John Roberts nominated to be New Chief Justice

[Navy Pride]

The toad case has been cited as precedent before and it is an example of one of the cases that might come up before him-so he should know at least how to answer. And Navy, why don't you respond to my post...just a suggestion, I responded to yours.

I agree with you about Schumer and that pissed me off, but not as much as the Repubs not asking serious questions...with the exception of Spector who did a great line of reasoning on abortion.

anyone who is seriously up for the Supreme court gets coached extensively and Roberts and Ginsburg are no exceptions...anyone who says anything else is lying.

I seem to remember the Repubs asking questions as well of Roberts that he declined to answer because they might come up, so are they hypocrites as well? No? Didn't think so.

We will see in the next election, but it honestly had nothing to do with this thread and I will ask why you put it there other than to satisfy your own need to feel superior.

You have to understand the process.........When democrats back a nominee they give him softball questions........When Republicans back a nominee they give him softball questions..........The Republicans want Roberts to be confirmed...........

We will see in the next election, but it honestly had nothing to do with this thread and I will ask why you put it there other than to satisfy your own need to feel superior.[/

So are you advocating censorship in that one can only post here what you approve of?

 

[Navy Pride]

The best somebody can say about Feinstein is that she is at least slightly less flaky than Boxer. But yeah, the toad case was way over the top. The most stunning crapola came from Chuck Schumer who has been throwing up Ruth Bader Ginsburg's confirmation as illustration that a good, reputable judge will answer constitutional questions extensively. That is a bald face lie since he and Biden specifically counseled her from the committee in public NOT to answer questions that could in any way relate to any issue that might come before the court. And she didn't.

And now those pompous blowhard hypocrites have the audacity to accuse Judge Roberts for declining to rule on cases now that might come before the court? I hope they lose 10 more seats in the next election.

I saw a commercial put out by the people that support Roberts and it showed Biden telling Ginsberg she did not have to answer any question she had a conflict with and then what does he do with Roberts, slam him for not answering questions.......

Talk about a hypocrite.......

 

[ShamMol]

You have to understand the process.........When democrats back a nominee they give him softball questions........When Republicans back a nominee they give him softball questions..........The Republicans want Roberts to be confirmed...........

Oh, I understand completely, but when you attack them for asking questions that they have a right to ask,that is when I bring up the fact that one senator didn't even ask a bloody question for the first six minutes or so of his questioning. That is a problem. If I were a Senator, I wouldn't care if he was on my side or not because the American people deserve to know about some things (but not like Lott did to candidates for the lower courts in asking about voting record, abortions received, if they plan to have a child, etc...which are all innapropriate questions. The great part of that was taht he said to one candidate I will not let you out of committee until you answer those questions, but I digress...).

So are you advocating censorship in that one can only post here what you approve of?

I want people to post what the topic is about, is that clear enough and logical? People started a topic to discuss this, not if you will win the 06 elections, get it?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Oh, I understand completely, but when you attack them for asking questions that they have a right to ask,that is when I bring up the fact that one senator didn't even ask a bloody question for the first six minutes or so of his questioning. That is a problem. If I were a Senator, I wouldn't care if he was on my side or not because the American people deserve to know about some things (but not like Lott did to candidates for the lower courts in asking about voting record, abortions received, if they plan to have a child, etc...which are all innapropriate questions. The great part of that was taht he said to one candidate I will not let you out of committee until you answer those questions, but I digress...).

I want people to post what the topic is about, is that clear enough and logical? People started a topic to discuss this, not if you will win the 06 elections, get it?

You're complaining about a six-minute speech by a Republican? You must not have had a clock on the Dem side of the table. There's been enough nonsensical, unrelated, self-promoting hot air expended in this hearing to send Columbus's fleet across the Atlantic again.

 

[AlbqOwl]

And even after my hot air crack, there is this little blurb that was just posted on Drudge:

"Exclusive Drudge sources in the U.S. Senate's Hart Building heard Democrat Sen. Joe Biden say to Judge John G. Roberts in a private conversation on the hearing room floor: 'You're the best I've ever seen before the committee'...

Developing... "

You gotta love it. :smile:

 

[ShamMol]

And even after my hot air crack, there is this little blurb that was just posted on Drudge:

"Exclusive Drudge sources in the U.S. Senate's Hart Building heard Democrat Sen. Joe Biden say to Judge John G. Roberts in a private conversation on the hearing room floor: 'You're the best I've ever seen before the committee'...

Developing... "

You gotta love it. :smile:

The day I quote from kos is the day I believe anything posted on drudge, no offense to the readers of it.

