Roberts confirmation hearing

[OnTheRocks]

There is a lot of discussion about how Roberts will respond to certain questions put before him during this hearing. One is when Schumer begins to badger him and treat him like a hostile witness on "Law & Order" on his position of a woman's right to abortion. And Roberts response will be something to the effect of: "I can't answer that question because I don't want it to somehow effect any future decision that will be made". I don't know the complete history there but somewhere along the way maybe it was Sandra Day O'Connor that was the first to use this response.

My question is, what is the purpose of this response? Why not give a clear answer and why dance around the topic?

 

I know that I am not putting the expected response correctly but some of you smarties understand what I am getting at.

 

 

MY other question is how is it determined which Senators take part in the confirmation hearing?

 

I found this OpEd piece. Gave me a chuckle.

 

Roberts will frustrate Mr. Schumer most, and he'll enjoy doing it.

[KD in CA]

There is a lot of discussion about how Roberts will respond to certain questions put before him during this hearing.  One is when Schumer begins to badger him and treat him like a hostile witness on "Law & Order"  on his position of a woman's right to abortion.  And Roberts response will be something to the effect of:  "I can't answer that question because I don't want it to somehow effect any future decision that will be made".  I don't know the complete history there but somewhere along the way maybe it was Sandra Day O'Connor that was the first to use this response.

My question is, what is the purpose of this response?  Why not give a clear answer and why dance around the topic?

 

I know that I am not putting the expected response correctly but some of you smarties understand what I am getting at.

MY other question is how is it determined which Senators take part in the confirmation hearing?

 

I found this OpEd piece.  Gave me a chuckle.

 

Roberts will frustrate Mr. Schumer most, and he'll enjoy doing it.

438774[/snapback]

 

No question, the WSJ has the best written Op-Ed page.

 

This whole process has turned into a sham. Nominees shouldn't be expected to answer "how would you rule on XYZ" from Senators who are trying to control the Judiciary.

[PastaJoe]

The purpose of the response is to leave open the question of how they would decide a particular case that might affect previous precedent. If they are truely objective, they would judge based on the merits of the case, and not let their personal opinions factor in their judgement. But they are human and not robots, so they can't be relied upon to be purely objective. There's a reason why Bush selected Roberts, because he and his supporters believe he will make decisions in line with their opinions, including Roe v Wade. There's no guarantee, but they at least think he'll judge a certain way. That's why it's important to grill these nominees, because it's a lifetime appointment that will affect us, our children, and grandchildren, and there's only one shot at questioning them and voting on them. Personally, I'd like to see term limits for all lifetime appointed courts, like one term for 10 years, so we aren't stuck with the same people for so long.

[jimshiz]

If GWB is President, and it is the President's job to appoint justices to the Supreme Court, and GWB thinks that abortion is "wrong", then what is wrong with GWB nominating someone who also thinks that abortion is "wrong"?

[Mickey]

If GWB is President, and it is the President's job to appoint justices to the Supreme Court, and GWB thinks that abortion is "wrong", then what is wrong with GWB nominating someone who also thinks that abortion is "wrong"?

439007[/snapback]

He can nominate someone simply because they like Bud Light if he wants to.

 

The reason he doesn't want to answer that particular question is because there are a number of moderate republicans who support, to one degree or another, keeping abortion basically legal. Those senators would be in trouble with their constituents if they voted for a Judge who was clearly and on the record as saying he was going to get rid of all legal abortions. In fact, enough of them might cross the aisle to defeat the nomination.

 

If the nominee never answers that question, the moderates can go ahead and confirm him. When he does then get rid of legal abortions the senator can credibly claim to their constituents, "Don't blame me, I didn't know he would overturn Roe..."

[Ghost of BiB]

With all the issues and problems facing this country, and it's future - I still have a hard time working out why this is such an issue, from either side.

[jimshiz]

He can nominate someone simply because they like Bud Light if he wants to.

