Roberts approved by Senate Judiciary Committee

[Justin_stacy]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C170110%2C00.html

[siberianxkiss]

well that was expected.

let's get to the O'connor replacement. that should be more interesting

[A picasso blue]

are there any speculations as to whom Bush will choose to fill the other vacant seat?

[UrS Truly]

i dont think any1 knows yet, but i heard that he met with some members of the senate judicairy commitee and they gave him a list of some possible nominees, no clue on what he thought of em.

[GhostsDaddy]

This makes me :(

[Justin_stacy]

ya the fanatical partisanship of the left makes me sad too.....

[dangets]

are there any speculations as to whom Bush will choose to fill the other vacant seat?
i thought i heard speculation with both appointments about Alberto Gonzales...

[GhostsDaddy]

ya the fanatical partisanship of the left makes me sad too.....
The left can't be partisan in itself. Democrats can. And so can Republicans. If Bush wanted to be nonpartisan, he'd choose a Republican for the Chief Justice seat, and a Democrat for the remaining opening. It's the fair and right thing to do, after all.

[UrS Truly]

but the odds are he wont choose a democrat to fill the o conner seat

[Justin_stacy]

The left can't be partisan in itself. Democrats can. And so can Republicans. If Bush wanted to be nonpartisan, he'd choose a Republican for the Chief Justice seat, and a Democrat for the remaining opening. It's the fair and right thing to do, after all.

That's some pretty ignorant bullshit............I don't remember clinton nominating another republican when Blackmun resigned? Do you?

But the point is if a far left nominee like Ginsburg can get all 8 opposing party votes, which she did, a relative moderate like Roberts should be except, at least by rational individual, to receive the same. But of course there's little rational about the modern day democratic party.


And please explain how nominating a Democrat to replace a Republican associate is "fair" and the "right thing" to do?

[GhostsDaddy]

That's some pretty ignorant bullshit............I don't remember clinton nominating another republican when Blackmun resigned? Do you?

But the point is if a far left nominee like Ginsburg can get all 8 opposing party votes, which she did, a relative moderate like Roberts should be except, at least by rational individual, to receive the same. But of course there's little rational about the modern day democratic party.


And please explain how nominating a Democrat to replace a Republican associate is "fair" and the "right thing" to do?
It's fair and the right thing to do because in order to create a bipartisan team, he has the opportunity to literally shape the court into a more bipartisan body.

And you can't compare Roberts to Ginsburg. I mean, if I expect Roberts to get the same support as Ginsberg, than you should have expected Bush to garner the same support as Clinton, which he failed to do.

It's too bad the American public couldn't use red tape in 2000 to try to get a "straight up or down" vote on who we voted for.

[Cal Smith]

i'd say the fair thing is bush nominating whoever he wants to nominate democrat or republican. Bush's job isnt to try to be in the middle. Is job is to implement his policies considering he was elected on those policies.

[splitsecond]

The left can't be partisan in itself. Democrats can. And so can Republicans. If Bush wanted to be nonpartisan, he'd choose a Republican for the Chief Justice seat, and a Democrat for the remaining opening. It's the fair and right thing to do, after all.
That would be catering directly to partisanship. Bush should be choosing people who follow the law, not political viewpoints. There are plenty of very good judges who follow the law, as they are supposed to, and dont cater to the political whims and forces of small groups of society. Of course, the problem is, most people who follow the law as written tend to be constructionists, and the only way liberals can advance some of their more "progressive" (or morally regressive depending on your viewpoint) policies is by putting in activist judges who don't follow the law as written. People need to understand that in our country, as it was set up by our founders, policy is set by the people and the elected officials, and that policy is protected by judges. If the law doesnt work that way, why do we even pass laws and elect officials? Why not make it a judge-run oligarchy?

[siberianxkiss]

why should he choose someone whose liberal? i'm sure if clinton had the opportunity to appoint another judge it would have been another liberal. i think people are most fearful that bush will try and put some on the bench with extreme conservative views (overturning roe vs wade, school prayer, etc.). but that wont happen.

