[smacintush]

I just thought that since the Roberts confirmation is important we needed an active thread on it.

First the Democrats Exploit the poor and minorities to oppose Roberts' confirmation.

Senate Democrats said yesterday that they will invoke the vast disparities in income and living conditions laid bare by the Hurricane Katrina disaster to sharpen their questioning of Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. at his confirmation hearings next week.

Now he may be "too perfect" for the job.

…the nominee for chief justice of the United States punched every career ticket right on schedule. He was raised in affluence, educated in private schools, dispatched to Harvard and then to Harvard Law School. He clerked for a U.S. appellate judge (the storied Henry J. Friendly) and later for William H. Rehnquist, then an associate justice. Roberts worked in the Justice Department and then in the White House until moving on to Hogan & Hartson, one of Washington's most prestigious law firms; then he was principal deputy solicitor general, before moving to the bench, where he has served for only two years. His record is appallingly free of failure.

IMO he is arguably the best choice for a SCOTUS seat (let alone Chief Justice seat) that we have. Is this what the Dems have come to? Exploitation of those that they "claim" to be champions for, and claiming he's "to perfect" for the job?

[dreilly1]

If I were the Dems, I'd save my ammo for the next confirmation hearing. Roberts will seem like a hippie compared to whoever Dubya names next....

[cpt kangarooski]

smacintush--

IMO he is arguably the best choice for a SCOTUS seat (let alone Chief Justice seat) that we have.

Oh? So if Bush had nominated someone else, you'd be arguing that it ought to be Roberts instead? Did you even know him from Adam before Bush put his name forward?

Would you mind listing the attributes that would make him a particularly good Justice, and listing several other people with similar attributes, telling us why they wouldn't make the cut, despite having had similarly prestigious clerking positions, educations, etc.?

Better still, maybe you could look at the pre-Court careers of several of the best Justices ever, and see what you can learn from them.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

Oh? So if Bush had nominated someone else, you'd be arguing that it ought to be Roberts instead? Did you even know him from Adam before Bush put his name forward?

Not seeing why it matters. What matters now is that we know of him and we want him in.

I think the OPs main point was not that he thinks Roberts is a good choice, but that the Dems are being totally stupid about it. I mean, "Appallingly free of failure?" Come on, I know they can do better than that! (Or maybe its just that--they can't, because there is really nothing going against Roberts aside from the fact that silly Dems don't want him in. Whoop-dee-doo. He'll get in.)

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

smacintush--


Oh? So if Bush had nominated someone else, you'd be arguing that it ought to be Roberts instead? Did you even know him from Adam before Bush put his name forward?

Would you mind listing the attributes that would make him a particularly good Justice, and listing several other people with similar attributes, telling us why they wouldn't make the cut, despite having had similarly prestigious clerking positions, educations, etc.?

Better still, maybe you could look at the pre-Court careers of several of the best Justices ever, and see what you can learn from them.

Well gee ya got me. I was referring to those those that were mentioned as possible nominees when Roberts was first named.

No, I didn't know him before Bush named him, but I know more NOW. What's your point? I also know more about people like Estrada, Garza and Posner. Do I really have to be an EXPERT to have an opinion?

[cpt kangarooski]

At any one point in time, I'd guess that there are probably 50-100 people who would not be difficult choices for the position, who are qualified, who will do a good job, but who will do the job differently.

So if you're going to say that Roberts is the best, then I want to know why. The mere fact that he was put forward isn't good enough. Nor, frankly, is his political palatability to the current administration; Justices are meant to stand above politics.

Frankly, the thing going against Roberts is lack of experience on the bench. That's why he's free of failure: he's free of everything. He can wait until he's gotten more of a track record, but he certainly has no business being CJ now. Of the names mentioned, Posner is probably the best (and I'm no fan of Posner).

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

So if you're going to say that Roberts is the best, then I want to know why. The mere fact that he was put forward isn't good enough. Nor, frankly, is his political palatability to the current administration; Justices are meant to stand above politics.

That's wrong. Federal justices are supposed to be appointed politically. The Constitution insulates them from day-to-day politics once they are appointed, but their appointment itself is supposed to be affected by the office holders in the White House and the Senate. That's why the president of the day appoints, and the senate of the day gives advice and consent. Or would you suggest that the Lochner Court should have sailed merrily on and ignored FDR's election and the Democrat's massive majority in the Senate at that time?

