Judge Roberts confirmation hearings

I listened to part of the exchange between Sen. Kennedy and Judge Roberts followed by the exchange between Judge Roberts and another Senator.

Judge Roberts said EXACTLY what he should have said! He's either a consummate actor and bold faced liar (which I seriously doubt) OR he will be a GREAT Chief Justice.

 

My take on the hearings so far;

1) Was it necessary for EVERYONE on the committee, from both parties, to make a pompous, long-winded, political opening statement? I think it was something like 4 hours before we even heard from the nominee, and isn't that why we're having the hearings to begin with? To listen to what the nominee says???

2) I seriously wanted to kick the TV when Kennedy and Biden kept interrupting Judge Roberts when he attempted to answer their carefully-crafted questions about memos that Roberts wrote 20+ years ago. Were they never taught basic manners as children?

3) Ted Kennedy's years of boozing are starting to take a toll.

4) I didn't think anyone was more condescending and arrogant than Joe Biden, until I saw Chuck Schumer in action.

5) I got the feeling that Judge Roberts could have blown any of his critics out of the water, anytime he wanted to, but he showed remarkable restraint after being called a liar by Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy.

6) I still don't know why Kennedy tried to tie Judge Roberts to Hurricane Katrina in his opening statement.

 

All this is necessary because it's televised and they are Senators.

I LOVE this guy! He is telling them as clearly as he possibly can that his first duty is to the Rule of Law and not to the President, the Congress, or any political or religious group.

Judge Roberts actually UNDERSTANDS basic jurisprudence (which is more than can be said of that phony Justice Scalia) and feels bound to follow his ethical and intellectual conclusions. Note I said CONCLUSIONS, not BELIEFS. Judge Roberts will not be swayed by emotions or religious belief or popular criticism or political considerations.

And he's bright enough to UNDERSTAND what he is doing.

Now, if the Kleptocrat in Chief will appoint Alberto Gonzales for the remaining position, I will be almost as pleased yet again.

It's ALMOST enough to make me believe that God really is guiding the country! Almost. Not quite.

 

I was NOT impressed by so very much said by the good senators -- except for Senator Specter who kept telling his colleagues that it's only nice to let someone answer the question once it's been asked.

I was impressed by Judge Roberts.

Every time I watch something like this, though, I wonder how anything gets done in D.C.

 

The more I watch the hearings the more I like Roberts. He is consistent, articulate, and not easily bullied.

Arlen Specter has proven himself an able Chair of the Judiciary Committee and his prosecutorial skills are finely honed.

He handled Joe Biden quite well. Biden is a snide, arrogant, cocky, jerk!

Senator Chappaquiddick continues to show what happens to alcohol-saturated brains.

I used to like Ted Kennedy but lost all respect for him during the Carter years when he wanted to be president so bad that he thwarted many of Carter's proposals.

Diane Feinstein is perhaps the most honorable Democrat on the committee. At least she's intellectually honest, unlike Schumer, Durbin, Biden, and Leahy.

 

I listened a little more this morning. The man has a clear understanding of what Judges DO and how they DO it.

 

My overwhelming impression:
We have a bunch of self-centered, egotistical gas bags as Senators.

 

And this surprises you HOW, exactly?

 

Uh, uh.........good point.

 

That has to be the most succinct, on the mark, and factually accurate statement I have seen on this board in quite some time.

Enough said!

 

Yeeesss...but kindy remember that each of these gasbags was duly elected...so what does that say about Americans in general?

 

That in general, they don't vote.

 

Hmm. Interesting thread.

I am not quite as enamoured of Judge Roberts as is nosborne48, but I most certainly see what he sees in him, and why. And I desperately hope that I can get to his place of optimism. I'm trying... and hopeful.

As should come as no surprise to anyone, I'm a much bigger fan of Ted Kennedy... and am troubled by how simplistic and ignorant are such thoughtless characterizations as "Senator Chappaquiddick continues to show what happens to alcohol-saturated brains."

I am also a fan of Schumer, Feinstein, Durbin, Biden, and Leahy... though Biden has irritated me no end on more than one occasion when he sometimes backpeddles on certain things on programs like Meet the Press when he should have taken the opportunity to make a strong statement and really stand for something. I also take issue with Feinstein on such matters as her position on flag burning. But I'm still a fan.

I agree that the long-winded four-hours-worth of opening statements was just ridiculous.

As for Kennedy's and Biden's interruptions, perhaps if you understood why they do it, it would be more forgivable. Remember that Karl Rove, et al, have counseled those who testify before these committees to wait for the Democratic senator or representative to finish his question; but then, once s/he's let you begin answering, don't stop answering, and generally speechmaking, until you've used-up the questioner's time allocation. We saw, for example, in the recent secretary of state confirmation hearings, that nominee Rice wasn't even good at disguising the fact that she was doing it.