But, he is quite a good candidate and I personally like him because I think he is a legal junky who can't resist a good legal argument. I just want him to answer a few questions I have, but no....he won't do that even though there is no chance that it will come up because it isn't even about cases. He said he didn't have a judicial philosophy for crying out loud-question him on that!

You're complaining about a six-minute speech by a Republican? You must not have had a clock on the Dem side of the table. There's been enough nonsensical, unrelated, self-promoting hot air expended in this hearing to send Columbus's fleet across the Atlantic again.

I would complain about it for everyone. I did not like some stuff said by the Dems either because I thought it did not matter. There is hot air coming from both sides, but at least Specter is trying to show that he has a spine and is asking serious questions (unlike others-Dems and Repubs) that will help me make my final decision on him.

If anything comes out of this, it may be a respect for Specter.

 

[AlbqOwl]

The day I quote from kos is the day I believe anything posted on drudge, no offense to the readers of it.

But, he is quite a good candidate and I personally like him because I think he is a legal junky who can't resist a good legal argument. I just want him to answer a few questions I have, but no....he won't do that even though there is no chance that it will come up because it isn't even about cases. He said he didn't have a judicial philosophy for crying out loud-question him on that!

I would complain about it for everyone. I did not like some stuff said by the Dems either because I thought it did not matter. There is hot air coming from both sides, but at least Specter is trying to show that he has a spine and is asking serious questions (unlike others-Dems and Repubs) that will help me make my final decision on him.

If anything comes out of this, it may be a respect for Specter.

Whatever one's opinion of Drudge, I can assure you he is the first place media types go on the internet every day. He gets it wrong now and then, but he has such uncanny sources, he stays way ahead of almost everybody else. If it wasn't for him, we wouldn't get a lot of news that we get because big media would ice it. But once he puts it out there, and especially if the bloggers pick it up, then the story is broken and they almost have to deal with it. He doesn't do a lot of deep research--he leaves that up to others--but he can smell a story and ferret it out better than anybody in the business. And he's pretty nonpartisan. Nobody is safe from his gossip.

Re the questioning from the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, I've been reading where there is concern that several were unusually tough on Judge Roberts--tough enough there is speculation that the GOP may shaft him. I personally don't believe it--Roberts is just too good. And I think they all know it.

 

[cnredd]

Whatever one's opinion of Drudge, I can assure you he is the first place media types go on the internet every day. He gets it wrong now and then, but he has such uncanny sources, he stays way ahead of almost everybody else. If it wasn't for him, we wouldn't get a lot of news that we get because big media would ice it. But once he puts it out there, and especially if the bloggers pick it up, then the story is broken and they almost have to deal with it. He doesn't do a lot of deep research--he leaves that up to others--but he can smell a story and ferret it out better than anybody in the business. And he's pretty nonpartisan. Nobody is safe from his gossip.

Drudge is pretty middle-of-the-road...Hell! He's got links for Ann Coulter & Helen Thomas!...

But alot of people throw him in with the Limbaughs and the Hannitys because Drudge was the one to break MonicaGate...That automatically made him enemy #1 in the Liberal world...Even though he would've done the same thing to a Conservative...

 

[AlbqOwl]

Drudge is pretty middle-of-the-road...Hell! He's got links for Ann Coulter & Helen Thomas!...

But alot of people throw him in with the Limbaughs and the Hannitys because Drudge was the one to break MonicaGate...That automatically made him enemy #1 in the Liberal world...Even though he would've done the same thing to a Conservative...

Yes he definitely would do the same to a conservative. But you're probably right.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I saw a commercial put out by the people that support Roberts and it showed Biden telling Ginsberg she did not have to answer any question she had a conflict with and then what does he do with Roberts, slam him for not answering questions.......

Talk about a hypocrite.......

Yes, I've heard all the tapes. Gingsburg ducked Biden's (and everybody else's) questions just as Roberts is doing, using the same reasons he is giving for doing so, and she was praised by Biden and affirmed that she was under no obligation to answer. Hypocrite indeed. And apart from a couple of really good decisions she has made, she has been a disaster for the Court.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Did you guys hear on the news today that a New York District Judge has declared that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.

Further the ACLU is filing suit in New Mexico against the University of New Mexico basketball coach because the coach told a kid's mother that he would take him to church if the kid wanted to go to church. Apparently the kid had been getting into all kinds of trouble and the mother wanted him to go to New Mexico because of Coach's reputation for high moral standards.

With so many of our traditions, freedoms, and demonstrated values at stake, something has to turn the tide or we're going to lose it all.

 

[Navy Pride]

The day I quote from kos is the day I believe anything posted on drudge, no offense to the readers of it.