Of course not. The only reason Democrats now are upset is politics. You don't control the Senate or White House any more, so you don't want the other party to be able to shape the judiciary the way the Democrats were able to do for much of the last century. Well, tough. Your electoral failures aren't a reason to ignore the Constitutional scheme. Elections are supposed to shape the judiciary though appointments.

Roberts is qualified by the only measure the Constitution recognizes: he has the confidence of the president and no doubt at all the majority of the Senate. He just isn't a liberal. But being a liberal isn't a prerequisite.

By the way, if it were up to me I'd pick Kozinski over Posner. But I'm not the prez.

[cpt kangarooski]

Simey--

their appointment itself is supposed to be affected by the office holders in the White House and the Senate.

Effected by politics is not the same thing as totally depending upon politics. If the political entities involved in the decision can't look beyond politics, then they're neglecting their duties.

Or would you suggest that the Lochner Court should have sailed merrily on and ignored FDR's election and the Democrat's massive majority in the Senate at that time?

You mean the Court that was supposedly insulated from "day-to-day politics once they are appointed"? The Court should have done what was right. FDR's attempt to control them was wrong, and while I think he was more or less right in what he was doing, the Court should not have knuckled under.

The only reason Democrats now are upset is politics. You don't control the Senate or White House any more, so you don't want the other party to be able to shape the judiciary the way the Democrats were able to do for much of the last century. Well, tough. Your electoral failures aren't a reason to ignore the Constitutional scheme.

First, I'm not a Democrat.

Second, I'm upset with this specific candidate because I think that he is not -- based on what little we know about him -- suitable. As I said, if the administration had put forth a candidate more worthy of the bench, regardless of his politics, it would go over better. I'm hardly saying that Bush needs to get to work on cloning the late, great Justice Douglas; just that enigmas such as Roberts are inappropriate.

Posner would work. Kozinski would work. Neither is the darling of liberals, but they are distinguished jurists and it would be appropriate for them to have seats. Roberts is still a mystery man.

Roberts is qualified by the only measure the Constitution recognizes: he has the confidence of the president and no doubt at all the majority of the Senate. He just isn't a liberal. But being a liberal isn't a prerequisite.

While I'd like to see a liberal get nominated, what I actually want is merely for someone with qualifications beyond breathing to get the job. Don't get silly about the minimal qualifications and the responsible ones.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

As I said, if the administration had put forth a candidate more worthy of the bench, regardless of his politics, it would go over better.

You are being awfully naive here. Roberts is being so strongly opposed now because he is not liberal enough for the Dems AND he's Bush's nominee, his "worthiness" means nothing to these people.

[cpt kangarooski]

No, I think he's largely being opposed because he has no significant record; people can't determine how appropriate he'd be. I don't think there'd be much opposition for someone who was a known entity unless they were appalling. Worthiness is a factor, and Roberts can't be known to have it yet.

[smacintush]

The Journal News

Schumer, the Democrats' point man on judicial nominations, wants to find out if Roberts is a conservative ideologue who would vote to reverse decades of government policies or court decisions on such matters as abortion, equal opportunity and environmental protections.

BG News

No one’s arguing that Roberts isn’t worthy of the nomination. He’s a knowledgable lawyer with impressive credentials…But I don’t think that Roberts can set aside his ultra-conservative leanings and rule fairly and justly as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court — and he definitely can’t reflect America’s popular opinion.

Economist

Nonetheless, few people believe he will be out of his depth. Even his foes concede that he has a brilliant legal mind. He served in two White Houses (under Ronald Reagan and the first President George Bush). And as an advocate, he argued no fewer than 39 cases before the Supreme Court.

Opposition to Mr Roberts's nomination has focused on his views, inasmuch as they can be discerned from mountains of old memos he wrote while a government lawyer and a short list of rulings as a judge. His supporters describe him as conservative, but cautiously so; a man who, in his own words, believes that the court should not “view itself as ultimately responsible for governing all aspects of our society”. Leftists see it differently. The Alliance for Justice, a lobby group, says he “lacks sufficient appreciation for how the law affects ordinary people” and “would move the court away from preserving the rights, freedoms and legal protections that Americans cherish.”

