Democrats & Liberals: Archives

You would think that he would have to answer the questions to. He said he would rather not answer “hypotheticals”, and would rather not answer “spacific points”. Just give us a damn answer.

I find it interesing you only pointed out the Republican’s over use of “speeches” rather than questions as having spent the past few days watching the majority of this confirmation hearing it has been done by both sides.

I quote from a Washington Post article by Dana Milbank:

When Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) took his turn, he used 15 of the 20 minutes and gave Roberts five. Sen. Joseph R. Biden (D-Del.) warned Roberts to give “short answers” and held the floor for 12 of his 20 minutes. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), who spoke 3,500 words, left Roberts time for 1,500.

It was, as Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) put it, “a lot of senator talk.” Explained Kyl: “I think this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. It is the only time that you’ll have the opportunity to be directly lobbied in the political context in an appropriate way.”

I realize the next statement is going to be that Roberts refused to answer some of the Democrats questions, however there was a wealth of information that has been given. The problem was the continual attempts to create drama when it was very apparent the questions being repeatedly asked were not going to be answered.

Except for discovering John Roberts enjoys the movie Dr. Zhivago.

Lisa Renee:
As i was watching the proceedings (i haven’t watched the entire thing) i noted that very little actual questions came from the Republican side. The dems seemed quicker to ask questions. Although the dems, at times, seemed to keep on commenting on crap about not answering questions or trying to prove how other justices answered similar questions and such; it was pretty much framed around the questions.

Here are my impressions (and feel free to chime in to tell me where i am incorrect):

- Dems thank him for being there.
- Dems get to the actual questions quicker.
- Dems interrupt the answer with ‘you’re not answering’
- Dems complain about not answering (long winded)
- Dems try to ask the same question in a different manner and still complain about getting a non-answer.
- Dems use sarcasm (note: Dr. Zhivago) to illustrate a point about whether Roberts will ever answer their questions.

- Repubs Thank him.
- Repubs gush over him being a great guy and an upstanding member of the human race.
- Repubs ask questions like “What’s it like being so well respected?”
- Repubs spend time answering for Roberts. They say things like “When the democratic senator asked so-and-so and you answered so-and-so, i wanted the American public to know that you meant that blahbadeblah…”
- Repubs say things like “Mr. Roberts, your bum is a fine bum. And when i’m kissing your bum, i must admit it maybe the finest bum that i’ve kissed in my lifetime…” (attempt at humor)

Something like that.

john -

For some reason, I’m reminded of the SNL skit: ‘Hey Bob! Nice Penis!.’ ‘Wow. That’s looking great! What have you been doing to it?’

Matt:

The Supreme Court has consistently held that it is inappropriate to engage in “advisory opinions” (i.e., answering hypotheticals, etc) because the text of the Constitution specifically limits their jurisdiction to actual “cases” and “controversies” arising under the laws of the United States. A “case” or “controversy” has been interpreted to mean two vested parties arguing a particular dispute in an adversarial setting. This precedent began as early as Thomas Jefferson in 1793, whom wrote a letter to the justices requesting their advice regarding the constitutionality of maritime law issues. Thus, hypothetical factual situtations clearly do not require an answer; in fact, while granted Roberts is not an actual justice, it is rather inappropriate by the same token for a potential justice to do so. It is possible, however, to cull from his opinions where he would “most likely” stand in many hypothetical situtations.

This whole process is irrelevant. Roberts is a shoo-in. With no skeletons in the closet and very little judicial history, the Dems can’t do much to block his nomination besides filibuster and they already caved-in on that option.

Someone please tell me what the difference is between this hearing and the one for Ginsburg?

It is almost identical except that Ginsburg was a known liberal and Roberts is a known conservative. Both of which were nominated to their posts by Clinton’s and Bush’s ideology. That’s the way it works…

john trevisani

It’s not partisan; it’s fact-finding.

What is absolutely hilarious is that you actually believe this.

Discerner -

OK - so are you suggesting we just stick out heads in the sand and forget about who is being appointed? Really? Who cares if it was done one way in the past… this is now - this is important - why are you telling people to just accept it?

Is that the kind of particiaption you want in your government? Just vote once every 2 years then let it go on it’s own?

I listened to some of the questions being asked yesterday and I have to say that the Dem’s and the Rep’s might as well have been asking Roberts how he felt about Disney cartoon characters, because they would have had just as much relevance as the questions they were asking.

I believe that all committee members believe Roberts will receive the support of the Senate. Several of the senators, regardless of party, just want to ensure Roberts is not another Bork. Also, these hearings are terrific bully pulpits for the senators to reach a national audience for free.

If the Senate were to recommend against Roberts’ appointment, can Bush appoint him anyway—while acknowledging that the appointment is informed by the Senate’s advice and consent opinion?

Discerner,
The biggest difference between this confimation and Ginsburg’s is the fact that Roberts is to be the new Chief Justice — and no one knows very much about him.
The Democratic Judiciary Committee was not allowed to look at the sixteen Supreme Court cases Roberts handled when he worked for Ken Starr during Bush Sr.’s administration, even though similar documents were available to the committee during Rehnquist’s confirmation hearings for Chief Justice back in 1986.
This excessive secretiveness from the administration most likely means that Roberts has plenty to hide. Just one more instance of Bushco-style opaque government — but this time it’s for a lifetime appointment.

