As United States Senator for Pennsylvania I would vote against the nomination of John Roberts to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Consistent with the Bush Administration's "politics as usual" approach to all questions of governance, Judge Roberts went before the Senate Judiciary Committee intent on hiding his judicial philosophy from the Senate and the American people. This veiled and secretive approach to a matter as weighty as a lifelong appointment at the head of the Supreme Court is unacceptable.

Judge Roberts' nomination passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee without my having any new insight into how he would run the Court, or how he would approach critical constitutional questions, such as privacy rights, a women's right to choose, consumer rights, due process of law, equality before the law, and a host of other civil liberties issues.

Understanding that Bob Casey, Jr., my Democratic opponent for the Pennsylvania's 2006 United States Senate seat for Pennsylvania, would vote for the Roberts nomination, speaks volumes about our differences as candidates and prospective Senators. The decision on backing or opposing the Roberts nomination has nothing to with the politics of "right and left"; it has everything to do with the politics of "right and wrong." As an historian, political scientist, and citizen-candidate with years of experience dealing with and teaching about our Constitution, I alone will not stand down from a fight over the core principles that embody our American system, including rights of privacy, choice, due process, judicial independence, and separation of church and state.

Again, because Judge Roberts has not demonstrated a clear commitment to those same constitutional principles, I would vote against his nomination to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.