[OreoCookie]

Just a quick question: why is Roberts -- if he should be appointed -- becoming Chief Justice right away? Isn't it a better idea to promote someone who's already a SC justice with more experience? I think this would deserve to be discussed separately. Simey's `coz the President chose to do so' isn't good enough for me as a justification.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

No, I think he's largely being opposed because he has no significant record; people can't determine how appropriate he'd be. I don't think there'd be much opposition for someone who was a known entity unless they were appalling. Worthiness is a factor, and Roberts can't be known to have it yet.

The idea that he hasn't proved himself through his record is itself a political issue. He has a long and distinguished appellate practice record more than sufficient to show his calibre. But that has the problem for those who want to bork him. A lawyer in practice takes his client's position, and given that his clients came to him through an overwhelmingly liberal law firm (Hogan & Hartson), it kind of makes it difficult for liberals to paint him as an extremist.

So what you want is a long judicial track record. The problem is, that has never been the standard. To take just one example, Justice Thurgood Marshall was only on the Second Circuit for 9 years before being elevated. The only reason it took that long was because Johnson didn't have an earlier opportunity. Marshall's reputation was built by his pre-judicial experience as the counsel to the NAACP. The difference is that liberals don't mind appointing liberals with only a short time on the bench.

I think you really haven't been paying attention in the last few years. NARAL and People For the American Way have three senators on the Judiciary Committee (Kennedy, Schumer, and Leahy) who will try to Bork anyone who doesn't resemble a liberal Democrat. The problem is that the elections lately haven't gone to liberal Democrats. That is the only reason this is so politicized. Otherwise, there would be a straight up and down vote of the majority of the Senate.

You misunderstood on the FDR point. I'm not talking about his court packing plan. I'm simply talking about the fact that FDR's appointments reflected FDR's philosophy. That is what eventually changed the Court's complexion. Article III insulates federal judges from day-to-day politics. But it is designed to let the political branches appoint politically, and thus influence the Judiciary gradually. Or do you think it is an accident that the outgoing Federalists appointed Secretary of State John Marshall as Chief Justice after they lost the election to the Whigs?

In other words, politics affects the Court. But it isn't supposed to effect individual decisions once the jurist is seated. That's the purpose of lifetime tenure (which I seem to recall you oppose) and the salary clause.

OreoCookie: Chief Jusices have less power than is usually supposed. The only difference between a Chief Justice and an Associate Justice is that the Chief assigns cases to the Associates (or himself). Otherwise, his powers are one of persuasion only, but that is the same as with any Justice. Most Chief Justices are appointed directly to the position. If you are qualified for the Court at all (which Roberts is), then you are qualified for any position on the Court.

[OreoCookie]

I cannot really decide on whether or not Robert's former employer is `overwhelmingly liberal or not', nor whether or not other people whose names are mentioned to me the first time would be the `better choice' (tm).

However, I do see no problem objecting to some of the stances he took. And the way he was appointed by the Bush administration. From the looks of it, he returns favors to friends by appointing them somewhere nice instead of judging someone by qualification (e. g. William Timken, the new ambassador to Berlin).

[dreilly1]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Just a quick question: why is Roberts -- if he should be appointed -- becoming Chief Justice right away? Isn't it a better idea to promote someone who's already a SC justice with more experience? I think this would deserve to be discussed separately. Simey's `coz the President chose to do so' isn't good enough for me as a justification.

Historically, most Chief Justices have been appointed from the outside rather than promoted. Rehnquist was the recent and rare exception, appointed by Nixon and elevated by Reagan. Simey can correct me if I'm wrong, but a large part of the Chief Justice's additional job is administrative, both in organizing the court and the Federal judiciary (And, of course, by "his job" I mean that he puts a staff in place that administers all this under his oversight.) So you can argue that these additional responsibilities are different enough from a normal justice's job that one could be suited to be an associate justice but not a chief justice.

Besides, if you're a Liberal who understands that Bush is simply not going to nominate a liberal for the post, (no matter how much you whine about it), who would you rather have as Chief Justice: Roberts, or Scalia?

