Anyone else been watching/listening to the confirmation hearings? I love this stuff. Anyway, completely separating myself from politics, I like Roberts. I like his control, I like his understated humor, and I like his legal competence (as far as understanding of legal history, procedure, etc). I also like the way he doesn't answer questions. He basically answers the way everyone thinks he should answer, and then spends five minutes vaguely explaining how his positive answer is not always true (but what is left in one's mind is his initial answer of "yes, I think individual privacy is a constitutional right to be strongly upheld). I will find it interesting to watch whether he is hiding his true hidden agenda or whether he takes some other route when he becomes the real deal (and, of course, he will be confirmed). Oh yeah, Jeff Sessions of Alabama is a near-inarticulate bufoon of a man (only in the context of these proceedings). It seemed he completely confused himself every other sentence or so...
Agree. He's been very impressive, even when, as you note, he's being evasive. No question that the man is very, very smart. He may also hold opinions far from the mainstream, but we'll not find that out until he's on the bench. Keep D&D Civil!!
I've been pretty impressed with him too and so far think he's going to make a great Chief Justice. For as much as I criticize the Bush Admin. I think they did a very good job of selecting Roberts. I agree its hard to get a read on him and am not troubled by that. I get the feeling he's going to end up being a lot more like Kennedy, O'Connor and even Souter than he will like Scalia, Thomas or Rhenquist.
I could not care less about his good manners and smooth articulation.....bottomline is that smiley motherf***er evaded, skirted, and misleadingly replied to every other question asked of him today. Even putting aside the fact that he only has 2 years total bench experience, I just can't believe the disingenuous responses he was giving. Particularly when he claimed Ginsberg never explained her view on abortion during her confirmation hearing. That was either an outright lie or just ignorance on his part. Either way, what a sad week it is that this guy's being made chief frickin justice of the country.
Whats the point though of having an impartial court if the Judge has already decided ahead of time what his rulings are and told you. Anyway from the pro-choice side he's already said he believes that Roe is established law. That's more than you will get out of a lot of judges.
I just cant believe we are looking at putting a very inexperienced jurist on the highest seat on the highest bench in the nation Overlooking his disturbing habit of hiding his true felings/views....he would probably make a decent justice.....I just dont think he should be Chief Justice.....at this time.
Besides the fact that I think someone already in should be appointed Cheif justice, I kinda like this guy. He seems genuine. I will give him the benefit of doubt and hope that he is a great Chief Justice and not another GW mouth piece. I gave GW the same benefit of doubt after he was elected in 2000, but his actions made me dis-like him there afterward. Hopefully Roberts goes on to do a great job. No point in holding up the appointment IMO.
Really agree, Rimmy. Have enjoyed this guy a great deal, and he will be confirmed. Must add this forwarded email, originally written by John Tierney. (I've edited this, keeping the more funny bits I think... apologies if this has been posted in another thread. I'm rusty and sort of tired) -------- By JOHN TIERNEY Published: September 13, 2005 He came, he charmed, he shut up. During the opening statements, the senators blathered away their time and more; Judge John Roberts used less than half of his to utter a few graceful generalities. He has made a career out of not saying the wrong thing. Why start now? A lawyer who has been cross-examined dozens of times by the Supreme Court will not be caught off guard by senators posing as legal scholars. There has never been a nominee better prepared to dodge constitutional questions. The only hope for Democrats is to try the tactics used by interrogation pros like Israeli airport screeners and U.S. customs agents. These experts know that a smart criminal will have rehearsed a cover story for, say, what he was doing in London and why he's going to New York. But if he's asked something unexpected - how he liked the London weather, whether he's planning to visit Times Square - he has to change mental gears. He's apt to exhibit telltale signs of a liar under stress, like gazing upward and to his right as he answers. I'm not suggesting that Mr. Roberts is a liar, or that anything the Democrats ask today could stop him from being confirmed. But they might at least keep TV viewers awake by trying questions like these: If Roe v. Wade were a tree, what kind of tree would it be? In your best judgment, did Brad and Jen really just grow apart, or was it Angelina's fault? From your analysis of constitutional history, would you classify James Madison as a dog person or a cat person? Would you think it's cool if a professional wrestler dubbed himself Chief Justice? During the announcement of your nomination at the White House, your son distracted the president with an impromptu dance. When you got home that night, what happened to him? After Justice Souter's opinion in the Kelo case endorsed the use of eminent domain to seize peoples' homes for a higher "public use," a group proposed that the town of Weare in New Hampshire increase its tax revenue by taking Justice Souter's property there so that a developer could build a resort called the Lost Liberty Hotel. Would your family ever vacation there? What goes on four legs in the morning, two legs at noon and three legs in the evening? When justices have birthday parties, should they invite all the other justices, or can they invite just the ones they like? Ashley or Mary-Kate? Your passion for correct grammar and syntax is well known, but you have yet to inform the American people of your position on the serial comma. In the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," should there be a comma after "liberty"? Why did you turn to the right and look upward?"