But, he is quite a good candidate and I personally like him because I think he is a legal junky who can't resist a good legal argument. I just want him to answer a few questions I have, but no....he won't do that even though there is no chance that it will come up because it isn't even about cases. He said he didn't have a judicial philosophy for crying out loud-question him on that!

I would complain about it for everyone. I did not like some stuff said by the Dems either because I thought it did not matter. There is hot air coming from both sides, but at least Specter is trying to show that he has a spine and is asking serious questions (unlike others-Dems and Repubs) that will help me make my final decision on him.

If anything comes out of this, it may be a respect for Specter.

Have you seen the commercial running about Roberts.......It shows Biden telling Ginsberg she does not have to answer any questions that pertain to possible future court cases..........Let me ask you a question...If Ginsberg can do that why can't Roberts?

 

[ShamMol]

Whatever one's opinion of Drudge, I can assure you he is the first place media types go on the internet every day. He gets it wrong now and then, but he has such uncanny sources, he stays way ahead of almost everybody else. If it wasn't for him, we wouldn't get a lot of news that we get because big media would ice it. But once he puts it out there, and especially if the bloggers pick it up, then the story is broken and they almost have to deal with it. He doesn't do a lot of deep research--he leaves that up to others--but he can smell a story and ferret it out better than anybody in the business. And he's pretty nonpartisan. Nobody is safe from his gossip.

Yeah, well, I just don't agree with you and would never quote from him, fox news and a few other people (including kos) for partisanship. You will disagree and that will be that, alright?

Re the questioning from the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, I've been reading where there is concern that several were unusually tough on Judge Roberts--tough enough there is speculation that the GOP may shaft him. I personally don't believe it--Roberts is just too good. And I think they all know it.

See, there was some talk in the New York times by Senators that confirmations have changed. What it meant was that now it doesn't really matter if you are a good candidate but only if you agree with the senators. Personally, I think that is horrible because if that was the case Ginsburg would not be on the court right now and people throughout the ages would not have gone to the court.

I think that Roberts is qualified, but I do still want him to answer some questions before I will feel comfortable. If I was a senator, that would be justification enough not to vote from him, but I would hope that Roberts would answer the questions. Actually, my school gives out free copies of the new york times and there is a synopsis of questions asked and I was quite impressed with his explanation of eminent domain which was one of my questions of him. I didn't necessarily agree with him, but I appreciated taht he answered the question.

Have you seen the commercial running about Roberts.......It shows Biden telling Ginsberg she does not have to answer any questions that pertain to possible future court cases..........Let me ask you a question...If Ginsberg can do that why can't Roberts?

I already said I agreed with you for crying out loud, why don't you actually respond to what I posted.

 

[ShamMol]

Did you guys hear on the news today that a New York District Judge has declared that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.

If you want to go into this, there is no way that it is constitutional and it can't even be kept in because of history because it was put in because of communists...but if you want to discuss it, please start a topic and we will go at it cause it is one of my favorite topics.

Further the ACLU is filing suit in New Mexico against the University of New Mexico basketball coach because the coach told a kid's mother that he would take him to church if the kid wanted to go to church. Apparently the kid had been getting into all kinds of trouble and the mother wanted him to go to New Mexico because of Coach's reputation for high moral standards.

They do file some wacky suits, but I would like to know more...do you have a link to this story? There may be more to it legally than what you are saying.

With so many of our traditions, freedoms, and demonstrated values at stake, something has to turn the tide or we're going to lose it all.

Culture changes and while we may want to hold onto the old, we have to accept that sometimes it will change, even if we don't want it to.

 

[JOHNYJ]

John Roberts was great he beat the liberal democrats on the committee like a drum.
They never laid a glove on him. They showed they were ideologues. That could only parrot their leftwing special interest groups mantra's.
It showed they weren't listening to the testimony.Neither were the special interests groups representitives that made statements today.They had an agenda and don't confuse them with facts.

 

[AlbqOwl]

John Roberts has said what I wanted to hear. He said it is not the judge's job to rule according to what he (the judge) thinks is right or wrong. it is the judge's job to rule according to what the law says and intends. If we don't like the law, it is the legislature that should change it, not the judge. Robert's track record as a judge backs up his statement as being genuine. Therefore I support him 100% and don't care what his personal ideology is a about anything else. I think he is spot on right not to allow them to goad him into providing a rationale for the way something should be decided. If he does that he boxes himself in and possibly would have to recuse himself should such an issue come before the Court.

The flap over our basketball coach was on the radio and the only place I think it has been recorded is in our Albuquerque Journal that requires subscription to access. When something more is available I will provide it.