[art_director]

In my mind Roberts seems like a good choice for the court. However, I wish he had more experience on the bench – any bench.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by dreilly1

Historically, most Chief Justices have been appointed from the outside rather than promoted. Rehnquist was the recent and rare exception, appointed by Nixon and elevated by Reagan. Simey can correct me if I'm wrong, but a large part of the Chief Justice's additional job is administrative, both in organizing the court and the Federal judiciary (And, of course, by "his job" I mean that he puts a staff in place that administers all this under his oversight.) So you can argue that these additional responsibilities are different enough from a normal justice's job that one could be suited to be an associate justice but not a chief justice.

Besides, if you're a Liberal who understands that Bush is simply not going to nominate a liberal for the post, (no matter how much you whine about it), who would you rather have as Chief Justice: Roberts, or Scalia?

You misunderstand my point. I'm just trying to say that the last couple controversial nominations by the Bush administration showed a trend -- loyalty instead of merits in the field. Obviously I'm not as naive to think Bush would appoint someone closer to the other aisle, but I don't like the idea of putting people in charge who are not the best in the field for a job like this.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Just a quick question: why is Roberts -- if he should be appointed -- becoming Chief Justice right away? Isn't it a better idea to promote someone who's already a SC justice with more experience?

Maybe, maybe not. It's actually more common to appoint a new Chief Justice, than to promote an existing one. Experience is not relevant, because the Chief Justice has very few powers outside of basic parliamentary procedure (which being an associate justice doesn't provide anyway). What other duties the Chief Justice has, such as Chancellorship of the Smithsonian, have nothing whatsoever to do with the power of the judiciary, and therefore again experience doesn't matter.

I think this would deserve to be discussed separately. Simey's `coz the President chose to do so' isn't good enough for me as a justification.

The fact is, the Chief Justice's powers don't relate to any kind of ordinary judicial practice, except possibly for picking who writes majority opinions. Therefore, experience isn't relevant, because none of the associate justices are likely to have any more or any less experience in these matters.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Maybe, maybe not. It's actually more common to appoint a new Chief Justice, than to promote an existing one.

To elaborate on this some: there have been sixteen Chief Justices, counting Rehnquist. Of these, ten were appointed directly, having not been associate justices in the past. Three were promoted from being associate Justices. Two were directly appointed but had served as associate justices in the past. One -Taft- was directly appointed and hadn't served as an associate justice, but had been President in the past. In fact, Taft had appointed the previous Chief Justice, who was one of the promotions.

[dreilly1]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

You misunderstand my point. I'm just trying to say that the last couple controversial nominations by the Bush administration showed a trend -- loyalty instead of merits in the field. Obviously I'm not as naive to think Bush would appoint someone closer to the other aisle, but I don't like the idea of putting people in charge who are not the best in the field for a job like this.

Even though Roberts has not been a judge for very long, he has had a lot of experience dealing with Law on the Supreme Court level. First, as a clerk for Rehnquist, then as a staff lawyer for two Republican administrations arguing cases in front of the court. I'm convinced he has the credentials.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by dreilly1

Even though Roberts has not been a judge for very long, he has had a lot of experience dealing with Law on the Supreme Court level. First, as a clerk for Rehnquist, then as a staff lawyer for two Republican administrations arguing cases in front of the court. I'm convinced he has the credentials.

He does, that's why he's being attacked for other reasons. He's brilliant and a boyscout, if they don't go after his ideologies they got nuttin'.

[cpt kangarooski]

SimeyTheLimey--

The idea that he hasn't proved himself through his record is itself a political issue. He has a long and distinguished appellate practice record more than sufficient to show his calibre.

As a lawyer, sure. If he were going to be Solicitor General, he'd be eminently qualified, and IIRC, he already has the clothes for it.

To take just one example, Justice Thurgood Marshall was only on the Second Circuit for 9 years before being elevated. The only reason it took that long was because Johnson didn't have an earlier opportunity. Marshall's reputation was built by his pre-judicial experience as the counsel to the NAACP. The difference is that liberals don't mind appointing liberals with only a short time on the bench.

Speak for yourself. Marshall was a lousy Justice and really should not have under consideration. You really ought to stop assuming that you're an expert on what liberals think.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I cannot really decide on whether or not Robert's former employer is `overwhelmingly liberal or not',

Well, without going into too great detail, let's just say that I can. With certainty.