[selftitled85]

my take is that roberts is a good choice for a justice. definitely not chiefe justice. i believe that should of gone to one of the remaining members and then brought in two new people for reg spots. but roberts isnt too bad. he doesnt seem to be too radical which is good. i just wished that he would of answered more of the questions.

[GhostsDaddy]

i'd say the fair thing is bush nominating whoever he wants to nominate democrat or republican. Bush's job isnt to try to be in the middle. Is job is to implement his policies considering he was elected on those policies.
Yes, how dare Bush try to please everyone in the country. Just a bit less than half of them is perfectly good.

[Justin_stacy]

It's fair and the right thing to do because in order to create a bipartisan team, he has the opportunity to literally shape the court into a more bipartisan body.

And you can't compare Roberts to Ginsburg. I mean, if I expect Roberts to get the same support as Ginsberg, than you should have expected Bush to garner the same support as Clinton, which he failed to do.

It's too bad the American public couldn't use red tape in 2000 to try to get a "straight up or down" vote on who we voted for.

That is such utter nonsense. First the supreme court should be beyond political bodies as its job is to interpret the law, not make it. If a judge acts like a judge then the political body they once, or still do, align themselves with shouldn't matter.

Second, Ginsburg should be compared to Roberts in the sense of how she was confirmed. It had nothing to do with her political leanings, which are extremist by most standards, but by her qualifications for the job, which, like Roberts are impeccable. Do you honestly think Republicans would have voted in favor of her had they been using the current partisan standards of the Democrats? Do you think any Republican on that committee, acting solely on partisanship and ideology, would have voted for someone who favors publiclly paid for abortions on demand? Someone who thinks Mother's day and Father's day are sexist and gender bias holidays? Someone who thinks international laws should play apart in our law making process? Someone who was an active member in the ACLU? Obviously no, but they weren't basing their vote on her on political reasons, but on her ability to do the job at hand, which is to interpret the laws they, congress, make.

Takes Orrin Hatch's comments on Ginsburg’s nomination....
“President Clinton and I are unlikely ever to agree on the ideal nominee to be a Supreme Court Justice. Indeed, there have been many prominently mentioned potential nominees whom I would in all likelihood vigorously oppose. But I do believe that a President is entitled to some deference in the selection of a Supreme Court Justice. If a nominee is experienced in the law, highly intelligent, of good character and temperament, and--most important--gives clear and convincing evidence that he or she understands and respects the proper role of the judiciary in our system of government; the mere fact that I might have selected a different nominee will not lead me to oppose the President's nominee. “

http://www.americandaily.com/article/8115

Do you hear anything like this coming out of Kennedy, Biden, Feinstein, Schumer or Dick Turban? Of course not, these fanatics don't have an honest, civil, bone in their bodies. Everything to them is about partisanship, and forcing a political agenda on the public which couldn’t be done through traditional means.

And if politicizing the supreme court is something you really want, it will never be even, 9 can't be slip evenly. So politically speaking, the liberal side of the court has had a 5/4 lead for some time now and there is no real case that you can make for why this shouldn't be changed, now.

why should he choose someone whose liberal? i'm sure if clinton had the opportunity to appoint another judge it would have been another liberal. i think people are most fearful that bush will try and put some on the bench with extreme conservative views (overturning roe vs wade, school prayer, etc.). but that wont happen.

As he did with Breyer, who took the place of a "conservative" judge. How many liberal people do you think called on Clinton to nominate a republican instead, or to not change the balance of opinion of the court? One maybe two? Do you think anyone wanted him to consider the idea?

[siberianxkiss]

damn i forgot about Breyer. anyway the balance of the Court isnt going to change, 2 conservative judges being replaced with 2 conservative judges. yes i'm aware o'connor was considered a moderate and hopefully the next one will be too. not one who has a personal agenda but one who will uphold the law. like i said before people are scared of an extreme conservative judge being nominated.

and you're right, the Court shouldnt be politicized, but it is, like eveything else

[Cal Smith]

Yes, how dare Bush try to please everyone in the country. Just a bit less than half of them is perfectly good.

you'll never please everyone

[TJ Wells]

my take is that roberts is a good choice for a justice. definitely not chiefe justice. i believe that should of gone to one of the remaining members and then brought in two new people for reg spots. but roberts isnt too bad. he doesnt seem to be too radical which is good. i just wished that he would of answered more of the questions.
Ditto. I don't think it's fair to the other justices that Roberts gets to be chief without any experience.

