Reply With Quote
What's the phrase? Oh yeah... Judge Roberts owned that Committee today.
Without relying on any other sources for my opinions ....
Thought it would be appropriate to start a thread about the Roberts confirmation proceedings, which began today in front of the Senate judiciary committee. Not much worthy of reporting today. Primarily spent the day hearing 10 minute statements from each member of the committee. Mostly partisan approaches to the standard of proof (whether its on Roberts to prove that he's qualified or on the Committee to determine that he's not qualified), about which questions Roberts should be required to answer, and various postulations on the role of courts in general and the Supreme Court in particular.
Most interesting comments today, IMO, were those of Chairman Specter, who insinuated that he thinks Roberts has some serious issues to address with regard to his position on the existence of a Cons utional right to privacy, and of Senator Biden, who boldly admitted that he would vote against Roberts based on the existing state of the record, largely because Roberts' positions on matters of cons utional interpretation.
Roberts gave a brief opening in which he used a metaphor, describing the role of a judge as similar to that of a baseball umpire -- a neutral arbiter in a game with set rules. Very little of note beyond that.
One thing that struck me, in the context of what went on today, is that the disdain for "judicial activism" seems to lack a clear defining term. That is, nobody seems to really be able to define what "judicial activism" is. hear the Republicans on the committee decrying judicial activism, but the logical endpoint of their argument creates an unprincipled result -- for example, the Republicans wanted an activist court in Kelo v. New London (eminent domain case). It can't be a court that rules certain laws to be uncons utional, since courts are supposed to do that when parties make convincing arguments for such results. High courts, in particular and by their very nature, have to be bodies that carefully consider the cons utionality of state and federal laws and activities when those matters have been challenged by parties that have been somehow aggrieved by those state actions. If courts are meant to do nothing other than approvingly rubber-stamp the enactments of Legislatures, without regard to whether those enactments actually comply with the protections afforded by the Cons ution, there really isn't a need to say that we have 3 equal branches of government.
I suspect that Roberts will be confirmed overwhelmingly. But the discussions that will take place during the next week or so will be much bigger issues with the next Bush appointee -- this hearing will just set that stage.
What's the phrase? Oh yeah... Judge Roberts owned that Committee today.
Ted Kennedy: Judge Roberts, if the court were tied 4-4 on where, when and what category the next Hurricane were to hit the gulf coast of the United States, how would you cast your deciding vote?
How exactly do you figure that? He spoke for about 6 minutes and didn't answer a single question. He said what just about any nominee might -- that he's honored to be nominated, that he looks forward to answering the questions the committe will have, that he views the role of judge to be that of a neutral. It's straight out of the nominee playbook.
The only action today was the partisan hacking on the committee.
We'll see tomorrow. I fully suspect that Roberts will do fine.
, even Chuckie Shumer had nice things to say about him. He did his opening without notes (something none of the 18 Senators were able to muster) and he, in my mind, pre-empted a lot of the shenanigans that were expected, starting tomorrow.
I do agree, we'll have to wait and see how the hearing goes...
Roberts is the smartest guy in that room at all times -- and by a very, very big margin. But I don't think that he pre-empted anything, really, with his articulate and modest statement.
Today was the day for kissing ass and making nice. Everyone knows that Roberts is a smart guy and that he is a of a lawyer. There's no reason to act as if the opposite is true of him. That doesn't necessarily mean he's qualified for the Court -- Bork had the same sort of resume -- but it's not something that can be ignored. Frankly, I think Roberts is well qualified and should be confirmed, but I also understand the concerns of the Senate Democrats about this nomination.
Frankly, I think that when Bush decided to make Roberts the nominee for Chief, the stakes of the game changed quite a bit. A very conservative nominee to replace Rehnquist isn't a great, great threat to precedent. A very conservative nominee to replace O'Connor is a much different question. I truly believe that the real fireworks will take place during that confirmation proceeding unless Bush presents a fairly moderate nominee. Since he won't do that, the real excitement is several months away.
But I will listen to these proceedings and report here everyday. It will be interesting to hear comments from the gang about what takes place.
One other thing to keep in mind is that Justice Stevens, who I guess could be called a liberal to moderate Republican, is 85.Frankly, I think that when Bush decided to make Roberts the nominee for Chief, the stakes of the game changed quite a bit. A very conservative nominee to replace Rehnquist isn't a great, great threat to precedent. A very conservative nominee to replace O'Connor is a much different question.