As for the new US Ambassador to Germany, it is surely no news to anyone that certain ambassadorships are trated as political plums to be given out. That has been the case for a very long time and both parties do it.

This habit reflects the fact that most ambassadors do little that is substantive. Their job is basically to go to parties and drink wine and eat cheese. Being a bazillionaire is an advantage because the job can be expensive. But the real diplomacy for the most part these days is done by telephone directly between the capitals. That's why it tends to be the case that the bigger and more important the country the more likely it is that the job will go to a political contributor. On the other hand, ambassadors to minor countries tend to be career foreign service. That's both because the ambassador might actually have to do some real diplomacy because Washington isn't doing it for him and because political contributors don't generally regard 4 years in Mali as much of a reward.

This really has nothing to do with the appointment of a substantive position like a Justice of the Supreme Court. Roberts isn't a contributor, he's a highly qualified jurist who the president hopes will cement his legacy and advance his philosophy. That's the criteria presidents of all parties use (even though it doesn't always work out the way they expect).

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Well, without going into too great detail, let's just say that I can. With certainty.

As for the new US Ambassador to Germany, it is surely no news to anyone that certain ambassadorships are trated as political plums to be given out. That has been the case for a very long time and both parties do it.

This habit reflects the fact that most ambassadors do little that is substantive. Their job is basically to go to parties and drink wine and eat cheese. Being a bazillionaire is an advantage because the job can be expensive. But the real diplomacy for the most part these days is done by telephone directly between the capitals. That's why it tends to be the case that the bigger and more important the country the more likely it is that the job will go to a political contributor. On the other hand, ambassadors to minor countries tend to be career foreign service. That's both because the ambassador might actually have to do some real diplomacy because Washington isn't doing it for him and because political contributors don't generally regard 4 years in Mali as much of a reward.

This really has nothing to do with the appointment of a substantive position like a Justice of the Supreme Court. Roberts isn't a contributor, he's a highly qualified jurist who the president hopes will cement his legacy and advance his philosophy. That's the criteria presidents of all parties use (even though it doesn't always work out the way they expect).

No, but it's kinda shocking to me. In Germany and France for instance, becoming a diplomat is tough, really tough. Being fluent in at least 3 or 4 languages is mandatory, there are several hard exams you have to pass. Diplomats usually start in a more `dangerous' country and work their way up.

So with that background you can understand that sending someone who can't speak the language nor has `real' experience in diplomacy is a bit, unsettling, and from the German perspective, a bit rude as well.

The only other price tag I've heard was for the Ukrainian ambassador to Germany, and he only had to come up with $100,000

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

No, but it's kinda shocking to me. In Germany and France for instance, becoming a diplomat is tough, really tough. Being fluent in at least 3 or 4 languages is mandatory, there are several hard exams you have to pass. Diplomats usually start in a more `dangerous' country and work their way up.

So with that background you can understand that sending someone who can't speak the language nor has `real' experience in diplomacy is a bit, unsettling, and from the German perspective, a bit rude as well.

The only other price tag I've heard was for the Ukrainian ambassador to Germany, and he only had to come up with $100,000

Becoming a career diplomat in the US is tough as well. The people below the Ambassador are career. A modern ambassador is mostly just a figurehead. He holds the wineglass. The actual diplomatic work is done by the career people. If anything really important needs to be decided between the countries, it's done directly between the capitals. Telephones work very well between Washington and Berlin. It makes the traditional role of an ambassador obsolete.

This is a well-understood feature of the US political landscape. Ambassadorships have always been political plums, especially ones to nice safe European capitals with good restaurants. You are the first European that I have talked to about it that didn't know that.

If it makes you feel better about it, consider that political relations between the State Department and any given White House are often very strained. That's not just a Bush Administration thing, but a perennial feature of the Washington beaurocratic system. Your government probably gets a more trusted conduit to the president if the ambassador is a political contributor than it would if the ambassador were a career Foreign Service Officer.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Becoming a career diplomat in the US is tough as well. The people below the Ambassador are career. A modern ambassador is mostly just a figurehead. He holds the wineglass. The actual diplomatic work is done by the career people. If anything really important needs to be decided between the countries, it's done directly between the capitals. Telephones work very well between Washington and Berlin. It makes the traditional role of an ambassador obsolete.