The reason I mentioned it and the decision re constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance is because it is ironic that both, potentially explosive issues, have occurred as the Senate is moving toward confirmation of one of the most constructionist judges that has been appointed to the court in a long time. It should be an interesting autumn and winter.

 

[ShamMol]

John Roberts has said what I wanted to hear. He said it is not the judge's job to rule according to what he (the judge) thinks is right or wrong. it is the judge's job to rule according to what the law says and intends. If we don't like the law, it is the legislature that should change it, not the judge. Robert's track record as a judge backs up his statement as being genuine. Therefore I support him 100% and don't care what his personal ideology is a about anything else. I think he is spot on right not to allow them to goad him into providing a rationale for the way something should be decided. If he does that he boxes himself in and possibly would have to recuse himself should such an issue come before the Court.

It never stopped justices before from...hearing cases that they should not have heard. But that is also the only way that they can insure that they get appointed to the court-by dodging the hurtful questions and answering the helpful ones...it is like testimony in a courtroom for a civil case.

From what I saw, he is a legal junky, and from what I can tell, that is the best thing for a judge...because some of my favorite conservatives and mod conservatives have been legal junkies....like Sandra. They let their cases turn on narrow points (as he showed in his memos and cases in the appealate courts) and used fine legal research to back it up. That is why I support him...that and he got the highest approval rating (though that didn't stop Repubs or Dems in the past for lower court nominees) and because I think he has a solid legal mind.

The flap over our basketball coach was on the radio and the only place I think it has been recorded is in our Albuquerque Journal that requires subscription to access. When something more is available I will provide it.

Well, I think it would have something more to do with that because usually before the ACLU files suit, they make sure that there is public funding involved.

The reason I mentioned it and the decision re constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance is because it is ironic that both, potentially explosive issues, have occurred as the Senate is moving toward confirmation of one of the most constructionist judges that has been appointed to the court in a long time. It should be an interesting autumn and winter.

Too true, and especially with a second california judge ruling (correctly) again to rule the pledge in its current for unconstitutional thanks to the 1.) lack of history, 2.) public funding (through schools-the weakest argument) and 3.) direct contradiction of seperation...well, again, we can get into that another time. I think that it is very ironic and thus I agree with you.

 

[JOHNYJ]

That Liberal San Francisco Judge was a gift to the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. They made sure the news of the stupid ruling was announced from the comittee,on TV to the whole nation.
Liberal activist Judge attacks the Pledge Of Allegiance .The kind of Judge ,John Roberts isnt ! Thats why hes needed on the Supreme court !
Liberals,never learn, the Liberal mayor of San Francisco was a help getting President Bush Re-elected. His marrying of thousands of Gays on TV night after night. Helped mobilise the christians who came out and voted for Presiden Bush. This same Mayor was on TV tonight and admitted hat San Francisco had not Eartquaked proofed one major structure since the 89 Earthquake,including the golden gate bridge. Gay marriage,that he worries about.

 

[AlbqOwl]

It never stopped justices before from...hearing cases that they should not have heard. But that is also the only way that they can insure that they get appointed to the court-by dodging the hurtful questions and answering the helpful ones...it is like testimony in a courtroom for a civil case.

From what I saw, he is a legal junky, and from what I can tell, that is the best thing for a judge...because some of my favorite conservatives and mod conservatives have been legal junkies....like Sandra. They let their cases turn on narrow points (as he showed in his memos and cases in the appealate courts) and used fine legal research to back it up. That is why I support him...that and he got the highest approval rating (though that didn't stop Repubs or Dems in the past for lower court nominees) and because I think he has a solid legal mind.
Well, I think it would have something more to do with that because usually before the ACLU files suit, they make sure that there is public funding involved.
Too true, and especially with a second california judge ruling (correctly) again to rule the pledge in its current for unconstitutional thanks to the 1.) lack of history, 2.) public funding (through schools-the weakest argument) and 3.) direct contradiction of seperation...well, again, we can get into that another time. I think that it is very ironic and thus I agree with you.

I started a thread on the Pledge of Allegiance issue. Its in the News section now but may be moved to the Constitution area later.

We don't agree on the Pledge at all and I will look forward to discussing and debating that issue. But these few exchanges are encouraging that there are reasonable people on both sides of issues who can find areas of agreement. Maybe the idea will catch on.

