The thing about filibustering Roberts is that Roberts doesn’t seem that bad. He’s personable, seems intelligent, and doesn’t come across as really right wing. He’s the wrong person to filibuster.
Yes, it’s mostly kabuki, but what isn’t when you put a bunch of Senators in front of TV cameras? If the Dems invoked the filibuster, 9-1 says they’d come out on the losing end in the eyes of the public-- ie, they’d look like there were being obstructionist for the sake of being obstructionist. And they’d piss off even their quasi- allies like McCain who might them support the nuclear option. You don’t wage full scale war unless you’re certain win. Your recomnendation would be a crap shoot with dice loaded heavily in favor of the Pubs.
Here are my thoughts:
ROBERTS: None of my writings as private counsel reflect my own thoughts on those issues; I was working for a client.
SENATORS: So what ARE your thoughts on those issues?
ROBERTS: Well, I think that hrmnsmn hmnsm.
So, since we have to discount EVERYTHING he did as private counsel, we essentially have to consider that he only has 2 years of relevant experience by which to judge him. If you ask me, most interns in Washington have better qualifications than that.
Also: Man, I forgot what a bunch of self-serving, self-congratulating blowhards those legislators are. Jeez. I can’t take listening to them for another hour…
This is hilarious, if anyone is watching right now. Biden is trying to pin Roberts down on an absolute position about the “right to die”, and Roberts keeps saying how it all depends on the circumstances. Who’s the “idealogue” in this case?
Biden is saying, literally: Forget what the law says, forget what the constitution says, tell us what your thoughts are as a father. Gee, I thought these hearings were supposed to determine his judicial philosophy, not whether or not he is a good father.
I was listening to this. Biden’s intention with the line of questioning (including the questions beforehand) is to extract as much information as possible regarding Robert’s leanings on this particular issue. He tried many different approaches, didn’t get his way, and so tried this question. I don’t believe his intention was to base decisions on what sort of father Roberts is, but to use a sneaky way of getting Roberts to discuss an issue Roberts does not want to discuss.
I find this completely appropriate. What I also find completely appropriate is Roberts refusal to answer these questions, based on the fact that these issues may come before him on the court.
Maybe Biden is trying to get something out of him other than:
The whole point is to put up some one without much of a track record. That way no side can rally too much against him. Is he smart? Yup. Does he say the right things about precedent but also leave open the possibility that any precedent can be over ruled, and thereby leave both sides some hope? Yup.
Filibuster him? On what basis? That Bush picked him so he must be bad? He’s the best a liberal could hope for out of this administration. He may be surprisingly good in the end.
It was a stupid question. He asked if, under any circumstances, the government could override someone’s wish to “pull the plug”. Under any circumstance? Of course there are circumstances, you idiot (directed at Biden, not you, Driver).
When he asked what Roberts thought, as a father, I felt like asking Biden what he uses to whiten his teeth… It has about as much relavance to the process.
As Biden pointed out, any issue may come before the Court. I agree that when someone is being appointed to an office for life, we should know as much about his views as possible.
I haven’t been following the hearings closely at all. But when I do tune in, all I hear is Roberts refusing to answer any questions.
I don’t have a problem with his answers. He’s said neither his religion nor personal views would affect his decisions – it’s all about the Constitution. Well, okay, assuming he’s not lying, I’ll buy that. And I’m a moderate-liberal female. No, not abortion rights, but privacy rights – if lawmakers can have a say about the health and care of my body, then I should have a say as to why Roberts (a Catholic) has only two children. He sounds good to me so far, but I haven’t been watching C-span and I’d like to see him in action. As someone else said, I think Roberts is the best we moderates/liberals can do, but let’s face it – you don’t know for sure until they’re in the job (but isn’t that true for all of us?).
No. Biden was trying to pin him down on how he’d rule on specific issues. SCOTUS appointees shouldn’t answer those types of questions-- they generally haven’t in the past, they generally don’t now , and they generally won’t in the future either.
