Great quote. It gives support to Obama's desire to bring some gender balance to the court (if you can consider 2 women and 7 mena s some kind of balance).

"on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak"

Yes, an important criterion. I wonder is Sotomayor truly ranks high on this (in opposition to the strong being favored over the weak), in her actual judicial record. I've read that she doesn't seem to favor the weak.

Here's the complete transcript of Obama's statement on the nomination of John Roberts, given on the Senate floor, September 22, 2005, including a link to the document on the Government Printing Office's servers, and with paragraph breaks properly formatted.

Congressional Daily Record: September 22, 2005 (Senate)
Pages S10365-S10366, DOCID:cr22se05-143

Nomination Of John Roberts

Mr. Obama: Mr. President, thank you very much.

First of all, let me congratulate Senator Specter and Senator Leahy for moving the process of confirming the nomination of Judge Roberts along with such civility, a civility that I believe speaks well of the Senate.

Let me also say that I remain distressed that the White House during this confirmation process, which overall went smoothly, failed to provide critical documents as part of the record that could have provided us with a better basis to make our judgment with respect to the nomination. This White House continues to stymie efforts on the part of the Senate to do its job. I hope with the next nominee who comes up for the Supreme Court that the White House recognizes that in fact it is its duty not just to the Senate but to the American people to make sure we can thoroughly and adequately evaluate the record of every single nominee who comes before us.

Having said that, the decision with respect to Judge Roberts' nomination has not been an easy one for me to make. As some of you know, I have not only argued cases before appellate courts but for 10 years was a member of the University of Chicago Law School faculty and taught courses in constitutional law. Part of the culture of the University of Chicago Law School faculty is to maintain a sense of collegiality between those people who hold different views. What engenders respect is not the particular outcome that a legal scholar arrives at but, rather, the intellectual rigor and honesty with which he or she arrives at a decision.

Given that background, I am sorely tempted to vote for Judge Roberts based on my study of his resume, his conduct during the hearings, and a conversation I had with him yesterday afternoon.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view. It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law. He couldn't have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court without that passion for the law, and it became apparent to me in our conversation that he does, in fact, deeply respect the basic precepts that go into deciding 95 percent of the cases that come before the Federal court--adherence to precedence, a certain modesty in reading statutes and constitutional text, a respect for procedural regularity, and an impartiality in presiding over the adversarial system. All of these characteristics make me want to vote for Judge Roberts.

The problem I face--a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts--is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases--what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.

In those 5 percent of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions or whether the commerce clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled--in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart.

I talked to Judge Roberts about this. Judge Roberts confessed that, unlike maybe professional politicians, it is not easy for him to talk about his values and his deeper feelings. That is not how he is trained. He did say he doesn't like bullies and has always viewed the law as a way of evening out the playing field between the strong and the weak.

I was impressed with that statement because I view the law in much the same way. The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.

I want to take Judge Roberts at his word that he doesn't like bullies and he sees the law and the Court as a means of evening the playing field between the strong and the weak. But given the gravity of the position to which he will undoubtedly ascend and the gravity of the decisions in which he will undoubtedly participate during his tenure on the Court, I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power than to the assuring words that he provided me in our meeting.

The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts' nomination. I do so with considerable reticence. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that this reticence on my part proves unjustified and that Judge Roberts will show himself to not only be an outstanding legal thinker but also someone who upholds the Court's historic role as a check on the majoritarian impulses of the executive branch and the legislative branch. I hope that he will recognize who the weak are and who the strong are in our society. I hope that his jurisprudence is one that stands up to the bullies of all ideological stripes.

Let me conclude with just one more comment about this confirmation process.

I was deeply disturbed by some statements that were made by largely Democratic advocacy groups when ranking member Senator Leahy announced that he would support Judge Roberts. Although the scales have tipped in a different direction for me, I am deeply admiring of the work and the thought that Senator Leahy has put into making his decision. The knee- jerk unbending and what I consider to be unfair attacks on Senator Leahy's motives were unjustified. Unfortunately, both parties have fallen victim to this kind of pressure.

I believe every Senator on the other side of the aisle, if they were honest, would acknowledge that the same unyielding, unbending, dogmatic approach to judicial confirmation has in large part been responsible for the kind of poisonous atmosphere that exists in this Chamber regarding judicial nominations. It is tempting, then, for us on this side of the aisle to go tit for tat.

But what I would like to see is for all of us to recognize as we move forward to the next nominee that in fact the issues that are confronted by the Supreme Court are difficult issues. That is why they get up to the Supreme Court. The issues facing the Court are rarely black and white, and all advocacy groups who have a legitimate and profound interest in the decisions that are made by the Court should try to make certain that their advocacy reflects that complexity. These groups on the right and left should not resort to the sort of broad-brush dogmatic attacks that have hampered the process in the past and constrained each and every Senator in this Chamber from making sure that they are voting on the basis of their conscience.

Nice Post Bill. Thanks for sharing.

It's simple - Obama voted against Roberts by claiming that Roberts displayed the WRONG KIND OF EMPATHY.

According to Obama, 95% of cases are decided in agreement, but 5% are decided on empathy because they are too unclear or uncertain otherwise.

But these 5% also happen to be, by definition, the most complex and likely important, given the lack of clarity and agreement.

So instead of collective effort to understand what the law actually means (hello, is this Supereme Court or a ultra-partisan TPM chat room?), Obama is essentially encouraging, endorsing and promoting the class ideology interpretation - poor vs rich (or, rather, "weak" vs "strong" in his bizarre word choice)...

Which leads to picking on basis of "empathy" rather than record. Which leads to the class struggle at every public institution, including those that are supposed to be the most impartial and independent.

I have no beef to grind with Sotomayor but it's clear that Obama's views on SCOTUS have nothing to do with the actual law.

Interesting. Of course this statement was made way back when Obama was interested in appearing liberal as opposed to his current centrist/postpartisan self. I'm glad he voted against Roberts, a man who has no business whatsoever on the Supreme Court because he is and always has been a supreme partisan hack. But I'm not sure that Obama's statement has a whole lot of relevance today.

MCB, I just want to say, "Good for you" for making a blog-post. I have criticized you in the past for just posting comments, and I am glad to see that you are taking the risk/time to put a blog together. I know it isn't easy to do that at a place where 90% of us disagree with you.

In fact, my comment (#1 here) was pure snark. I knew you posted this to criticize Obama, and I heartily praised the very statements you put in to show how terrible he is. -- Just wanted to get that straight.

I disagree with 99.99% (added that last 9 right before submitting) of everything you say, but I will defend to ....oh, well, I just want to say that it's good to have an alternate view from time to time; keeps us aware of the talking points, etc. I also know that it takes a certain level of courage to do it. So bravo, MCB!