[humbly]Strictly forbidden was inaccurate. [/humbly] As with all nominees (since 1925 when the hearings started) it has been the custom not to comment on cases or themes that may arise during your prospective term. [under breath] man this guy is being a...[/under breath]
Chance honesty would be just answering the questions Evasiveness and honesty cannot be reconciled IMO He is a pragmatic man . . .. Also I don't doubt his convictions .. but i worry about what they are . . . Does he beleive Equal Pay for equal work does he beleive that Voting should be a right to everyone and not be infringed upon Does he beleive that Discrimination is bad Does he beleive in People over corporations I wanna know WHO IS JOHN ROBERTS his wife. . . . .don't care his kids. . .adorable. . but . . .don't care His old cases. . . . . relevant His thoughts and ideals. .. relevant Bush calls him BOBBY . . . don't care Bush and He are DOING EACH OTHER . .. is still would not Care I just care about what he thinks on the issues If that does not come out in these . . uhm . . hearings then honestly. . . this is a dog and pony show and a big ole waste of time and money. . . just give the man a robe and gable and let him go about his business the american public would rather these congressmen become PROGRESSMAN than sit on the hill f***ing around with John Roberts if nothing of substance is coming out of it. Rocket River
His old cases. . . . . relevant As a lawyer, he advocates his client's position. We could grade him on his ability to do that, but it is just not that relevant to how he would act as judge. As a judge for two years or so, those cases are relevant (but a very short paper trail). Roberts does have a long political history, to go with his short judicial history. Not the best selection for a Supreme Court nomination. It could be worse though. GWB could have nominated Scalia or Thomas for Chief Justice.
I've changed my mind on how enjoyable it is to listen to. I guess it is sort of like the possiblity of trying to go with the flow once you realize that you can't stop the rape. More than yesterday I enjoyed the parrying and the refusal to answer questions, the legal lectures designed to run out the clock once it looked like a real question was now required. Of course, we never know if we are just having plain old lying on Robert's part like Clarence Thomas did.
RR. that makes good sense. I especially liked your line about not doubting his convictions just what they are. That was well spoken. I guess I am more apt to like him because he seems to share a lot of my convictions but is professional enough to rely on his knowledge of the law and understanding of the constitution instead of his emotions and personal feelings.
While I dissasociate from calling people imbeciles I'm with Chance on this one. Roberts may or may not have already predecided how he's going to rule on any number of controversial cases but he's smart enough and dignified enought to not let us in on it. The fear I'm hearing from many here is that he's going to rule very conservatively but if you listen to the testimony some of the sharpest questioning is coming from the most conservative senators. For good reason since the closest he's come to an answer on a controversial issue is that he won't overturn Roe V. Wade. Rimbaud is right that this is a dance but it is necessary. The Senators are trying to score political points but what they are trying to do is to get him to expose himself. The Dems are trying to expose him as an ideologue the same way that Repubs. tried to with Ginsburg. From a Democrat standpoint Rimbaud is also totally right that Bush holds the cards on who he appoints. From that standpoint Roberts is the best that Democrats can hope for. If you look over his record while he's obviously taken many conservative standpoints he's also taken moderate and even liberal views. Also his dedication to the precedent shows he is very cautious about making activist moves in either direction. One thing that should also give liberals and others pause in condeming him as a partisan hack is that often Supreme Court Justices especially guarded ones like Roberts views change while in the court. Notable liberal justices like Warren and Blackmun were thought to be conservatives and most recently I doubt any Republicans in 1991 figured Souter was going to be anything but a reliable conservative vote with Scalia, Thomas and Rhenquists. More liberal than Warren, Blackman, Thurman or even Souter? Really?
Does the name Earl Warren ring any bells? Hint: think Brown, Miranda, etc. Roberts has two years on him as Warren had no judicial experience prior to being named Chief.
The guy is no Bork. Democrats can't really expect someone from THEIR list to get the nomination. I say let him go through and save your political capital in case the next nominee is really bad.
I'm commenting on the practice not the rate. It makes no sense to me that you would appoint someone to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court when you have not even been a justice of the Supreme Court.
D'oh! That's Thurgood Marshall not Thurman Somehow I got Strom Thurman mixed up with Thurgood Marshall.
The only thing that is really added to the job is administrative. CJ doesn't have more judicial power and can't tell the others what to do or anything like that. It is odd when you look at it, sure, but such things happen all the time in business, academia, etc. How can some outsider come in and be site director for a company when there are managers/high ups that have been there for a decade? Same thing, really.
I don't mind anyone asking the nominee all types of questions. I don't think it is a witch hunt. It is what I would expect from congress in a situation as serious as this is. From what I have seen, I would say Roberts is qualified, and should be confirmed. He isn't my ideal, but he does seem on sound footing.
Not a bad strategy. Problem is he is really bad. Though he is a handsome guy, dresses well, is smart and has a sense of humor etc. It is not to be expected that the gonadless Dems will fight. They have been getting some heat from the constituents, so they are putting on a bit of a show.
Fair Enough. She's behind Marshall and Warren but ahead of Souter and Blackmun. http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/rtimpone/research/sccareer.htm
i'm not saying you're wrong, because i don't know enough about the guy. but define what you mean when you say, "bad."