I’m sorry, but they’re all just grasping at … something, anything. Who is this guy? We don’t know. All we know is (a) he was a lawyer who is familiar with arguing cases before the Supreme Court, but we’re supposed to ignore everything he did during that entire period, because his voice was that of his clients, not his own (b) he’s had a mere 2 years of experience as a judge.
Let’s face it–as it stands now, the guy’s a blank-slate robot. He has never had any opinions about anything in his life, he has almost no track record as a judge (esp. when we’re now talking about making him Supreme King of all Judges for Life–there’s a lot of small-time Town Court judges in municipalities throughout the US who have more legal and judicial experience than this guy), and he won’t volunteer any information except, “I will follow the law.” Well, duh. What’s he going to say? “Screw the law and screw precedent–when I get sworn in, there’s gonna be some CHANGES around here…” ?
Right now, I think we would have a better idea as to how, say, Bricker, would function as Chief Justice based solely on his history of posts here at the SDMB than the Senate does of how Roberts will function. You can hardly blame them for trying to squeeze some information out of him before they just agree make him head of 1/3 of our government.
Agreed, but you can hardly blame Bush for trying to find an enigma to nominate after what happened to Bork, Ginsburg*, Thomas, etc.
- The dope smoking one, not Ruth Bader.
This is rich. A federal judge in San Francisco, a Carter appointee, just ruled the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools unconstitutional.
This happen at quite an inopportune time, IMHO, as some Democrats try to portray Roberts as being out of the judicial mainstream.
I disagree. What they need to know is how he would decide cases, not what his ruling would be. They need to understand the PROCESS that he would use. And he’s been very forthcoming about that. He has given great detail about what his philosophy is and what it isn’t. And that’s all they need to know, and all they should know. Each case has its unique elements, and speaking in broad terms of how someone would rule is simply not appropriate.
Yes, we have a better idea of what exact rulings **Bricker **would make, but we don’t know more about HOW he would make them.
Yes, because we all know that judges appointed by Democratic Presidents have nothing better to do that to pull out random rulings out of thin air to annoy die-hard conservatives like yourself. :rolleyes:
Meanwhile, dopey me thought the judge was following the letter of the law, as judges are supposed to…
After reading some of Roberts’ replies to various questions, I have to say that I don’t worry about him being a RRR ideologue. far from it, he seems to be moderate and responsible and intelligent. What a refreshing change.
[Roberts]This body and legislative bodies in the states are protectors of the people’s rights[/Roberts]
Right there, he says that the purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people. Compare it to Scalia’s remark that people have more rights than the Constitution allows. On one hand we have Roberts saying that people have rights which are to be upheld and protected, and on the other we have Scalia “hinting” that the government will tell us what rights we have. Which is more frightening? I feel better about Roberts than I ever did about Scalia.
Roberts also said that Congress has the right to counter Supreme Court rulings, Including the ruling about cities seizing private property for the benefit of corporations. In short, he puts the ball in Congress’ court where it belongs.
[Roberts]The right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways[/Roberts]
This is opposite what some people would argue, all in the name of loving America and catching freedom haters. It would also seem to run counter to various Patriot Act provisions.
[Roberts]It is preservative, I think, of all the other rights… one of, as you said, the most precious rights we have as Americans[/Roberts]
Talking about the right to vote, Roberts considers the ability to elect our leaders as a fundamental right and duty. Compare it to Scalia’s comment that suffrage is not a constitutionally guaranteed right.
So, I feel comfortable with Roberts, even though he has been “branded” as a dangerous rightwing dangerous villain type guy by SOME politicians. I would call him a Moderate.
Perhaps this perplexes you, but the Constitution of the United States is not based off of opinion polls.
There is already a discussion about the “under God” part of the Pledge going on elsewhere. Other than that, what the heck does it have to do with this thread??
That is exactly why he’s ducking them. If we know what a judge is going to say under any and all circumstances then we already know the fix is in, so what’s the point?
You people seem to want a fixed court, a stacked deck. I would like to see some free-thinking people, not a bunch of automatons.