[Deke40]

After watching the hearings this morning it makes me wonder why anybody would go through the unmerciful grilling to attain any appointment.

Senator Biden asked him about a 23 year old memo he wrote as a staff lawyer about a case in Kentucky about female prisoner discrimination.

Biden kept breaking in to Judge Robert's answers and stating that his 30 minutes of alloted time to ask questions was running out so he didn't have time to listen to Judge Robert's full answer.

I agree with a talking head that the senators are spending more time talking and doing very little listening to Judge Robert answers which is what I would think the hearings are for.

[smeegle]

Just out of curiousity, how can a candidate to the supreme court become the Chief Justice over the other judges who are already on the supreme court. Is there no reward for seniority there? Not making a statement, just wondering how that can happen.

[linskyjack]

Only the highly partisan don't find these hearings interesting. Biden's questioning was very interesting. You guys are all pent up looking for a fight, when all these hearings do is give you a better idea of who the next Chief Justice is---The man is a lock.

[Deke40]

Afternoon Jack

I do find the hearings interesting but I didn't tune in to listen to people like Biden use his 30 minutes asking questions with the person being questioned not being given time to answer these good questions with his best answers.

We all know Bush is over after this term but the Demoncrats are simply trying to enhance their chances of a victory in 08 by any means.

[linskyjack]

I dont think Bush is the problem. Bush, in my mind is a lameduck---the only power he has left is over two, and possibly a third supreme court nominee. Those guys on average, wont be eight years and out. That gets to the crux of the matter. His remaining support is among the religious right, and this is their guy. This is not someone who is firmly planted in the middle---you know someone who would say that abortion is okay within reason. This is a man who reflects the administrations attempt to load the court with anti-choice conservatives, who will one day bring Roe v Wade down. The problem with this particular nominee is that although he avers that he wants to approach each case as an umpire not a player, throughout his career, he has opined on many of the issues at hand. Let me ask you this---lets say that a Rudy Giuliani was nominated by Bush to be the next Supreme Court justice. Dont you think that the right wing of the Republican party would go bonkers because of his pro-choice position, expressed on many occasions? Dont you think they would try to get a committment from him that he thinks Roe V Wade is unconsitutional, or would consider over-turning it? Or better yet, lets say that a Joe Biden was nominated to become supreme court judge. Dont you think he would go through the same process--Or what about an Alberto Gonzalez.



By the way, the Roe V Wade issue isn't just one issue---It is the key issue---or at least the one that inflames the most passion on both sides of the aisle.

[Deke40]

I guess my biggest gripe was the way Biden used up most of his allotted time talking while the senators before and after seem to genuinely be trying to ask and receive answers to some important questions.

After all Joe Biden is going to run for president in 08 and what better bang for the bucks can this hearing be as far as getting him out there in the public's view more so than normal.

[combsdon]

Originally Posted by Deke

After watching the hearings this morning it makes me wonder why anybody would go through the unmerciful grilling to attain any appointment. .

ya we should just let Bush appoint whomever and maybe....just maybe......we'd be lucky enough not to get another ...."doing a helluva job Browny"........

[linskyjack]

By the way, I despise Biden--And he did act like an idiot. He has too many skeletons in the closet to become president.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

The man is a lock.

We'll agree on that. I was extrememly impressed with the way he handled the questions--the guy is obviously head and tails above the blow hards in his legal reasoning ability--and he's doing it all of the top of his head. Obviously, he's prepared, but you can tell the man is very gifted legally.

As an aside, I don't mind the grilling--that's what good legal minds are suppossed to be able to do--think on their feet and this guy is pitching a shutout from what I've seen. Although I agree its disrespectal to cut him off in the middle of his answer. You ask a question, let the man answer--its the moderator's job to stop him if he thinks he's gone on too long or is "filibustering" as Biden alleged (to uproarius laughter)!

[sglv]

Originally Posted by Mulder

We'll agree on that. I was extrememly impressed with the way he handled the questions--the guy is obviously head and tails above the blow hards in his legal reasoning ability--and he's doing it all of the top of his head. Obviously, he's prepared, but you can tell the man is very gifted legally.

Wasn't too fond that he has no experience on the Supreme Court and is now looking at the Chief Justice position, but I have to admit, he held his own brilliantly with Kennedy this morning.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by sglv

Wasn't too fond that he has no experience on the Supreme Court and is now looking at the Chief Justice position, but I have to admit, he held his own brilliantly with Kennedy this morning.