Of course, the questioners know of this strategy and, therefore, strive to stay on top of it and not let the nominee fritter away said questioner's time allocation by expanding what should have been a 90-second to maybe four-minute response out to 18 or 19 minutes of pro-administration rhetoric proffered almost solely for the purpose of depriving the questioner of asking further questions. Sadly, this can come across to some as mere rudeness and interruption for its own sake on the questioner's part.

When the chair is also a Republican... and one who has also been asked by Rove, et al, to help the nominee accomplish the aforementioned time-wasting strategy by attempting to thwart the questioner's attempts to control it, it can seem to the viewer like the questioner is even more rude... maybe even out of control.

Kennedy and Biden, et al, are merely trying to keep the nominee from monopolizing and controlling what is said/asked during their allocated time. They're being so aggressive and seemingly rude about it because they know that if they're not extraordinarily vigilant, Rove's tactic will work.

Rove knows how easily manipulated the viewer can be... and if some of the observations in this thread are any indication, I'd say he's right, and it's working.

Well said.

 

Hmm... talk about timing. No sooner had I posted the above, when the following email arrived in my inbox from DNC chair Howard Dean regarding this very subject:

• Dear Gregg,
  
  I've been watching Supreme Court nominee John Roberts artfully dodge question after question during his confirmation hearings. And I've read the limited documents the White House released about his work in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations -- though we are still waiting for answers for the over 100,000 Americans who submitted Freedom of Information Act requests for key documents.
  
  But we know enough to see a pattern -- and I've made up my mind about John Roberts. He's the wrong man at the wrong time for our country -- a trait that he shares with much of the Republican leadership, including the president who nominated him.
  
  [...]
  
  John Roberts may have a sharp legal mind, but his record shows that he lacks a sense of justice.
  
  The skills John Roberts displays are like those of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove or House Republican Leader Tom DeLay. Both of those men have sharp political minds -- they are among the smartest in Washington. But they use those skills to push a narrow ideology and win at any cost. Roberts has spent a career using the law to protect corporate interests and roll back the rights that protect us all.
  
  Roberts, Rove, DeLay and the rest of the extremist Republican leadership all have the same problem. They abuse their power by pursuing ideological crusades -- and they ignore the real problems we face as a country and as a community.
  
  [...]
  
  In the wake of Hurricane Katrina and the disastrous response, we have seen the consequences of government by ideologues and political cronies. We have also seen the stark reality of American life that people like Roberts, Rove and DeLay either don't understand or choose to ignore -- that inequalities still persist to this day.
  
  Our rights -- and the rights of the most vulnerable in our society -- are in danger. They are in danger from those who actively seek to roll them back, and they are in danger from those in positions of leadership who don't understand how important it is to protect the rights of every American.
  
  The ultimate battleground for justice, fairness and opportunity in America has always been the Supreme Court. Justices have the power to use the law to hold America back, and they have the power to use the law to hold America to the high moral standards we set for ourselves.
  
  [...]
  
  Governor Howard Dean, M.D.
  
  P.S. You can get a sneak preview of my op-ed before it appears in papers across the country at http://redir.democrats.org/rdr/0034w00HJq0001G

The op-ed piece is interesting. I encourage everyone to read it, even if they don't agree.

The parts I cut out, (as indicated by the [...], were the parts where Dean used shameless marketing-like language to try to tie what he was saying to an attempt to get the reader to click on a link that allows them to write a letter to the editor of their local paper regarding the issue through the DNC web site. I didn't think anyone here wanted to do that... though if anyone does, they can click here to do so. I did, and the DNC web site helped me, in about 10 seconds, draft the following email which I was able to then, with the click of a button, send to every newspaper within 50 miles of me:

• John Roberts may be managing to artfully dodge question after question at his confirmation hearings, but he can't avoid what he's written in the past.
  
  Roberts' writings as an attorney in the Reagan administration have shed light on his sense of fairness, equality, and compassion -- all things that make this country and its people great. As more continues to come out about his record, it becomes more evident that he holds a deep indifference and callousness toward the most vulnerable in our country -- something that the American people rejected long ago.
  
  Even though the White House has refused to release key documents, the writings contained within those that have been released are enough to warrant Roberts’ rejection.
  
  In the wake of the federal government’s response to Hurricane Katrina, it’s never been more important that all Americans receive equal protection under the law, particularly those who are most vulnerable. John Roberts’ career has been defined by the argument that the constitution requires no such equal protection.
  
  Roberts has opposed multiple remedies for racial injustices and has stood with the most far-right elements of the Reagan administration in opposing the rights of blacks and Hispanics to vote without first paying poll taxes or being subjected to voter intimidation or gerrymandering.
  
  America can’t afford to have a Chief Justice who wants to turn back the years of hard-fought progress that guarantees equal opportunity for all Americans. This country was built on a sense of fairness, and at a time when seniors, African-Americans and Hispanics are suffering, our compassion cannot give way to indifference for the sake of political ideology.
  