This is a well-understood feature of the US political landscape. Ambassadorships have always been political plums, especially ones to nice safe European capitals with good restaurants. You are the first European that I have talked to about it that didn't know that.

If it makes you feel better about it, consider that political relations between the State Department and any given White House are often very strained. That's not just a Bush Administration thing, but a perennial feature of the Washington beaurocratic system. Your government probably gets a more trusted conduit to the president if the ambassador is a political contributor than it would if the ambassador were a career Foreign Service Officer.

I never said I didn't know about that. Coates didn't know German either, for instance. So in this sense, Timber is just the continuation of a status quo. But that doesn't mean it doesn't bother me a little.

Don't mistake my disapproval for `business as usual' as a sign of naivety.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I never said I didn't know about that. Coates didn't know German either, for instance. So in this sense, Timber is just the continuation of a status quo. But that doesn't mean it doesn't bother me a little.

Don't mistake my disapproval for `business as usual' as a sign of naivety.

This seems a bit obsessive. Why does anyone even care who the US ambassador is? I can see why Americans might care, but Germans?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

This seems a bit obsessive. Why does anyone even care who the US ambassador is? I can see why Americans might care, but Germans?

… the US ambassador to Germany.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

… the US ambassador to Germany.

So? What effect does his appointment have on your life?

Edit: anyway, we are going off-topic. Supreme Court nominations are a very different animal from plum ambassadorships.

[cavepainter]

OK, I know Roberts is in. Hope he doesn't help continue shredding the Bill of Rights this Admin has chosen.

My choice for filling OConnor's seat would be Fred Dalton Thompson.
But I'm not that conversant w/lots of minorites/women possibles. If Bush could find one like Thompson, then I'd be for it.

[mojo2]

The issue of the Pledge of Allegience and the Roberts confirmation process seem related but maybe they deserve separation.

In that light, I must say the Senators, ESPECIALLY Biden, seem like confused victims of 21 Century commerce, the are asking Judge Roberts how he'll vote on issues before they are officially before him, a BIG NO NO! Or, just something that he, as a good judge, should/would/will not do.

It's like they want a free 30 day trial so they can see how he's going to work out for them.

Sorta like Apple Care for judges or, "Justice Care."

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by mojo2

In that light, I must say the Senators, ESPECIALLY Biden, seem like confused victims of 21 Century commerce, the are asking Judge Roberts how he'll vote on issues before they are officially before him, a BIG NO NO! Or, just something that he, as a good judge, should/would/will not do.

What the hell is wrong with Biden? He always seems so angry. He kept asking and then interrupting Roberts. Not to mention that when Bader was before the Senate committee, he (Biden) said the Senators shouldn't ask the very questions that he is now asking Roberts. What a hypocrite.

[cavepainter]

Thank you Congress for making sure everybody knows we're not godless Commies.

The original text was pretty good; shoulda just left it like it was.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

What the hell is wrong with Biden? He always seems so angry. He kept asking and then interrupting Roberts. Not to mention that when Bader was before the Senate committee, he (Biden) said the Senators shouldn't ask the very questions that he is now asking Roberts. What a hypocrite.

Are you guys doing bong hits?

This same things happens in every confirmation hearing. Some – a very small portion – of it is truly questioning to determine where the candidate stands. The rest is grand standing for their constituents. The Dems are doing it and the Reps did it during Dollar Bill's reign.

After all the BS, Biden and his gaggle, can return to their respective states and say, "Look, I was a mean a$$ bastard, those Reps will never pull one so long as I'm at the helm. Now vote for me again."

[Y3a]

Funny how the dems all want to replace any SC Judge with liberal one, but the repubs aren't allowed to put in a conservative one. it would be different if someone could positively show that liberals or conservatives were somehow better. So far that hasn't happened.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by art_director

Are you guys doing bong hits?

This same things happens in every confirmation hearing. Some – a very small portion – of it is truly questioning to determine where the candidate stands. The rest is grand standing for their constituents. The Dems are doing it and the Reps did it during Dollar Bill's reign.

