As I understand it, when Roberts was nominated for the court of appeals, he didn't answer the questions posed to him and the WH refused to release information.
If the WH and Roberts act this way during the SCOTUS hearings, I would like to know why the WH is ashamed of their pick and why Roberts is ashamed of his judicial views?
Posted by Ga6thDem at July 20, 2005 07:37 AM'Shame' is not a word in the Republican vocabulary!
The intention is to get Roberts through confimation, then he will reveal his true self as Thomas did once he was confirmed. As I recall, Thomas pledged to be moderate, then showed his 'Uncle Antonin' side as quickly as he could.
Roberts will be no different. He just won't embarrass his wife with his off-duty behaviors around other women.
Posted by pessimist at July 20, 2005 07:44 AMRoberts has already telegraphed his disdain and contempt for Congressional statutes that act to protect the environment---as beyond the power of Congress under the commerce power, of course. Funny how no one in the mainstream of American legal thought advanced such arguments when these landmark laws were enacted in the early 70s.
Matt Davis (see posts below) has the only possible Senate strategy: question Roberts, throw his previously expressed views at him, vote against him and then predict how disastrously he will rule on issues like the environment, executive power, and individual liberties.
Finally, keep telling Americans they'll simply get more of the same as long as they keep voting for Republicans.
Posted by euzoius at July 20, 2005 07:45 AMahhh, can't wait for the "ginsburg rule" to rear it's ugly head!
turnabout is fair play my gookd little kool-aid drinking liberals.
all of a sudden roberts will have to answer all questions? ginsburg didn't! so know the rules are different huh?
can you say "double-standard"?
Ginsburg didn't have to answer questions on how she would rule in certain types of cases. That's not the same as having to answer for your past statements.
Posted by Matt Davis at July 20, 2005 08:06 AMWhat is the debate on the National Environmental Policy Act?
Posted by Tex at July 20, 2005 08:14 AMEuzoius, I agree with your post. Sometimes I think we get the Supreme Court we deserve, along with the Government. Maybe we need to have Rove v. Wade overturned. Maybe then people will equate the Party with the politics, and what their vote (or lack of their vote), truly means.
Posted by Judith at July 20, 2005 08:40 AM41 nominated John Roberts to the DC court in 1992. The Democratic majority held up his confirmation for 42 to fill the seat. Any lack of 'paper' fault is at the feet of those Democrats who held up his first confirmation. And without the blocking in 1992, Roberts probably wouldn't be the nominee today. Thank you Democrats for this pick!
Posted by peter at July 20, 2005 08:45 AMI think Roberts can say that he was an advocate in some of his prior comments. So he won't have to answer how he'd rule on certain kinds of cases, either.
Slam dunk. He's in.
Posted by muckdog at July 20, 2005 09:21 AMI think Roberts can say that he was an advocate in some of his prior comments. So he won't have to answer how he'd rule on certain kinds of cases, either.
That's probably about right.
Posted by Matt Davis at July 20, 2005 09:37 AMWhat we really have to fear is a SCOTUS that approves Chimpy's detentions without due process, even of American citizens; PLUS the military tribunals, which invests 100% authority in the EXECUTIVE branch to jail, try AND CONVICT anyone in this country of ANYTHING.
The FBI has assigned the task of spying on PROTESTORS to the COUNTERTERRORISM unit.
DO THE MATH.
We are all in very deep shit.
Signed,
Scared Citizen of New Weimar
Although Judge Roberts should not answer specific questions on issues that could come before the Court, he should respond to idealogical questions. The man is Catholic. Rest assured -- he will use the mandates of Pope Benedict & Vatican II as the foundations for his future SCOTUS decisions. That means we can look forward to the following:
1. Women's Sovereignty -- Doesn't exist. Although victims of the father figures in their lives, Juge Roberts will decide in favor of forcing underage girls to carry unwanted pregnancies to full term & face the wrath of families placing all the blame on them. This encourages child abuse.
2. Stem-Cell Research -- Private companies will be lucky to continue potential research they finance with private funding. I wouldn't expect Roberts to allow placenta & cord material. Diabetes, breat cancer, etc., will remain in the family lines.
3. Assisted Suicide -- Vatican II is clear on this. Doesn't matter how much pain people are in. Dignity has no place in the decision. Medical technology can keep people "alive" into the next century. Get the POA & Advance Directive forms (assuming he never rules against them) ready!!
With Judge Roberts on the Court, there will be no separation of church & state. The Catholic Church will be calling the shots.
Yeah, he is a Bush buddy all right. He is also Jeb's buddy, and was legal counsel to Jebby during the Florida recount, according to NPR.
Posted by Judith at July 20, 2005 11:59 AMYes, muck but he can be asked if he agrees with Operation Rescue.
Posted by Ga6thDem at July 20, 2005 03:19 PMThought this would be of interest. Could this be a possible payoff for being a good soldier?
Digby,
It's been an interesting chain of events.
Bush Sr. first nominated Roberts to the DC Circuit in 1992, but the Senate Dems stalled his nomination until after the election, which effectively killed it.
A few years later, Roberts is helping out with the Florida litigation, and next thing he knows, after Bush's "victory", he's renominated to the DC Circuit.
Few years later, he's nominated to the SCOTUS.
Funny how that works out.
john @ blogenlust | Homepage | 07.20.05 - 1:06 am | #