Seems like a good idea for us to gather thoughts on the confirmation hearings. What does this tell you about Roberts, or the Senate committee?
My observations:
This guy is one smart cookie. I mean, I don’t know if I’ve ever heard any legal guy who can whip out answers like he does. Even if it’s just good preparation, that kind of preparation is pretty unusual.
He’s not an “ideologue”. He’s said he doesn’t ascribe to any school of thought on Constitutional interpretation, and that different cases might require different approaches. He also make a good disctinction between academics and sitting judges-- the former being more prone to rigid ideology and impervious to real world considerations.
He was clear that he keeps religion separate from his judicial rulings. Unanbiguously clear about that.
I like what he said about when he thinks SCOTUS rulings are wrongly decided and if that is reason to overturn them: It’s the starting point of the descussion, not the ending point.
I’d like applaud Senator Feinsein for her professionalism. Unlike her distinguished colleague from MA, the Senator from CA asked direct, short questions and didn’t ask them in a condescending tone of a lecturer. She let Roberts answer and then moved on. A model Sentor in this respect, if you ask me.
Well, my first instinct in ANY confirmation hearing is “Is this guy telling his own thoughts or that of his handlers?”
Call me cynical.
Roberts will say all the right things and probably means them. Barring him whipping it out and peeing on Ted Kennedy nothing will stop him sailing through. He’s smart, well-connected, well-established, personable and has nothing in his background that’s an automatic DQ.
I thought it was ridiculous how some of the Senators seem to think that Roberts’ refusal to comment on some cases for ethical reasons implies that he is determined to overturn them.
Schumer in particular seemed to have a problem with this.
He was very good at not going out on any particular limb. If there was something in his past that might look a little negative, one way or the other, he said, “I was just serving my client,” or something to that effect. To his credit, he seems to be saying nothing more than that being an attorney for the Whitehouse (or a law firm) is very distinct from being on the Supreme Court–which is obvious, but he made the point. He also indicated that he is not quite the “originalist” that Bush has said he wanted. I think these hearings are a waste of time. He’s going to get approved, and we’re not going to learn much about how he’ll affect the Supreme Court.
Well, I didn’t see the hearing, but my take after reading the NYT report on it is rather favourable. Roberts actually said he believed the Constitution protects a right to privacy. You’d never get a Scalia or Thomas to say that. Unless Roberts is lying, I’m thinking more and more that he’s a far more moderate choice for the Supreme Court than the left had any right to expect given Bush’s track record for being a “uniter, not a divider”. And I really don’t think Roberts is lying. Everything I’ve read about him indicates he’s a stand-up guy. If there’s something he doesn’t want to cop to, he’ll decline to answer. He won’t answer dishonestly.
Just like the liberal senator, I agree that Roberts was dancing around the issue. Roberts wrote things like “I think” or “I feel” and then he says, “Those weren’t MY feelings but of the Reagan administration”. Horseturds, Roberts. If you didn’t feel that way, why would you refer to yourself in the first person in these writings?
Overall, I am absolutely impressed by his intellect; however, the fact that he skillfully dodges out of the way of pertinent questions drives me bonkers.
Yeah, if nothing else he seems to be honestly to the left of the Scalia/Thomas group entity. And he at least claims to be a minimalist, so given the current administration, those of us hoping for a liberal court probably could’ve done worse (though who knows what he’ll do when he actually dons the robes).
Did anyone catch the part where he wouldn’t say it was necessarily illegal for a President to continue a war against the express wishes of the legislature. Yipes. Between that and his deciding in favor of the Bush Administration’s ability to use military tribunals against terror suspects, I can certainly see why he appealed to the President.
You can thank the Bork hearings for that. No nominee is going to be as forthright as Bork was again. They don’t call it “borked” for nothin’.
I got the impression that Roberts would not overturn Roe, but I **would **expect him to overturn some the SCOTUS decisions that struck down some limitations on abortions. In fact, I expect he’d be extremely deferential to the legislature(s) in allowing further restrictions to be put in place-- eg, “partial birth abortions” or parental notification.
That is exactly how I see his position, so far as he’s been willing to enunciate it, John. (Chalk this up as one of the rare times we agree on something. ;))
All in all, I think he will make a fairly good Chief Justice – not my ideal of jurisprudence, but to expect GWB to nominate someone who is, would be a flight of fantasy. Given Mr. Bush’s stances, I think Mr. Roberts is far better than we liberal types had any right to expect.
OK, so suppose Roberts is confirmed and at some point down the road we get rock-solid evidence that he lied his ass off before Congress. (Not sayin’ he did, just supposing for the sake of my argument.) What kind of recourse do we have? Can he be recalled? Is lying to Congress grounds for dismissal from the bench?
…Yeah but, what in the name of things coming out of left field was that anecdote about Jewish folk and their shoes all about? Perhaps it could be put into sensical context for me?
My thought about the hearings is that it’s all kabuki. I’d like to have a bit more track record on a guy who would be Chief Justice for the next thirty years, give or take, than his two years on the Circuit Court of Appeals. But the Dems are too chickenshit to hold up a vote even to demand his Bush I-era records. He’ll sail through Congress, become Chief Justice, and turn out to be much further to the right, on a number of axes, than he seems in these hearings.
Exactly why did the Dems agree to a deal preserving the filibuster if they had no intention of using it when the going got interesting? They shoulda rolled the dice back in the spring.
I don’t know about that last part. You see, I would prefer another Scalia while you’d probably prefer an O’Conner.
Actually, I bet I could list 10 weighty issues right off the top of my head that you and I would agree on. We might disagree on the best method to achieve those things, but not on what the ulitmate goal is.
