Eurobabe]

71. Oh FFS. Maybe Obama should have chosen HAGEL

then we'd be a heartbeat away from 4 more years of Republican rule. Rogue Valley, I am going to have to put you on ignore, your rants about this are just a drone. C'ya!

[roguevalley]

87. You won't be seeing this, you tool, which is fine for me. How did

you go from what I said to Hagel? That is what a loser in an argument does, go from the topic to bullshit. Fine. Put me on ignore. I am HONORED to be out of your tiny, sad little world.

[Eurobabe]

70. IMHO, everyone who

voted for that bill shares responsibility for it equally, why do you dump all the onus on Joe? You don't have to like Biden, just vote for Obama -- :hi:

[Honeycombe8]

75. Okay. Now name something you LIKE about his voting record.

If you are truly in the Democratic ticket's corner, and a Democrat, there will be something you LIKE about Biden's voting record for the past 25 years.

No one is all good or all bad.

Since you named something you don't like, it's only fair that you name something you DO like. You are not just bashing the ticket, right? You are fairly criticizing one of the people on the ticket, right? Which means you fairly recognize the good points about him, too, right?

[Honeycombe8]

76. You're taking one vote a little too seriously. It doesn't affect anyone w/a credit card, ya know.

It ONLY affects those with unpaid balances on credit cards, who are in financial trouble and want to file bankruptcy.

I'm disappointed that that bill passed.

I haven't heard his side of it...why he voted for it. So I'll hold my judgment on that.

BUT...he has also repeatedly voted IN FAVOR OF STRONG ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION.

So he's not a bad guy. He has many votes I favor, and a couple I do not. ALL the VP candidates are similar. No one would be perfect to every single person.

[maui9002]

45. I'm not a Biden supporter as VP

But it's not because I don't respect him. I respect him quite a bit. It's just that each one of us has different criteria we use in determining who we'd think would make the best VP choice for Obama. For those whose primary criterion is perceived foreign policy experience, Biden is a top choice. But I don't think that's the main criterion by which most voters who matter (and by that I mean everyone other than us progressives and them conservatives who will vote for our party nominee regardless of the VP pick) choose whom to vote for. Instead, I think most of these voters, which I'll loosely term undecideds, independents and crossovers, are interested in someone who gives them a sense of trustworthiness, who is authentic, who while ambitious doesn't seem that way, and who displays conviction on certain core principles. While I respect Biden, he's not that person, as least not compared to several other possible candidates, most notably Kaine and Clark of those who aren't complete longshots, and particularly Brian Schweitzer, whom most would react to by saying "WTF? Who is this guy?" for the next week or so, and then closer to the election, they'd be saying, "Man, this guy is the real deal!"

[Honeycombe8]

77. Actually, "authentic" is Biden's strong point. You may not think so, but millions

think otherwise.

He appeals to the everyday man, the blue collar worker. He speaks in plain language, and harshly at times. He speaks off the cuff (as well as having decent oratory skills).

He rides the train home to Delaware every night, sitting next to his constituents, like any other white collar worker.

He is considered to be an authentic, nice, well-liked, interesting, intelligent, down to earth man. You don't think so...but my understanding of him over the years is that those who know him think he is those things.

It was never going to be Clark. I told several posters, over and over. National politics is for the big boys/gals. Clark is not an experienced politician. That automatically cancelled him out. I love Clark. I supported him for Prez and contributed to his campaign. But he was a terrible politician. I was being objective, and I could see it plainly. He could be in the cabinet, but he could NOT, at this time, be on the ticket.

Kaine's problem is that he is unknown and a VERY inexperienced politician, with NO political experience at the national level. Obama's perceived weakness by some is inexperience. Adding someone else who is perceived as inexperienced would compound that problem.

Obama's strong point seems to be picking the right people for certain jobs. He chose the people to run his campaign, and he chose wisely. I have faith in his ability to pick the right people. Biden isn't perfect. No one is. But it's an exciting ticket that most people seem delighted with, and which has the right scrambling.

[usregimechange]

2. The he voted AGAINST him...

[democrat2thecore]

3. Exactly - I've seen posts that he voted 'Yes" - here's the NY Times Roll Call

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/29/politics/politicsspecial1/28rollcall.html

[cascadiance]

59. Of course what really counts is how he voted on cloture on Roberts...

That is something that really is IMPOSSIBLE to find now through google for some reason. I suspect that Democrats don't want to advertise that they gave a pretty blanket approval for cloture for Roberts.

An interesting page to study on Biden is to look at this page of where he voted against the Democratic Party's vote...

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/b000444/votes/against-party/

[democrat2thecore]

4. Absolutely brilliant - This really is a MUST-READ for us here at DU -nt

[Pab Sungenis]

5. The big problem with Biden, and why he won't (or shouldn't) get it

is the 1988 plagiarism debacle.

[goodgd_yall]

15. Lol!

Love the picture.