 

The reason he doesn't want to answer that particular question is because their are a number of moderate republicans who support, to one degree or another, keeping abortion basically legal.  Those senators would be in trouble with their constituents if they voted for a Judge who was clearly and on the record as saying he was going to get rid of all legal abortions.  In fact, enough of them might cross the aisle to defeat the nomination.

 

If the nominee never answers that question, the moderates can go ahead and confirm him.  When he does then get rid of legal abortions the senator can credibly claim to their constituents, "Don't blame me, I didn't know he would overturn Roe..."

439069[/snapback]

 

Nice spin -

 

If he does "get rid of them", it will be because they are ILLEGAL, not LEGAL. Or that it is not illegal to "forbid" them.

 

But, it won't happen anyway, you know it, I know it, they know it, it is all for show.

[Mickey]

There is a lot of discussion about how Roberts will respond to certain questions put before him during this hearing.  One is when Schumer begins to badger him and treat him like a hostile witness on "Law & Order"  on his position of a woman's right to abortion.  And Roberts response will be something to the effect of:  "I can't answer that question because I don't want it to somehow effect any future decision that will be made".  I don't know the complete history there but somewhere along the way maybe it was Sandra Day O'Connor that was the first to use this response.

My question is, what is the purpose of this response?  Why not give a clear answer and why dance around the topic?

 

I know that I am not putting the expected response correctly but some of you smarties understand what I am getting at.

MY other question is how is it determined which Senators take part in the confirmation hearing?

 

I found this OpEd piece.  Gave me a chuckle.

 

Roberts will frustrate Mr. Schumer most, and he'll enjoy doing it.

438774[/snapback]

The people on the Senate Judiciary Committee conduct the hearings. The Senators on the Committee all get to participate. Then they will vote on whether to send the nomination out of committee for a floor vote of the entire senate. If they don't, its called "killed in committee" and it never makes it to the senate floor. Sometimes they compromise and send it to the floor but without a recommendation from the committee one way or another. I think they may have done that with Thomas, not sure.

 

The Senate has subpoena power so an appearance before a Senate hearing isn't voluntary. The testimony given is under oath so a lie could be punished. Likewise, failure to appear can lead to a "contempt of congress" charge. Appearing but not answering a question, absent a recognized privilege, has the same effect as not appearing and so could also lead to contempt charges.

 

I do not beleive that this notion that a judge can't speak about cases that in the exercise of sufficient imagination could conceivably come before the court in the future is at all a recognized privilege such as doctor-patient confidentiality. There is an ethical obligation of a sitting judge not to talk about cases before him now and it may extend to cases in lower courts expected to eventually get to that judge on appeal but I am not aware of it extending as far as Supreme Court nominees have taken it.

 

Nominess from both parties have used it and the Senate hasn't had the belly to challenge it by threatening contempt charges. So they do this dance every nomination.

[Mickey]

No question, the WSJ has the best written Op-Ed page.

 

This whole process has turned into a sham.  Nominees shouldn't be expected to answer "how would you rule on XYZ" from Senators who are trying to control the Judiciary.

438813[/snapback]

"Senators trying to control the judiciary..." I assume you are talking about Senator Frist and the Schiavo gang of judicial pirates?

[Mickey]

Nice spin -

 

If he does "get rid of them", it will be because they are ILLEGAL, not LEGAL.  Or that it is not illegal to "forbid" them.

 

But, it won't happen anyway, you know it, I know it, they know it, it is all for show.

439082[/snapback]

Its not spin, abortion is legal. It may become illegal but for now, it is legal so that is the term I used and it was the correct term. Besides, in this context that is kind of a meaningless distinction. The issue I was discussing is why a nominee would want to avoid answering that question. The answer is simple, he wants to be confirmed and answering that question could endanger his confirmation....so he avoids the question entirely. How would his answer conceivably endanger his confirmation? Simple, there are moderate republicans who might vote against a nominee under those circumstances.

 

Will it happen? Why wouldn't it? If Roe is overturned, there would be nothing stopping states from enacting what ever laws they want on this issue. Congress could even write their own legislation and they certainly would. With Sentors like Sam Brownback and Rick Santorum leading the way, you can bet they will. Their law would be a federal one preventing liberal states from keeping it legal. With the right court, there is nothing stopping it.

