September 13, 2005
VYING FOR THE HOWELL HEFLIN AWARD:
Roberts dodges specifics on abortion (JESSE J. HOLLAND, September 13, 2005, Associated Press)
Supreme Court nominee John Roberts jousted with Democratic senators Tuesday at his confirmation hearing to be chief justice, dodging their attempts to pin down his opinions on abortion, voting rights and other legal issues. [...][W]hen senators pressed for details on his opinions - even to the point of interrupting his answers - Roberts said repeatedly that he shouldn't address some issues that could come before the Supreme Court with him as chief justice.
At one point, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., who has indicated he may run for president in 2008, accused Roberts of "filibustering."
"Go ahead and continue not to answer," said Biden. Later, he interrupted Roberts and when criticized, insisted, "His answers are misleading, with all due respect."
"Wait a minute! Wait a minute! They may be misleading but they are his answers," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the Judiciary Committee chairman.
Roberts - who had noted that Biden earlier would have heard an entire answer if he hadn't interrupted - kept his cool.
"With respect, they are my answers and with respect, they are not misleading," he said.
If Joe Biden wants to get the nomination he has to carry water for the Death Lobby, but the most embarrassing questions were those of Senator Kohl, asking what Mr. Roberts would do as Chief Justice to alleviate poverty. Fine grasp of the separation of powers there. Posted by Orrin Judd at September 13, 2005 5:28 PM
He should have said:
"I'll write a bigger check to the Salvation Army this year."
Posted by: obc at September 13, 2005 6:22 PMWe badly need to nominate a "dummy" Supreme Court nominee who will mouth off to these creeps. Me and plenty of other Republicans would pay the GOP serious moolah to watch that on pay-per-view.
I just read this post to my apartment roommate and he suggests that Roberts return fire: Ask Kohl what he's done lately to reduce poverty.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at September 13, 2005 7:47 PMMatt-
J. R. Brown will have to do. She's no dummy, though.
Posted by: ghostcat at September 13, 2005 8:06 PMMy wife, who is the rarest of people (a pro-life Democrat) is really not that into politics. However, she was watching the hearings on C-SPAN this morning and I believe Biden was bolvating when my wife said, "This guy should be confirmed for the simple fact that his head hasn't exploded from having to listen to these windbag senators". She also stated that "those senators sure like to hear themselves talk". I mentioned that the Senate likes to call itself "the world's greatest deliberative body'.
Posted by: pchuck at September 13, 2005 8:22 PMI just love the concept of Biden (who I think graduated at the bootom of his class at Syracuse Law)grilling Roberts (top of his class at Harvard, Supreme Court clerkship, etc.) about anything to do with the Constitution or the law. Like pchuck's wife, I was waiting for Roberts' head to explode.
Posted by: Foos at September 13, 2005 8:28 PMBiden is an adjunct professor at Delaware's only law school. I knew students at that school. One was a nice but very liberal kid from New Jersey. He took Biden's class (this was in 1995). He said Biden was constantly saying that "he singlehandedly stood up to President Reagan when the Constitution was at stake". Joe has a rather large opinion of himself and he never let anyone forget it. My friend really disliked Biden.
Posted by: pchuck at September 13, 2005 9:17 PMBiden is yet another reason to read Richard ben Cramer's great book, What it Takes.
Posted by: oj at September 13, 2005 9:26 PMIt is obvious that the Democrats are making a token, minimal, face-saving resistence, sort of like Cornwallis at Yorktown.
Posted by: Lou Gots at September 13, 2005 9:41 PMI wonder if all the Dems on the Judiciary Committee are ready to go through this exact same drill, 2 months from now. Can they preen and posture, with the same words and intonations? Will they roar and bluster in the same way? Will they remember to wear different ties?
And if Bush selects Janice Rogers Brown (unlikely, but possible), will they even be able to catch their breath in the midst of their 20-minute denunciations?
My guess is they will fold, because their theater is not going over well. Bork was an easy victim, and he was rejected. Clarence Thomas was not, and he was confirmed. Roberts will probably get 70-75 votes, but as Lindsay Graham (and lots of others) noted, the fact that Scalia got 98 votes 20 years ago, and Ginsburg got 96 votes 10 years ago, means that something is very wrong now.
Posted by: jim hamlen at September 14, 2005 12:33 AMWell something was very wrong ten years ago when Ginsburg was even nominated, nevermind confirmed. If for nothing else than to keep knee-jerk lefties like Ginsburg from ever sitting on the Supreme Court again, we must make sure the left, in its current form, never regains power over us.
A two party system is the ideal and we can hope to return to it one day when the current crop of moonbats have moved on to their rewards and some rational people take over the Democratic party.