[democrat2thecore]

16. Which Sasso apologized for and knew it was a one-time thing which he didn't credit Kinnock. -nt

[Pab Sungenis]

33. I know.

But the Republicans don't care, and they will tear into him something fierce.

[goodgd_yall]

19. You're good

I just went to your website---I love the idea---historical figures as characters in a comic strip. Very funny!

[Pab Sungenis]

31. Thank you.

Being a history buff is finally paying off for me.

Granted, it pays about $15.00 a month, but that's better than nothing.

[OrwellwasRight]

39. That's so old . . .

and was never really relevant anyway. IMO, it was more of a made by the media for the media "scandal."

If McCain can flagrantly plagiarize wikipedia and the MSM says nothing, then Biden can plagiarize Neil Kinnock, apologize, and run for VP 20 years later.

Final point/question: The plagiarism didn't seem to be an issue at all when Biden was running for President just 6-12 months ago. So how is it an issue if he runs for VP?

[Orangepeel]

41. nonsense. 1) nobody is perfect 2) if they were, republicans would make something up anyway

it may not be Biden (although I think it is), but that would be a piss poor reason NOT to choose him.

[gateley]

43. Believe me, Biden has bigger problems than that. This is inconsequential, IMO. nt

[Honeycombe8]

78. There's nothing to that, really. Plus it was 20 years ago.

So he gave a speech several times where he quotes someone and credits that person. Then he gives the same speech one more time and neglects to do the credit.

It was a slip-up that was made large in TV ads by an opponent. There was nothing to it, really.

No one is perfect. If this is the worst thing there is, then it's smooth sailing.

[democrat2thecore]

6. Best. Post. Of. The. Week.

Thank you!

[usregimechange]

64. welcome

[artfan]

7. you can be a great progressive and be the wrong choice

Delaware is too small a state, Obama needs one of several 'types'
-white southern guy
or
-huge state
or
-star power
or
-Very different from himself for contrast

Biden is non of these

[democrat2thecore]

10. Right guy at the right time - you can't read that and not be moved -nt

[roguevalley]

27. nice moment he had but check his entire career. Everyone has good

moments.

[democrat2thecore]

30. You mean his 100% AFL-CIO voting record in '07? 85% Lifetime? -nt

[roguevalley]

52. a nice moment. only one of many moments. I remember Joe

Biden since he began. his record speaks to me about how he never let a corporation down. remember that when you pay your card bills. A lot of people have lost everything and he had a hand in it.

[Naturyl]

8. My pleasure to K&R this to greatest

Unless someone else beat me to it... :)

[usregimechange]

65. Thank you

[jeff30997]

9. K&R

[bread_and_roses]

11. Too bad he didn't keep some of that in mind while kissing up to his CC and bank money-bags

ain't it?

[Orsino]

12. Any progressive who likes Joe should probably read up on bankruptcy reform.

Joe is a mixed bag. He talks a good game--and few can talk a better one--but he also votes against our interests.

[democrat2thecore]

23. AFL-CIO: 100% in 2007.....85% Lifetime - against our interests? -nt

[Orsino]

34. That's the folly of trying to judge a legislator's voting record...

...by a rating rather than by the content of legislation. America is profoundly conservative, and the crap bills that come to a vote in today's Congress come nowhere near our interests. That Biden is so often able to choose the lesser of two evils is not all that impressive.

Yes, he often votes against us, and is no progressive. Bankruptcy Reform alone should weigh heavily on his karma, responsible as it is for a lot of misery.

I'm no one-issue voter, but I wouldn't be able to muster a lot of enthusiasm for the Biden of today. Oh, he's safe enough, and he knows it; he's still worlds better than anyone on the Republican side.

[Honeycombe8]

79. He has one of the strongest voting records on the environment. Against our interests? Ha. nt

[Orsino]

85. I said he *also* votes against our interests.

If he were a complete villain, I might not support him.

[carlotta]

13. I guess you don't remember Clarence Thomas

It was Biden, then head of the judiciary committee, that treated Anita Hill so poorly, and who shut down the appearance of 4 more women lined up to testify against Clarence. He completely caved to the Republicans and gave us arguably the worst Supreme Court Justice ever.

[Muttocracy]

17. I'd vote Scalia for worst ever. nt

[WheelWalker]

21. I guess you don't remember Robert Bork.

[depakid]

22. All most folks know or remember is Biden's appearances on the Sunday shows

Not his voting record- or how he's run hearings.

Some of the outpouring of support here reminds me of when Tim Russert died.

[democrat2thecore]

26. Biden voted AGAINST Thomas - here's the roll call

http://www.eclipse.net/~tgardnet/thomasvote.html

[gateley]

48. Yet Biden voted against Thomas.

His work and landmark legislation for women mean nothing. I see.

[progressivebydesign]

49. Yeah, what is with this love affair on DU for Biden?

I'm being reminded of his greatest hits, and I'm liking him less by the minute. I still don't believe the Dem Party could be dumb enough to not include a VP that would resonate with the majority of voters (it's all about image and likability), and I just don't see Biden having that ability to connect.