[GhostsDaddy]

Takes Orrin Hatch's comments on Ginsburg’s nomination....
“President Clinton and I are unlikely ever to agree on the ideal nominee to be a Supreme Court Justice. Indeed, there have been many prominently mentioned potential nominees whom I would in all likelihood vigorously oppose. But I do believe that a President is entitled to some deference in the selection of a Supreme Court Justice. If a nominee is experienced in the law, highly intelligent, of good character and temperament, and--most important--gives clear and convincing evidence that he or she understands and respects the proper role of the judiciary in our system of government; the mere fact that I might have selected a different nominee will not lead me to oppose the President's nominee. “
And it's my firm belief that he doesn't understand nor respect the proper role of the judiciary in our system of government. Stating personal opinion of how things are to be interpreted is exactly what the judicial branch of government does. I haven't seen much hard evidence that tells me how Roberts will be interpreting.

[A picasso blue]

i'd say the fair thing is bush nominating whoever he wants to nominate democrat or republican. Bush's job isnt to try to be in the middle. Is job is to implement his policies considering he was elected on those policies.of course he has particular beliefs as does everyone but the whole "original" purpose of the presidency is supposed to be a middle-man. of course that died way back when..


are you going to tell me that Roberts should do the same?

[Justin_stacy]

And it's my firm belief that he doesn't understand nor respect the proper role of the judiciary in our system of government. .

How so? Did you watch the hearing? It was made pretty clear that he understands the proper role of the Judiciary Branch and the Constitution much better then most of the Senators who were "judging" him........

Stating personal opinion of how things are to be interpreted is exactly what the judicial branch of government does. I haven't seen much hard evidence that tells me how Roberts will be interpreting.

Although I don't feel a Judge should prejudge cases by answering questions of this magnitude, as this is unfair and unethical in regards to future cases they might face, you can thank people like Biden, Kennedy and Ginsburg for creating the "Ginsburg Example," which Roberts followed perfectly........and because of that you will never again see nominees answering questions about how they will rule if approved. The left created this precedent, and each democratic judiciary member approved of it then, and supported Ginsburg's "right" to not answer questions about how she would rule on futurer cases, of course their hypocrisy should when it became the "right’s" turn to use their precedent. Remember everything must be put into perspective.

[GhostsDaddy]

I don't think it's right that judge should have to ask how they would rule in as yet unhyeard of cases, but I think any nominee should be expected to have an opinion on any former case. The question, "If such and such case were in your court today, and all the evidence presented was exactly the same, how would you rule? Essentially, how would you have ruled on such and such case?"

I don't care who set up the precedent. It doesn't matter. This is RIGHT NOW. If conservatives were bitching about it then, which, by the way, they were, then they should rise above that and change the precedent. It's not a hard thing to do.

[Justin_stacy]

I don't think it's right that judge should have to ask how they would rule in as yet unhyeard of cases, but I think any nominee should be expected to have an opinion on any former case. The question, "If such and such case were in your court today, and all the evidence presented was exactly the same, how would you rule? Essentially, how would you have ruled on such and such case?".

That's not really fair either, because no issue comes before the court just once. There are three cases before the court right now dealing with abortion, so Roberts, ethically, couldn't answer any questions on abortion without unfairly prejudging one of these cases. It is also unrealistic to think that a senator with 25 minutes could go over all the evidence related to a case and allow one to fairly judge it, nor would the committee be willing to give someone like Roberts the proper time required to respond.

It is absolutely unethical for a nominee to answer questions about future rulings, but what senators can, and should have done, was ask Roberts about his decisions on previous ruling and why he came to such conclusions. This is an ethical way of finding out what Roberts thinks and how he would rule, and Roberts showed he was more then willing to answer these questions and explain, to less intelligent senator....cough kennedy cough....., why he came to those conclusions from a legal standpoint.


