Fun with the Judiciary committee

[GTAVercetti 0]

From Reason.com:

Hard to tell which is scarier, the bloviating windbags on the Senate Judiciary Committee or that John Roberts can sit in front of them for more than five seconds and not throw a chair at the bunch. His supernatural, faintly un-American, calm should be a disqualifying attribute.

But since it is not, we are left to parse the wisdom of the likes of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) where we find the Democrats' sing-songy theme: consensus, compromise, mainstream. Feinstein also appointed herself Guardian Protector of half the population.

"As the only woman on the Committee, I believe I have an additional role in evaluating nominees for the Supreme Court. This entails representing the views and concerns of American women throughout this process," she said in her opening statement.

Oh happy day.

--------

bleh

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Trent 0]

Did you watch any of the hearings? It was awesome. Roberts made those retards look like... well, retards. It would have been hilarious, but I can't really laugh too much with Kennedy's mug on screen. Roberts did a great job from what I saw... took the wind out of a lot of sails!

Oh, hello again!

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Did you watch any of the hearings? It was awesome. Roberts made those retards look like... well, retards. It would have been hilarious, but I can't really laugh too much with Kennedy's mug on screen. Roberts did a great job from what I saw... took the wind out of a lot of sails!

I have not seen much, but what I have seen has made me laugh. Ridiculous

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[kallend 2,150]

There was not one Senator from either side who wasn't a grandstanding windbag. And I don't think Roberts gave a straight answer to any but the most trivial questions. If he'd been asked what he'd had for breakfast he would have evaded the question.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

There was not one Senator from either side who wasn't a grandstanding windbag. And I don't think Roberts gave a straight answer to any but the most trivial questions. If he'd been asked what he'd had for breakfast he would have evaded the question.

So absolutely true.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

There was not one Senator from either side who wasn't a grandstanding windbag. And I don't think Roberts gave a straight answer to any but the most trivial questions. If he'd been asked what he'd had for breakfast he would have evaded the question.

Did you see what's his face almost crying?

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rehmwa 2]

I think he's great. He clearly stated that his job would be to UPHOLD the law, not reinterpret it based on any bias (right or left) or personal - at that point, he only has to not relate his personal positions (which should not relate to the job) and merely show that these guys can't elicit an emotional response (which would indicate a potential to bias a call based on his feelings rather than knowledge of law). Then he tasked congress to clarify their laws - Their job, not the judges.

He's 100% correct - umpires make calls based on the rules, they don't change the rules or make judgements based on personal feelings.

One senator even opened up by insisting that laws are unclear and open to various interpretation - he's bashing his own organization and couldn't even recognize it.

Earlier, a congressman noted that judges write the law. Do these guys actually DO anything?

As far as Roberts evading questions..... If the panel would stop asking him how he'd rule on hypotheticals (which he should never do, ever) then maybe he could answer. They aren't interested in his lack of bias in rulings or knowledge of law - they want promises that he will be biased in their direction. The panel is out of control, it's sickening they can't even do this simple task of a job interview for a position very well defined.

Edit: for all the Bush has let me down (not making the tax cuts permanent, SS reform not progressing, not vetoing a single spending bill, etc) if he can pick SC judges that can keep politics out of upholding the law, then at least that will be some good. Roberts "appears" to be a great start. Because we know both Gore and Kerry would have nominated partisan hacks.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wmw999 2,589]

I pretty much agree. I have a feeling that I would disagree with his political beliefs almost down the line. However, he sounds like a fine, decent man who has a consistent set of values that he will apply even when they disagree with his personal beliefs.

I'm not sure that I, Wendy, would like him on the supreme court because of his beliefs. Of course they will color his opinions. But that's where that whole confirmation thing comes through -- I'm not the only one voting. I don't always get everything I want (although in a kinder world I would )

And I do think I would prefer that he be on the court than someone who does wear their beliefs on their sleeves and on the front of their T-shirts.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I'm not sure that I, Wendy, would like him on the supreme court because of his beliefs. Of course they will color his opinions.

Maybe it would color his opinions (no kidding) but it doesn't mean it will decide his 'judgements' and that's the important thing. I am specifically differentiating between how he votes vs what he writes up or thinks in his private life. I realize you meant 'opinion' in terms of judgement and I'm not using it that way on purpose.

That's the only consistent thing I see about liberals, they cannot conceive that a person can be unbiased as part of a duty. In fact, they count on people's biases and unreasoned emotions to drive their every action even when in a position such as judge. I think that wrong, we just need to find the right people to be judges.

other - What are his political beliefs that you 'have a feeling' you'd disagree with?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

That's the only consistent thing I see about liberals, they cannot conceive that a person can be unbiased as part of a duty. In fact, they count on people's biases and unreasoned emotions to drive their every action even when in a position such as judge. I think that wrong, we just need to find the right people to be judges.

Hey, lets say MODERN liberals. real liberals would not think that.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[wmw999 2,589]

When I said opinions I meant judicial opinions. Really. The fact that not all of the justices agree on any given issue is a pretty good indication that there isn't a roadmap to a correct opinion (of the judicial variety, again). Sometimes I wish there were -- it would be so much easier to say things were "wrong" or "right."

I thought the first part of my post indicated that I thought he would be unbiased as much as possible, and had proven that by his judicial conduct. A little slack here, OK?

I have to go re-read the news stories that made me wince before I can answer the last question. Some did, and yes, they were from a long time ago. Of course, that's because most of his recent writings haven't been released.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 2,150]

If the law and Constitution were cut and dried, we would only need one justice on the SC. In fact, we'd not need a SC at all.

We have 9 justices because there are AMBIGUITIES and the laws are open to INTERPRETATION. At which point personal beliefs and opinions come into play, like it or not.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GTAVercetti 0]

here is a good article. Best line is the opener:

" Last week's lengthy confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts revealed to the American people at least one important fact about the constitutional separation of powers: Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) is stark raving mad."

http://www.reason.com/links/links091905.shtml

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Roberts made those retards look like... well, retards.

Yes, I thought he did a great job also.

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

At which point personal beliefs and opinions come into play, like it or not.

What happened to precedent?

We are all engines of karma

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

We have 9 justices because there are AMBIGUITIES and the laws are open to INTERPRETATION. At which point personal beliefs and opinions come into play, like it or not.

Yup, both parties are COUNTING on it - and the laws congress write are DESIGNED that way. Sad isn't it?


Wendy - You get plenty of slack from me - all you want. I liked your position and do most every single time, I was just springboarding off of it.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

here is a good article. Best line is the opener:

" Last week's lengthy confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts revealed to the American people at least one important fact about the constitutional separation of powers: Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) is stark raving mad."

http://www.reason.com/links/links091905.shtml

You have to make allowances for people from Oklahoma.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.