 

I assume Roberts would definitely overturn Roe becuase I have no doubt that Geroge Bush believes he will otherwise, he wouldn't have nominated him. Yeah, George could be wrong as other Presidents have been when predicting the future decisions of their nominees. However, Presidents have, on the whole, been right about their nominees and so statistically at least, Bush is likely right about this guy, he will vote to overturn Roe.

[Mickey]

With all the issues and problems facing this country, and it's future - I still have a hard time working out why this is such an issue, from either side.

439077[/snapback]

All about votes. Without abortion, the republican party would have a lot more trouble in the south and midwest than they do now. Other than the politics however, you are right, it won't even the deficit or end terrorism or even fuel our cars. It does however allow us to enjoy such intellectual spectacles as "Justice Sunday".

[PastaJoe]

If GWB is President, and it is the President's job to appoint justices to the Supreme Court, and GWB thinks that abortion is "wrong", then what is wrong with GWB nominating someone who also thinks that abortion is "wrong"?

439007[/snapback]

 

Given that he didn't get the most votes in the first election, and that he won by the smallest margin in history of any incombant in the second, it would be nice if he would select someone who represented the views of the majority of Americans, not just his supporters, especially since this person could affect our lives for the next 30 years. A majority of Americans believe a woman has a right to make her own choices.

[Wacka]

Given that he didn't get the most votes in the first election, and that he won by the smallest margin in history of any incombant in the second, it would be nice if he would select someone who represented the views of the majority of Americans, not just his supporters, especially since this person could affect our lives for the next 30 years.  A majority of Americans believe a woman has a right to make her own choices.

439162[/snapback]

 

 

Give it a rest. Bush won twice. Learn to accept it. Your life will be much calmer.

[jimshiz]

Given that he didn't get the most votes in the first election, and that he won by the smallest margin in history of any incombant in the second, it would be nice if he would select someone who represented the views of the majority of Americans, not just his supporters, especially since this person could affect our lives for the next 30 years.

439162[/snapback]

 

Good, we agree !!! A majority of Americans voted for GWB, therefore a majority of Americans would support GWB nominating someone with the same principle beliefs as he does.

 

A majority of Americans believe a woman has a right to make her own choices.

439162[/snapback]

 

NOT true !!!

[Kim Jong Il]

Give it a rest. Bush won twice. Learn to accept it. Your life will be much calmer.

439169[/snapback]

 

DO NOT stifle the patriotic dissent of Comrade PastaJoe!! The rigged fraudulent 2000 and 2004 elections prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the criminal US imperialists of the Bush clique of dirty doggish demented deranged diplodocussian mentally cracked bourgeois consumerist colonial provokers of criminal bellicose wars of aggression troughout history, are nothing more than thieves, since the very nature of war-crazed greed-based individualist capitalism, contrary to peace-loving altruistic Juche-based man-centered Korean-style socialism, is to steal everything from everybody.

[erynthered]

DO NOT stifle the patriotic dissent of Comrade PastaJoe!! The rigged fraudulent 2000 and 2004 elections prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the criminal US imperialists of the Bush clique of dirty doggish demented deranged diplodocussian mentally cracked bourgeois consumerist colonial provokers of criminal bellicose wars of aggression troughout history, are nothing more than thieves, since the very nature of war-crazed greed-based individualist capitalism, contrary to peace-loving altruistic Juche-based man-centered Korean-style socialism, is to steal everything from everybody.

439182[/snapback]

 

 

Dang, thats one long sentence.

[Mickey]

Give it a rest. Bush won twice. Learn to accept it. Your life will be much calmer.

439169[/snapback]

I long ago accepted it yet still I sail the stormy seas of the discontented. Sounds bad but I used to sail the stormy seas of the incontinent so this is a distinct improvement.