After all the BS, Biden and his gaggle, can return to their respective states and say, "Look, I was a mean a$$ bastard, those Reps will never pull one so long as I'm at the helm. Now vote for me again."

I agree with you that much (ALL???) of Biden was for purposes of fundraising sucess when he goes home to the district and on the presidential campaign trail. BTW, he hasn't a chance. He MAY even be lobbying for the role Ted kennedy has occupied all these years of Resident Democrat. Come hell or high water (no offense meant, pun unintended) no matter what happens SOMEONE has to vote the liberal position. I think Ted was the resident liberal all these years and the title may go to Biden.

And let us NOT forget that Sen. Biden was more than willing to respect Ruth Bader Ginsberg's freedom to UPHOLD THE LAW which prohibits answering questions about specific future cases.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163608,00.html

Grappling With 'the Ginsburg Rule'

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

By Liza Porteus

When John Roberts (search) goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee for his confirmation hearings to the Supreme Court, he likely will be asked about his views on privacy, a woman's right to choose, religion and how he would interpret the Constitution — all questions he is not bound by the Constitution to answer.

Although Roberts is being hailed by many as what should be a near shoo-in for the high court, many Democrats plan to ask the candidate about his views as they weigh whether to give the thumbs-up to President Bush's nominee.

"I urged Judge Roberts, as far as he can legally within the canons of ethics, to be forthcoming and honest with his answers," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said after meeting with Roberts on Friday. "If he is open and honest, I think it will go a long way."

The "canons of ethics" mentioned by Durbin include Canon 5 of the American Bar Association's Model Code of Judicial Conduct — informally called "the Ginsburg rule" by many Republicans.

Named after Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (search), who chose not to answer more than 30 questions during her confirmation hearings in 1993, it refers to how a judicial nominee can choose not to answer questions that may hint at how he or she would rule on a future case.

Canon 5 "prohibits a candidate for judicial office from making statements that commit the candidate regarding cases, controversies or issues likely to come before the court. As a corollary, a candidate should emphasize in any public statement the candidate’s duty to uphold the law regardless of his or her personal views," according to the ABA's code.

Citing the canon, Ginsburg wouldn't answer questions about the constitutionality of school vouchers, whether the death penalty is constitutional or questions about sexual orientation, including whether adoption rights to homosexuals should be limited.

"I cannot say one word on that subject that would not violate what I said had to be my rule about no hints, no forecasts, no previews," she said in response to one question involving sexual orientation.

Ginsburg was confirmed by the Senate 93-3.

"The Ginsburg rule suggests that Republican senators with these legitimate concerns about Ginsburg's past record did not vote against her because she refused to talk about her views," said Todd Gaziano, director of The Heritage Foundation's Center for Legal and Judicial Studies.

"I think that is the appropriate response to senators as long as the nominee is talking about the constitutional provision in general and the role of the courts. I really do think senators have a genuine interest and responsibility in trying to gather through general conversation what the nominee views the proper role of a judge to be," Gaziano said.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

What the hell is wrong with Biden? He always seems so angry. He kept asking and then interrupting Roberts. Not to mention that when Bader was before the Senate committee, he (Biden) said the Senators shouldn't ask the very questions that he is now asking Roberts. What a hypocrite.

You can always tell when the fire in someone comes from within or without.

Biden's fire - Without. He is thinking about all the presidential fund raising events he'll attend and he wants to be able to light the fire of the blue bloods and deep pocket attendees.

I was noticing a certain poster was mentioning they were glad to see the MSM getting some backbone when attacking the Administration over it's Katrina response. I PARTICULARLY noted Harry Smith (CBS) getting in Mike Brown's face asking him pointedly, "Did you drop the ball on this?" And NBC's Tim Russert on Meet the Press going at Homeland Security Secretary Chernoff with some vehemence.

Russert's fire - Without. He was thinking (rightly or not) what he would say to some angry NOLA'ns. He, unlike they, understood better what was going on and why. And when they or others aound the country were looking for someone to blame and they were zeroing in on FEMA Russert knew the politically expedient thing to do was to patronize the masses and attack Chernoff. Chernoff seemed only momentarily suprised by the attack but he handled it well and undoubtedly said to himself, "friggin press."