Adrienne,

Good points, however, these documents do not represent him, they represent who he was working for. Plus, the political climate is NOTHING like the Rehnquist’s confirmation hearings.

Maybe I should be paranoid…then again, no…

Adrienne,

Good points, however, these documents do not represent him, they represent who he was working for. Plus, the political climate is NOTHING like the Rehnquist’s confirmation hearings.

Maybe I should be paranoid…then again, no…

Tony,

You don’t get it, why was it OK for Ginsburg to not answer questions on the grounds that it may come up to the courts, and NOT OK for Roberts?

Also, are you saying that the Ginsburg appointment was NOT important? OR are you saying that any conservative appointment must be analyzed a lot more stringently then a liberal one?

discerner -

This is the here and now. I was not engaged in politics when Ginsburg was appointed. If they failed to ask important questions and/or if he failed to answer, then that was a failure. I do not think past failures excuse present or future failures.

The Roberts nomination is in front of us now. That should be the focus.

Sorry Tony, it doesn’t work that way.

Will you be answering my questions?

This is the here and now. I was not engaged in politics when Ginsburg was appointed. If they failed to ask important questions and/or if he failed to answer, then that was a failure.

Sorry Tony, but Ginsburg is a SHE.

In response to Sherfdog’s question:

If the Senate were to recommend against Roberts? appointment, can Bush appoint him anyway?while acknowledging that the appointment is informed by the Senate?s advice and consent opinion?

No, he cannot. Why?

Existing precedent in the Supreme Court, especially with regard to its interpretation of Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution (where you can find both the power of the President to appoint officials and the “advice and consent clause”). In Myers v. United States (272 U.S. 52; 71 L.Ed. 160), the Supreme Court considered whether the advice and consent clause also empowers Senate to advise and provide consent in the President’s removal of officials. What’s more important, though, is that the Court considered the construction of the text of the advice and consent clause, opting for a strict interpretation:

The requirement of the second section of Article II that the Senate should advise and consent to the Presidential appointments, was to be strictly construed…Under section 2 of Article II, however, the power of appointment by the Executive is restricted in its exercise by the provision that the Senate, a part of the legislative branch of the Government, may check the action of the Executive by rejecting the officers he selects

The Constitution is clear that the exercise of the executive power requires not only the advice, but also the consent[emphasis added] of the Senate. Thus, using the precedent set in Myers v. United States, a strict interpretation of this Constitutional provision would determine that the meaning of the word “consent” in its ordinary usage contradicts the President’s ability to appoint an official w/o the Senate’s concurrence.

Thoughts anyone?

—-
Sorry Tony, it doesn’t work that way.
—-
Yea - it does. Or are you into failure for the sake of fairness?

—-
Sorry Tony, but Ginsburg is a SHE.
—-

Like I said, that was when I was not politically engaged. I no memory of that appointment.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Overview

Born: March 15, 1933
Party: Democrat
Time served: 12 years, 1 months, 6 days
Position: associate Justice

Didn’t have a computer, did have the interest… but my point still remains: this is the here and now. Why do you excuse wrong actions now based on past actions?

Tony,

Past actions in these type of confirmations set precedents for future hearings. You can not expect the requirements of a confirmation hearing to change based on the political make up of the Senators or the party of the judge.

Thank you Mike P.

Tony, my initial questions still stand…

—-
Past actions in these type of confirmations set precedents for future hearings. You can not expect the requirements of a confirmation hearing to change based on the political make up of the Senators or the party of the judge.
—-
You’re calling it political - I’m saying that we need to have these things done better. Always doing something the wrong way just because it’s always been done that way is at the heart of stupidity. I’d prefer to act differently.

—-
Tony, my initial questions still stand…
—-
??? Please restate the question. It seems to me that I’ve answered it. If not - I will.

Tony,

Of course it is political. It has always been a political process and it will always be that way since Congress confirms the appointees.

When you say it needs to be done better - what are your suggestions?

Discerner:
“Good points, however, these documents do not represent him, they represent who he was working for.”

Those documents do represent Roberts, because those particular sixteen were prepared by him alone even though he was working for Starr (then solicitor general). Hence, the commitee’s interest in having a look at them to get a better sense of Roberts approach in cases which come before the Supreme Court.

“Plus, the political climate is NOTHING like the Rehnquist’s confirmation hearings.”

What does the political climate have to do with whether or not the judiciary commitee is allowed to look at cases the potential Chief Justice prepared? If similar documents were considered relevant enough to look at in 1986 during Rehnquist’s confirmation, they should be considered just as relevant now, yes?

The confirmation hearing for Roberts is just another really big job interview.

Good point, jt. Singapore just had its Presidential election… Well, actually they didn’t. The President wanted to resign (he’s in his 80s), but the board that vets Presidential candidates rejected all his potential replacements. So he remained President by default.

Singapore has really strict qualifications requirements for its public offices. For example, the President must have been chairman or CEO of a major business organization. The only real challenger President S. R. Nathan had was disqualified after the Presidential Elections Committee interviewed his former colleagues and they gave him a bad reference.

Treating qualification for public office like a real job interview is an interesting concept. President Bush wouldn’t be qualified to run for President in Singapore.