Chief Justice is really a figure head position--it has no more power than any other justice--all the votes count the same. Bush would have made Scalia Chief Justice, but he knew there would be a huge fight over it with lots of filibustering. As I said, I am almost sure he spoke with Scalia and Scalia I am sure really has no desire to go through a very long battle (with a good chance of never getting and up or down vote unless the Repbublicans change the Senate rules) just to be called "Chief Justice." After him, there are no other justices that could do the job, in my opinion. None of them have the leadership ability or respect on the court.

[xico]

Published on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 by the Associated Press
Roberts Repeatedly Dodges Questions on Roe v. Wade
by Nancy Benac

WASHINGTON -- For a man who likens the job he wants to calling balls and strikes, John Roberts surely could have used a catcher's mask as he fielded hours of questions Tuesday from the Senate Judiciary Committee.

From the first question of the day -- on abortion -- right through the alphabet to the Zimmer case on voting rights, Roberts held his own as senators tried to goad him into revealing more of his thoughts than he wanted on the controversial issues of the day.

The artful dodger employed a mix of humor, history and humility as he found 50 ways to defend his views and politely demur when he didn't want to discuss them.

When Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., complained that Roberts was filibustering, the judge lightly scolded, "That's a bad word, senator."

But when Biden later complained, "His answers are misleading, with all respect," Roberts' response was more pointed.

"With respect, they are my answers," he said. "And, with respect, they're not misleading, they're accurate."

On Day Two of the hearings on Roberts' nomination to be chief justice of the United States, there was a lot of "respect" getting flung around.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., differing with Roberts' take on a war powers case, began, "Judge, with all due respect, the cases in Vietnam were not based on a specific law passed by Congress to get out ..."

A few minutes later, Roberts, differing with Leahy's interpretation of a memorandum he once wrote, began, "With respect, senator, you're vastly over-reading the memorandum."

There also were a lot of baseball metaphors, playing off Roberts' declaration a day earlier that a justice should be like an umpire, making sure everyone plays by the rules.

Biden complained that questioning Roberts was "like pitching to Ken Griffey," adding that the judge had hit a home run in his opening statement Monday.

Nodding toward actor-turned-senator-turned-actor Fred Thompson, who is helping guide Roberts through the nomination process, Biden added, "I'd much rather be pitching to Arthur Branch, sitting behind you there, on 'Law and Order,' than you."

But Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., questioned whether Roberts' umpire analogy worked at all.

"No two umpires, or no two referees, have the same strike zone or call the same kind of a basketball game," said Kohl, who knows a thing or two about basketball as owner of the NBA's Milwaukee Bucks. "And ballplayers and basketball players understand that, depending upon who the umpire is and who the referee is, the game can be called entirely differently."

Tuesday's televised hearing gave many Americans perhaps their first and last best chance to see Roberts describe his views on the law, given that the Supreme Court itself operates largely as a closed shop.

Roberts tried to display humility, making several references to the possibility that he still could wind up back on the federal appeals court if his nomination were not approved.

When Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, questioned Roberts about a comment that Justice David Souter had made during his confirmation hearing, Roberts nimbly sidestepped, saying: "Well, I don't want to directly comment on what Justice Souter said. He is either going to be a colleague or continue to be one of my bosses. So I want to maintain good relations in either case."

But at other times, it was as if Roberts couldn't help but come across as the smartest kid in the class.

Biden cut Roberts off mid-sentence as he launched into an explanation of the Supreme Court's three-tiered analysis of the equal protection clause, saying, "I know what that is."

At another point, though, Roberts, holding one lifetime appointment and in line for another, was smart enough to disavow his own words from two decades ago in which he questioned life tenures.

"You know, that would be one of those memos I no longer agree with," he said, with a sly grin.

Roberts also drew a chuckle when he was asked if President Bush should chose a women to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

After Roberts satisfied himself that Kohl was talking about the next vacancy, not his own potential seat on the court, he offered, "I don't think it's appropriate for me to comment in any way about the president's future selections -- other than to say that I'm happy with his past ones."

That prompted Kohl to laughingly pronounce, "You're not an automaton."

© Copyright 2005 Associated Press

###

[LANMaster]

[LANMaster]