The most important thing to note about supreme court justices is that there's a high probability that they shift left. If there's one unique feature to judges is that they never get more conservative and if anything get more liberal. There are the Scalias and Thomases that are generally the same ideologically as when they were appointed. Then there's Kennedy who's become remarkedly more libertarian and O'connor who became fairly centrist. I figured Souter was going to be somewhat liberal when he was appointed but he turned out to be fairly consistent. The same could easily happen with Roberts. I think Roberts will probably follow Kennedy in terms of a judicial model. He won't be a big fan of activism but I think he'll be loyal to basic constitutional principles. I dont think he'll be nearly as conservative as scalia because roberts doesn't seem to be a pre-determined in his views if you've ever read his opinions on the court of appeals.
This isn't about him showing his cards or telling us his predicted rulings beforehand. He cited his reason for declining to give straight answers by saying that Ginsburg set such a precedent herself. That is just bullshht. Utterly false bullshht. Then instead of explaining his previously stated stances from prior memos and write-ups, he says 'oh but you're not accurately representing my opinion so I don't wanna talk blah blah blah I plead the fifth'. It's one thing to have Clinton sit up there and fiddle around with definitions of "is", but this guy is not going to be just sitting up in a kangaroo court congressional hearing for a few days trying to save his own ass from Ken Starr. He is going to be the Chief frickin Justice.....the Law of the Land......for decades to come. We deserve better than this legal-ease lawyer talk.
ASIDE: Why is there no requirement for the Chief Justice to have been a Justice first? Wouldn't a little experience on the SC be an obvious benefit for the task? FURTHER ASIDE: Hotdog, a B-Bob sighting!
Why is evasiveness not seen as deceitfulness in this instance? Clinton was evasive about Monica . . .became a reason for it to come up at trial and lead to impeachment but in this instance. .it is just Roberts' SSSMMMOOOOTHness I'm not a package guy I prefer to see what is inside You can drag ya pretty wife and kids and all american family and parade them around all you want. . the question is WHO ARE YOU and WHAT DO YOU STAND FOR and IS IT GOOD FOR AMERICA? Of Course he will be confirmed. . .this is just a dog and pony show smoke and mirror. . . . hell he could have simply filled out an application and let them rubber stamp it The Demos are so weak and pathetic these days. . . I'm totally disgusted with them I'm not worried about Abortion Hell I worry about Civil Rights but the main thing I am worried about is This Fizer Court stuff The SILENT Warrants and search and seizures etc This IMO is BIG BROTHER type stuff that scares me I personally have figured out that I better get rich soon because . .. . . nothing I have seen tells me that . . . it will get any better for the poor man anytime soon Rocket River
Dough is not the end-all answer alone. Just look at Abramovich and Khodorkovsky. When the public's wallets get thin, fingers get pointed at the resident minorities first.
It is disgusting to see a guy get away with evasiveness and the Senators being p***y cats as they cede their Constitutional power. I could only take so much of it. It is horrible to see that we now are enshrining that the "advise and consent" or it really "approval" of S. Ct. judges is now history as the nominees don't have to really say anything. So the President like a Pope or something just appoints and controls the S.Ct. Is it entertaining in a way, as he is smart and charming? Yes. However, this isn't a law school seminar or a debate staqed somewhat for entertainment. As our rights are stripped away and given to the corporations and the powerful, the intellectual pleasure of watching him parry their questions will be faint relief.
That tree we just slammed into is the forest. Politicians (Democrats and Republicans) The Perfect Storm. The people of this nation are about as divided as you can possibly be, 50-50 Repeat after me- Republicans- Clinton is evil. Democrats- Bush is evil. Say it again. Our benevolent rulers in Washington don't mess up Supreme Court selections.
I disagree. Clinton is not evil and I am a Republican. He did many amazing things as President. More good than bad. And any of you guys that is troubled by John Bob...man...this guy is money! He is being evasive because he cannot allow his opinion on anything out prior to his appointment. It would prejudice the freaking Supreme Court of America you imbeciles. And incidentally every supreme court nominee gives evasive answers. Last night Savage (he's a psychopath but his show has an amazing trainwreck quality that I cannot pull myself from) Ruth Vader Ginsburg's audio as she was going through this and she gave terse, curt, and EVASIVE answers. And there has never been a more liberal appointee. Ever.
I disagree. I'm a republican and I don't see Clinton as Evil. NOt at all like the amount that democrats make Bush to be. Those were nice years the US had under Clinton, too bad they were false and the truth all came out in 2000 ish. Like the company scandals, not accepting capture of Bin Laden...."reno wall".
Let me clarify my opinion- I believe politicians and voters have different agendas. I think Bill, Hillary, George Sr. and George Jr. are closer to one another than to their respective constituents. (This goes for Congress also by and large) I may not be right but is an interesting concept to ponder and possibly research. And I don't know how John Roberts will sit as Chief Justice but I am certain in my own mind that the politicians are happy with the choice.
