Why the 5 minute diatribe to distort John Roberts’ view on something he did 20+ years ago when he was representing the interests of the executive branch which may have been different than your interests as the legislative branch, then set up a loaded question, then let Roberts TRY to answer, then interrupt him (in 10 words or less) with another condition, argument, nitpick, brain fart, whatever and then try to discount his answer with things he did 20+ years ago when he represented the interests of the executive branch? Even the other senators wanted you to shut your chowderhole to give the kid a chance to answer. Is there chowder in your ears too?
Too bad you had to live in this era when you would have been perfectly suited to oversee the Transcontinental Railroad Project back in the 19th century. Dolt.
You seem to be under the impression that hearings such as this are about gaining information. They are not. They are all about posturing and making speeches.
I’m listening to CNN, and the comentators said pretty much the same as the OP. Kennedy must have just asked the world’s longest question, then about 3 seconds into Roberts’ answer, he interrupted him. I agree. Shut the FUCK up and let Roberts talk.
It’s interesting, though, to see someone like Roberts, who knows the law inside out, calmly show what idiots these Senators can be. Giving a microphone to Senator is like giving heroin to a junky. What a bunch of tools!!!
I am listening to Ted and some poor schlep named John who didn’t get many words in. Eh, I guess that would be a first hand account. So, tell me…what did Rush say?
Both parties play this stupid game, and they do so because WE let them by re-electing incumbents 99% of the time (number is exagerated, I know… too lazy to look up the real %).
Wasn’t there an exchange between the aforementioned bloated blowhard and Bob Bork? This was after it was clear that the failed candidate for Lifeguard of the Year was paying no mind whatever to whatever answer Bork gave, and would simply go on to the next question prepared by the Kennedy staff regardless. IIRC, Bork mentioned exactly that, and it took a second for Kennedy to realize that Bork wasn’t playing by his script.
Maybe I am remembering what he should have said instead of what he did.
Ditto. If you think anyone in that committee is actually interested in asking a question and hearing his response, you are greatly misinformed. Everyone in there went in with a pre-formed opinion on how they will vote. I’m not picking on Democrats - I am one. This is just The Way Washington Works.
TYM and Gabe, I realize that they already have their votes casted in their minds and that this is just an opportunity to spout partizan rhetoric and all, but it was not always that way throughout history. If the hearings have degenerated this far, let’s cut the Q&A portion and just go straight to the vote.
I keep hearing that the senators have a duty to find out what Robert’s positions are on all matters that affect the citizens of this country. I would like to hear what Roberts has to say, not what the senators have to say about Roberts which is totally tainted. So, Ted…do what you say you’re gonna do, I don’t need your opinion of Roberts. I want to form my own opinion of Roberts by listening to his answers to your questions without talking over each other.
In 1962, Byron White faced the ordeal of a Judiciary Committee hearing in his process of nomination to the Supreme Court.
His hearing lasted an hour and a half, most of which time was taken up by testimony of various bar associations. He faced eleven minutes of questioning.
He was confirmed in a Senate floor voice vote that same day, and then proceeded to serve for 31 years.
Wasn’t it Feinstein that has already said she’ll vote for Roberts? Or was that someone else? I know it was a Dem that also said the hearings are needed to find out his stance on some issues. (Whomever it was, it was clear the “issues” were abortion) Yet, the Senator said before the questioning started that she plans on approving him. Yup, it’s all political grandstanding.
I was hoping for some exchange along these lines:
Senator Cirrhosis: And what of your stance on the death penalty?
Judge Roberts: Well, let me give you a hypothetical. There’s a man that got his secretary drunk one night and while driving home went off the road. After the car went into the water he…