  Our moral sense of fairness and compassion for the suffering is what has defined America as a great country. This is a time for mercy and understanding – there’s no evidence that Judge Roberts’ has either. For that, he should be rejected.
  
  He's a sharp political mind, to be sure. Smart and savvy, Roberts has used his skills as a lawyer to skate around many of the questions that would expose his cold views on fairness and equal protection under the law. But there are plenty of other smart, savvy people already working in Washington who have done nothing to make our lives better, and John Roberts is no different.
  
  As an American who believes in moral fairness, equality and compassion, I urge the Senate to reject John Roberts.

That, I guess, is pretty much where I stand. But I know, of course, that he won't be rejected. So does Dean and the rest of the DNC. Ploys and tactics like that are aimed at making Americans think about the issues... in part because, as decimon so succinctly pointed-out with his Americans-don't-vote comment, nowhere near enough people care, one way or another. The DNC -- and I, I suppose -- want Americans to not just sit there and accept whatever's thrown at them by the Bush43 administration and the rest of the Republican gang.

All that said, I really do hope I can come to see in Roberts what nosborne48 does. Since I know Roberts will be confirmed, I envy Nos his ability to embrace him so. I'm so terribly worried that it will just not turn-out as Nos predicts. But, as I said earlier... I'm hopeful. Very, very hopeful.

In fairness, for those who just couldn't disagree with me more on this, here's a petition you can sign on the RNC web site in support of Roberts' confirmation.

 

Yea I know. I should follow your lead. You have never posted thoughtless characterizations of anyone right of center, especially President Bush.

 

Well, how nice of you to notice! Thanks.

Some people do sarcasm better than others. Stick with what works, Jimmy.

 

I agree. Good points!



Abner

 

"hearing"

The man is brilliant and well qualified for the job, however, in these "hearings" I heard too much regarding reproductive rights (which are important) and not enough about other topical issues.

In general, I think it's disingenuous to continue these hearings as if the man has NO track record to review. Without referring to upcoming cases, why do they refrain from asking him about his associations over the years with right-wing political officials/groups and obvious connections to conservatives with agendas. I mean, I haven't heard anything from the committee about the Federalist Society, etc.

Is it impossible (or just stupid/naive of me to think it) for lawyers in America to actually work on both sides of issues at different times....and *not be completely partisan their whole careers? Please elucidate.

Are appointed judges and justices in the US actually objective as it relates to the cases before them? or In reality, are they are just as politically charged and ideology-driven as the "public servants" that run for office?

I am very interested to see Bush's next nominee.

 

I am not a Judge but I have spent the last two and a half years working for Judges and fifteen years before that as an attorney appearing before Judges.

Ideology in a Judge really doesn't work very well. Justice Scalia, for example, can vent his ideology pretty freely only because he is so often in the minority and therefore does not have to consider what precedential effect his words will have. He also does not need the support of his fellow justices to "put over" a dissent.

Judges whose decisions actually matter, that is, who actually decide things, pretty much HAVE to follow established caselaw and, of course, statutory law in arriving at their conclusions.

First, refusal to do so is deemed "error" both by the legal profession as a whole, and that affects reputation and (in the case of state judges) can affect re election prospects. Second, except for the state and U.S. Supreme Courts in their respective areas of law, a judge's decision is always subject to review.

Even at the Supreme Court level, every Justice's opinion is in some way subject to review by the other Justices.

Judge Roberts is EXACTLY correct when he says that his first duty is to the Law, that is, to the constitution and the body of legal decisions and statutes that build upon the foundation of the constitution. His first duty is emphatically NOT to any particular political party or group nor does he owe the SLIGHTEST duty to the majority just because it IS the majority. This is the essence of the concept of the Rule of Law (and not men). That is what Tom DeLay actually MEANS when he says that the judiciary is "not accountable" though I doubt that he grasps exactly WHY the system was set up as it was.

The judiciary IS accountable, you see, but only to the LAW.

Now law is a science. It is not a particularly well understood science, but it IS a science. It has principals that are present in virtually every developed legal system.The indentification and study of these principals is commonly called "the science of jurisprudence". It is also badly understudied in the U.S., IMHO.

Judge Roberts actually UNDERSTANDS something about jurisprudence. More, I believe that he accepts its fundamental importance to our system of self government.

So the answer to your question (which is an EXCELLENT question, BTW) is "Yes. Lawyers CAN argue either side of an issue. Our personal convictions really ARE largely irrelevant and MUST be if the system is to function at all."

Where you have an ideologue (which certainly happens) that lawyer or Judge rapidly loses credibility and influence.

Because in law, as in mathematics, it is actually possible to be WRONG.

 

So how should we refer to the drunken, bloated, gasbag, killer?

BLD