[Honeycombe8]

80. A newbie bursting thru the door with bold criticisms. We've seen this before.

It's called trolling.

Did you personally watch the Thomas hearings?

[Muttocracy]

14. thank you :)

[depakid]

18. Bunch of ineffectual pontification

typical of Biden hearings.

[WheelWalker]

20. You would know

about ineffectual pontification.

[depakid]

24. I've watched the man at hearings for 20 years

though I stopped watching the Sunday shows back in the early 00's -so some of the more recent drones of his, I admit I've missed.

[democrat2thecore]

32. So have I, depa'kid' -nt

[democrat2thecore]

28. You are a one-man/woman Anti-Biden Show - You know NOTHING of which you speak -nt

[depakid]

35. Everything I've said is factual

and it goes back a long way.

How on earth are people expected to campaign for change with a guy who:

1. Voted for the war;

2. Voted for financial deregulation that's caused the current economic crisis;

3. Voted for the Bankruptcy legislation that's hurt so many people caught up in the very same economic crisis he helped to create?

Does that seem logical to you?

[democrat2thecore]

37. Who did you support in the primaries? -nt

[depakid]

38. Didn't really have a dog in that fight- but the best VP choice is pretty clearly Wes Clark

For a lot of reasons.

[democrat2thecore]

42. Clark's great! But with years of service in the Senate, he too, might have made a few bad votes -nt

[maui9002]

51. But that's part of the point, and the problem

Wes Clark has not been a Senator, so he doesn't have a voting record that can be attacked; I think it would be in Obama's best interest not to pick a Senator for his running mate--in part for the reason that Senators can be attacked (usually unfairly) for votes on complex issues which are hard to defend without a nuanced explanation (just ask John Kerry), and the longer you've been there, the worse it gets. That's one of the reasons why I've been in favor of a Governor (Schweitzer or Kaine) or a general (Clark).

[WheelWalker]

36. I apologize up front for such a low blow, but you must be a

Beaver.

[depakid]

40. ......nope

[Cha]

29. My friend who comes into work

and we talk politics for years now brought up Biden today and we both agreed that he's not perfect but who is? My buddy said SEnator Biden knows so much about Foreign Affairs and he should have been President years ago:patriot:

[progressivebydesign]

46. Yes. He's impressive.. HOWEVER.. we need to win.

American voters will choose the team that seems like they are "just like the rest of us." Why don't people on these sites get that? American voters are NOT reading transcripts like that. They're responding to who looks like they might mow their own lawn -- even if it's TOTAL BULLSHIT, they love cowboys and "regular guys." That's why every time the Dems insist on throwing up a suited northern liberal at voters, it tanks.

Geez.. we've had ONE two-term Democratic president in modern history. Is it so hard for the powers-that-be to get it that America has moved to the center and will always choose the Clinton/Gore type team, or the Bush or Reagan types now?

I have much respect for Biden, and for Nunn, and others, but a ticket where both guys look like Hedge Fund Managers will NOT sell in America. I hope that the Party figures this out. Americans are not sophisticated enough to "get" it.

[gateley]

50. I get it. I think Biden is the best of the bunch whose addition to the

ticket would best translate into votes in November.

[Captain Lance Bass]

57. Hillary or bust

no one wants to admit it...the MCain/Romney/RNC smear machine will own thse 2

[usregimechange]

58. Biden would thrash both of them together!

[Honeycombe8]

81. ANOTHER newbie bursts thru door with strong criticisms. hahahahaha.

(we see you)

;-)

[tyedyeto]

60. I also recall Kindasleeza's committee hearings in which he said

(I'm paraphrasing): I know you have been 'less than truthful' (or some such drivel) with this committee but I'm going to vote for this vote to go before the full Senate.

What a piece of shit he is. Knowing someone lied to the committee but I'll vote yes anyway?

[Honeycombe8]

82. Complete your thought. What vote was that? nt

[democrat2thecore]

61. Kick for an excellent post . **Good reading** - nt

[usregimechange]

62. kick

[usregimechange]

63. kick!

[usregimechange]

66. kick

[annabanana]

67. Now that he's the VP nominee.. keep this kicked!. . n/t

[annabanana]

68. this is a thread I will kick through the weekend

the other one is this:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6694706&mesg_id=6694706

[derby378]

69. Biden is an unapologetic gun-grabber

Obama has just lost any hope of winning any southern and western states other than California. The whole "Obama won't take your guns away" meme collapsed today with Biden's nomination.

[usregimechange]

72. eh, what?

[Ediacara]

84. Are Washington and Oregon no longer western? Hawaii?

ON EDIT: I see you're from Dallas, and by "west" you actually mean Great Plains and Rocky Mountain.

[usregimechange]

73. kick

[annabanana]

74. kickers! . . . . n/t

[annabanana]

83. Kickerino . . . . . . .n/t

[annabanana]

86. kicks. . . . .n/t