 

[AlbqOwl]

That Liberal San Francisco Judge was a gift to the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. They made sure the news of the stupid ruling was announced from the comittee,on TV to the whole nation.
Liberal activist Judge attacks the Pledge Of Allegiance .The kind of Judge ,John Roberts isnt ! Thats why hes needed on the Supreme court !
Liberals,never learn, the Liberal mayor of San Francisco was a help getting President Bush Re-elected. His marrying of thousands of Gays on TV night after night. Helped mobilise the christians who came out and voted for Presiden Bush. This same Mayor was on TV tonight and admitted hat San Francisco had not Eartquaked proofed one major structure since the 89 Earthquake,including the golden gate bridge. Gay marriage,that he worries about.

Well you hate to rejoice over a really bad decision--a really bad decision in my opinion anyway--but I think you're right. I don't expect it to make any difference in Judge Roberts' case, as I think he was pretty much a shoo in anyway, but it could very well make a difference for the next appointee to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's seat. That's the one I think the Democrats planned to pull out all the stops for, and this will make blocking confirmation of a conservative constructionist more difficult for them.

 

[ShamMol]

That Liberal San Francisco Judge was a gift to the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. They made sure the news of the stupid ruling was announced from the comittee,on TV to the whole nation.
Liberal activist Judge attacks the Pledge Of Allegiance .The kind of Judge ,John Roberts isnt ! Thats why hes needed on the Supreme court !
Liberals,never learn, the Liberal mayor of San Francisco was a help getting President Bush Re-elected. His marrying of thousands of Gays on TV night after night. Helped mobilise the christians who came out and voted for Presiden Bush. This same Mayor was on TV tonight and admitted hat San Francisco had not Eartquaked proofed one major structure since the 89 Earthquake,including the golden gate bridge. Gay marriage,that he worries about.

Wow...you know that there are such things as activist conservatist judges? No? Oh...

Honestly, I don't have anything to respond to a rant because it is just that, a rant and someone already posted something responsive to it.

I started a thread on the Pledge of Allegiance issue. Its in the News section now but may be moved to the Constitution area later.

We don't agree on the Pledge at all and I will look forward to discussing and debating that issue. But these few exchanges are encouraging that there are reasonable people on both sides of issues who can find areas of agreement. Maybe the idea will catch on.

I will post immediately, can't wait.

 

[JOHNYJ]

The Liberal democrats on the Judiciary committee must have been reminded of that old saying. When they heard what that Liberal San Francisco judge did . " I can take care of my ememies,God save me from my friends .
He handed the Republicans a boost for John Roberts confirmation ,and points to use on the next Supreme Court Nominee .

 

[Batman]

Bloomberg opposes Roberts' nomination

NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Friday opposed John Roberts' nomination to be U.S. Supreme Court chief justice, making him the first noted Republican to break with the Bush administration over who should lead America's top court.

Bloomberg, a former Democrat seeking re-election in a heavily Democratic city, said Roberts had failed to show a commitment to upholding the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision establishing a right to abortion.

"I am unconvinced that Judge Roberts accepts the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling as settled law," Bloomberg said.

Roberts' answers to questions in Senate confirmation hearings "did not indicate a commitment to protect a woman's right to choose," he said. "For that reason I oppose the nomination of Judge Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court."

While Bloomberg's statement is unusual from a Republican, the mayor has no standing over whether Roberts will be confirmed by the U.S. Senate as chief justice.

Bloomberg, who became a billionaire by building the media company named after him, is ahead in polls in the New York mayoral race ahead of November's election here.

Like many Republicans in New York, Bloomberg has long been a liberal on social issues and has been unafraid to publicly break with President George W. Bush
STORY

Surprised?? Anything to make it look as though real republicans do not support Roberts. Which Bloomberg is not.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I think it was a given that the radical prolife groups would want a prospective new Justice to state unequivocably that abortion should be outlawed at any stage and for any reason, period. And it was a given that the radical pro-abortion groups would want a prospective new Justice to state unequivocablythat abortion should be forever legal on demand under any circumstances, at any time, in any place, and at any stage even as the baby emerges from the womb. (It's only a matter of time before post birth euthenasia of 'unsatisfactory' infants will be suggested I suppose.)

For the rest of us, it should be enough that a prospective Justice will pledge his conviction that it is his job to determine the intent and letter of the existing law, and if the law is unsatisfactory, then the appropriate legislative body should change it. The Justice should also determine if a law violates the intent and letter of the Constitution in its most strict interpretations.

Once we have a Court like that, it no longer presents a threat to our freedoms. THen we can concentrate on electing responsible legislators who also don't present a threat to our freedoms.

 

[kal-el]

John Roberts seems like a logical choice. It's probably a smart move that he made during grilling from Dems, that he will not give his exact position on certain issues. He dosen't want to use them as a bargaining chip for votes.