I don't have a problem with him. I listened to his statement and was impressed.
Understatement of the yearRoberts is the smartest guy in that room at all times -- and by a very, very big margin.
A bit heavy on the bronzer, but of course he'll be confirmed.
And you obviously have a problem with that due to your political conviction.
I am very impressed with Roberts today. He is so clear and articulate in his answers. And considering how long and rambling and imprecise some of the questions are, that's quite an accomplishment. Some of these senators - okay all - are such longwinded gas bags. It's amazing how they can drone on so long and yet say so little. Ted Kennedy is an ass. He keeps interrupting John Roberts and than at one point he rudely addressed him as simply "Roberts". So unstatesmanlike.
.
Roberts is in the "conservative mainstream" as that seems to be defined nowadays so I don't have big problems with him and his confirmation is pretty much a lock IMHO.
What we are seeing has a lot more to do with future nominations. By being difficult with this nomination, the Demos want to give the impression that anybody less mainstream will run into major roadblocks.
Couldn't that backfire though, if the public perceives them to be obstructionist?By being difficult with this nomination, the Demos want to give the impression that anybody less mainstream will run into major roadblocks.
I think you have to choose your fights.
Or if the public perceives them to be total assholes. That's how Biden is coming across now. I don't know if he's just trying to inject drama into the proceedings, but he is being unnecessarily rude and coming across as a total . He could ask any of these questions without the disrespectful and derisive tone. What an ass.
Biden is Al Queda's best friend.. he conducts relentless attacks on the current administration.. But like Kennedy he has way to many bones in the closet and lack of true nad to run for President.
Joe Biden is an enemy of the state.... inside the state...
One thing of interest...for all of those who voted for Bush because he would appoint judges who presumably would overturn Roe, Roberts doesn't seem to be offering them that.
Will the GOP pay for not satisfying their base? No, of course not. No party ever does. The sooner some of you in here understand that, the sooner you will give up on either of the two major US parties.
Roberts hasn't called Roe versus Wade settled law. The guy just looks like evil incarnate...
Link to where Bush said he would appoint judges who will overturn Roe V Wade?
At the heart of conservatism is the desire to maintain the status quo...so one could argue that a true conservative would be loathe to overturn precedent or set a new one.Will the GOP pay for not satisfying their base? No, of course not. No party ever does. The sooner some of you in here understand that, the sooner you will give up on either of the two major US parties.
I think most politicians are against over-turning Roe Vs Wade. Bush's dad was pro choice originally, I doubt W is very much different..but he's still got to get elected.
It's pandering to extremist vote, kind of like the way the Left Panders to the anti-American/Pro-terrorist vote.
For starters, here's a sampling from the 2004 Republican Party Platform:
Also, I would add that it's rather clear that appointing 'pro-life judges' was a primary concern of a significant portion of Bush voters, and that includes appointing SC justices who would vote to overturn Roe.As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of
Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to
life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Cons ution
and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections
apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that
right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion
and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges
who respect traditional family values and the sanc y of innocent human life.
Well sure. Perhaps Roberts is a conservative in that vein. But a majority of Bush supporters are not.At the heart of conservatism is the desire to maintain the status quo...so one could argue that a true conservative would be loathe to overturn precedent or set a new one.
Sure, but that's not what his supporters expect.I think most politicians are against over-turning Roe Vs Wade. Bush's dad was pro choice originally, I doubt W is very much different..but he's still got to get elected.
But of course. Clinton sold out his base time and time again and Bush has done the same. Yet both still had the other side as the boogeymen to scare their supporters into action.It's pandering to extremist vote, kind of like the way the Left Panders to the anti-American/Pro-terrorist vote.
Because anyone who disagrees with this Administration's policies must be an enemy of the state, right?That line gets really old.
Biden was pretty blunt yesterday in saying forthrightly that, based on the do ent production to date, he didn't believe he could vote for Roberts, and in laying out what he felt he needed to hear from Roberts to change his mind. I don't agree with him, but I understand why he feels that way. I listened to Biden's questions today and they were aimed at addressing the very concerns that he expressed yesterday. What's wrong with that? Should he just sit as a rubber stamp, not trying to dig into the nominee's background and beliefs? I mean, what the do you want?
I'm serious, what is it with this guy and his runaway-bride eyes?
Those eyes have no soul.
I don't know what it is but you're a fool
He'll fit right in...I'm serious, what is it with this guy and his runaway-bride eyes?
Those eyes have no soul.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