I don't care who set up the precedent. It doesn't matter. This is RIGHT NOW. If conservatives were bitching about it then, which, by the way, they were, then they should rise above that and change the precedent. It's not a hard thing to do.

That's such bullshits, liberals started this "precedent' and there's no reason why Republicans should have to end it. You know darn well that Democrats would have just continued with it, had someone like kerry won. But the rules have change now that the left's not in power, give me a break....

And, yes, the truth is a number of conservatives did "bitch" about the Ginsburg rule, but they still voted for her, because she was qualified. And the truth is all the Democrats who are now "bitching" about Roberts, supported Ginsburg in her silence, and one of the "bitcher,” Biden, even rehearsed with Ginsburg on her silences, though now he's had a change of heart and opposes Roberts for following his/her lead.....see any difference here?

[GhostsDaddy]

Yes. The difference is that you assume that just because someone has experience makes them qualified, when in actuality, it's opinion that determines whether or not someone deserves to be on the court. I'm sorry, but I want someone competent AND fair deciding EVERYTHING that's legal or not in my country. Quite frankly, the court should be required to have 2 liberals, 2 conservatives, and 3 moderates, but of course, then people would all bitch about how that's not fair because that doesn't give the President enough say. Blah blah blah. Whatever. Nobody's going to be happy, and I'm right. Lol.

[Justin_stacy]

No, unlike you, I understand that past experience and proof of knowledge is what makes someone qualified for the job, not, solely, their personal beliefs or short answers. None of which can be verified or reviewed, like education, past experience and judicial knowledge can be. You know what you’re getting when you base things on these traditionally accepted principles.

Whether or not you understand this, all the senators on the Judicial committee know how Roberts feels on the issues most endearing to them, the point of ask him these questions is to hold him accountable, latter, for his words now or to try and trip him up from past judgments, like they did with Bork. They are not trying to learn anything that can't find from past judgments and history.

But alas.....I would have absolute no problem with your court division, although the make up should represent the country's opinion, not your perceive notion of "balance" of opinion. But in reality it won't happen, like you said, and for good reason. A president is not elected to promote the opposing parties viewpoint, nor the opposing party itself. And put in the same place, I doubt you would do things differently. It just doesn't make sense. You'd never be reelected, and the same goes with any congressperson.

There would also be difficulty distinguishing what a moderate really is. I can guaranty you that your perception and mine would differ greatly. And the political perception of Bush shows that. To most democrats Bush is a far right winger, but yet to most Republicans, and conservatives in general, he's hardly conservative, and just moderately right of center, like most neo-cons. So how would you garner what a moderate is when stacking the court?

[GhostsDaddy]

Well, I have a problem with dividing superficial government bodies into what some people call fair and accurate representations. I mean, look at the problems with the Electoral college.

I still don't believe Roberts has the knowledge necessary to become a Supreme Court Justice.

[Cal Smith]

Well, I have a problem with dividing superficial government bodies into what some people call fair and accurate representations. I mean, look at the problems with the Electoral college.

I still don't believe Roberts has the knowledge necessary to become a Supreme Court Justice.

I still don't believe you have the knowledge about Roberts to determine if he could be a Justice. My reasoning for this is that you've yet to point anything out as to why?

[splitsecond]

Well, I have a problem with dividing superficial government bodies into what some people call fair and accurate representations. I mean, look at the problems with the Electoral college.

Dear Sir,

The year 2000 called, he said its time to stop being bitter.

Sincerely,

Common Sense

[Justin_stacy]

I still don't believe Roberts has the knowledge necessary to become a Supreme Court Justice.

And i would contend he's at the very least over qualified for the job............

[selftitled85]

Well, I have a problem with dividing superficial government bodies into what some people call fair and accurate representations. I mean, look at the problems with the Electoral college.

I still don't believe Roberts has the knowledge necessary to become a Supreme Court Justice.


last time i checked its YOUR states fault that bush is in power and roberts is on the bench...

as for roberts he is qualified. but like i said he shouldnt be head.