[Taro T]

Its not spin, abortion is legal.  It may become illegal but for now, it is legal so that is the term I used and it was the correct term.  Besides, in this context that is kind of a meaningless distinction.  The issue I was discussing is why a nominee would want to avoid answering that question.  The answer is simple, he wants to be confirmed and answering that question could endanger his confirmation....so he avoids the question entirely.  How would his answer conceivably endanger his confirmation?  Simple, there are moderate republicans who might vote against a nominee under those circumstances.

 

Will it happen?  Why wouldn't it?  If Roe is overturned, there would be nothing stopping states from enacting what ever laws they want on this issue.  Congress could even write their own legislation and they certainly would.  With Sentors like Sam Brownback and Rick Santorum leading the way, you can bet they will.  Their law would be a federal one preventing liberal states from keeping it legal.  With the right court, there is nothing stopping it. 

 

I assume Roberts would definitely overturn Roe becuase I have no doubt that Geroge Bush believes he will otherwise, he wouldn't have nominated him.  Yeah, George could be wrong as other Presidents have been when predicting the future decisions of their nominees.  However, Presidents have, on the whole, been right about their nominees and so statistically at least, Bush is likely right about this guy, he will vote to overturn Roe.

439109[/snapback]

If Roe is overturned, I absolutely see the issue going back to the state level. I would be extremely surprised if you got a federal law that addressed the entire issue (either pro or con) because there is just too much interest group fire power to get 60 votes on either side. You would still have smaller restrictions imposed at the federal level (e.g., no partial birth abortions, parental notification, etc.) but you will not see major legislation passed either way.

 

This, however seems to be a moot issue at this time. This is an issue that brings up much passion on both sides, and Congresscritters, while liking their partisans to be fired up, loathe having the other guys' partisans fired up. There are many politicians on both sides that are very comfortable with the status quo. The last vote regarding a Roe case went 6-3 in favor of upholding the precedent. With Bush replacing Rehnquist and O'Conner, that will still sit at 5-4. As long as all the Congresscritters realize that the next 2 new Justices don't change the balance of power on this issue, they can all play their games and keep their interest groups happy. It'll be a lot more interesting when one of the other Justices step down.

 

Dave.

[Mickey]

If Roe is overturned, I absolutely see the issue going back to the state level.  I would be extremely surprised if you got a federal law that addressed the entire issue (either pro or con) because there is just too much interest group fire power to get 60 votes on either side.  You would still have smaller restrictions imposed at the federal level (e.g., no partial birth abortions, parental notification, etc.) but you will not see major legislation passed either way.

 

This, however seems to be a moot issue at this time.  This is an issue that brings up much passion on both sides, and Congresscritters, while liking their partisans to be fired up, loathe having the other guys' partisans fired up.  There are many politicians on both sides that are very comfortable with the status quo.  The last vote regarding a Roe case went 6-3 in favor of upholding the precedent.  With Bush replacing Rehnquist and O'Conner, that will still sit at 5-4.  As long as all the Congresscritters realize that the next 2 new Justices don't change the balance of power on this issue, they can all play their games and keep their interest groups happy.  It'll be a lot more interesting when one of the other Justices step down.

 

Dave.

439230[/snapback]

You may be right given the liklihood of a senate filibuster by democrats but what if Frist decides to change the rules and get rid of the filibuster?

 

If it went backto the states, you would have states where it is illegal in all circumstances, states where it is legal under all circumastances and a bunch somewhere in between. Can you imagine the reaction by the religious right, newly emboldened after at last obtaining victory over Roe, to "babies being murdered" in New York, California, Rhode Island, Conn., Mass., Ill., Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Maryland, etc? There would be a huge amount of political pressure to pass a federal law and the only thing standing in the way of that would be the Senate filibuster and we have seen how much the Republican majority respects filibusters.

[OnTheRocks]

Anyone listening to the hearing?

 

Roberts pulled out the Ginsberg quote:

"No hints, no forcasts, no previews".

 

 

Biden just had a hemmorage!

 

 

I am listening to Rush this afternoon ...and he pulled out the soundbyte from the Ginsberg hearing with Biden saying, "you not only have the right not to answer these questions, I think you shouldn't answer the question."