Confirmation "hearing" (let's keep this nice)

[Pete Hanlin]

Okay, experiment time- can a political discussion be held on OptiBoard without calling other posters nasty names, impugning other poster's intelligence, or other unbecomely behavior? We'll see...

I've had the opportunity to listen to live coverage of the confirmation hearings the past couple days. As usual for these hearings, the Senators from the President's party are lobbing softballs, and the opposition are tossing a few brushback pitches.

Senator Biden, however (who is actually one of the Democrat Senators I can usually tolerate fairly well), seems to have taken it upon himself to use the hearings for some sort of speech platform. Even when he does get around to asking his question (at least I think there are questions in there somewhere- mostly he seems to be making statements), he asks questions that Judge Roberts certainly isn't going to answer- like, "How would you rule on an abortion case."

Judge Roberts (who seems like a patient fellow, if nothing else), points out that historically those kinds of questions aren't answered- citing Justice Ginsberg's responses as precedent. Sen. Biden either doesn't want to accept that, or simply feels we should change the precedent or something, because he keeps trying to establish that Justice Ginsberg didn't stick to her stated intention to not disclose how she would vote (i.e., she did actually provide hints).

Um, I don't think it was a big secret that Justice Ginsberg was a rather liberal leaning judge (anymore than it is probably a big secret that Judge Roberts will probably be conservative leaning). Therefore, we can probably assume that Ginsberg was likely to vote to uphold abortion rights and Roberts is most likely to hold an opposite view- just like the Justice he is now replacing. Sen. Biden (and Sen. Kennedy) have made it clear this "miffs" them. Spewing that miffeditic state for 5 minutes straight doesn't really add much to the hearing (but it does make them look a bit silly, so I suppose there is some entertainment value).

Anyone else listening to the confirmation hearings, and- most importantly- is there anyone out there with a different political view than mine that sees a really legitimate reason why the candidate shouldn't be confirmed. If I'm missing something, I'd honestly like to debate it and have the opportunity to come to a different- perhaps more informed- conclusion. Anyone being put off by the Republican questions to the degree the Democrats are putting me off?

Thanks for your civilized input.

[coda]

I've been able to squeeze in a fews hours of the 'hearings' though as you imply they're more 'sayings' than 'hearings'. It seems to me that senators on both sides of the fence are using this opportunity for their favorite activity, "speechiftying". Why anybody would be surprised by this is beyond me. Dissapointed, yes, surprised, no.

Regarding the Ginsberg 'precedent', I'm not sure I have enough data points to determine if there really is a precedent. I'd have to know more about say the last 5 or 10 nomination hearings to decide if there really is a precedent. In any event, from what I've heard, Roberts doesn't seem to be dodging questions any more or less than expected. More to the point, perhaps, I don't feel that the substance or completeness (or lack thereof) is concerning.

To your final question, I have yet to hear anything that is likely to keep him from being confirmed. I'm not pleased with his apparent stance on some 'equality' issues (race, gender) but it won't hold up his confirmation. Given what I've heard so far I think he's likely to be a decent CJ.

Of course I fall fairly close to the center of the political spectrum so those further to the left of me may have different opinions.

Final analysis: Roberts seems a good choice, moderately conservative, even tempered, intelligent and with a good chance of maintaining the highly functioning court Renquist presided over. I also think there's a chance he'll 'Souter' on us and head off in a completely different direction than anticipated (go libertarian, Roberts, go libertarian) which could provide much entertainment for me.

[chip anderson]

Can we be nasty about Sen. Edward Kennedy who rattled on for quite some time yesterday then when he finished saying whatever he had to say he was greeted by dead silence. Only then did he realize he had forgotten to ask a question.

As for Ms. Ginsberg: Would you say that someone that wants to lower legal age of females to 12 was liberal? I have heard many of this woman's views both from her personal writing and legal opinions and if she were not a "Supreeem Coat Justize" she would be in the funny farm. But for some reason none of her views came into play while she was being questioned, just her legal expertise. Strange isn't it.


Chip

Ginsberg also believes in legalized prostitution, co-ed prisons, abortion as a legal right paid for by the state.
Just remembered another goodie, the woman believes in legalized polygamy.

[chm2023]

Actually I think Justice Ginsberg is a terrific intellect and hardy funny farm material.

Think Roberts will and should be confirmed. This dance is more of the same, anytime someone is being confirmed the Senators use it as a chance to pontificate. Don't get me wrong, the Senate has a responsibility to ask serious and probing questions, just think they could do it in about a quarter of the time if they cut to the chase. Also suspect the Dems are building the case for their "no" votes.

SSDD.

That Roberts has some weird eyes though.....Have to admit as much of a political junkie as I am normally, this is pretty yawn inspiring.

[chip anderson]

Sorry Chm but I couldn't resist: She is hardy funny farm material.

[Pete Hanlin]

I'm no fan of Justice Ginsberg, but perhaps "funny farm" is a bit ambiguous. If you are suggesting that the justice is considerably left of the mainstream because she advocates lowering the age of consent for females to 12 years old, you may have a case. Adding the term "funny farm" detracts from what may be a rather legitimate point (I don't have any knowledge of the written opinion in which she advocated such a notion).

Today seems a bit more subdued on the hearing front. If anything, it appears as if some of the Senators have resigned themselves to the fact that he will be confirmed and have decided to get on with it. For what its worth, it was probably a halfway decent tactic to attempt to razzle him yesterday. After all, if he decided to go Borkish, he might have lashed out and looked a bit unbalanced. As it is, I think he pretty much disarmed his detractors by being rather benign in his responses.

Anyway, this seems to be going a lot smoother than the hearings surrounding Justice Thomas (then again, no one is claiming sexual harassment against Judge Roberts ;^). I'm not sure exactly how old Judge Roberts is, but if he is indeed confirmed, he could be the Chief Justice for a LONG time, so its good to see he appears to be somewhat level-headed.

[chip anderson]

Pete: Ginsberg has a lot of even stranger views, when more of them work thier way out of my dim memory, I will add them. Let me know what you think after I have blessed you with more of the list. Ginsberg is also famous for finding precident in European or Aisiatic or any other foriegn law (even the Koran) for deciding her cases.

Chip

You need not defend her, Shanberg will do it for you.

Ginsberg also believes in legalized prostitution, co-ed prisons, abortion as a legal right paid for by the state.
Just remembered another goodie, the woman believes in legalized polygamy.

[rbaker]

Chip said:

Can we be nasty about Sen. Edward Kennedy who rattled on for quite some time yesterday then when he finished saying whatever he had to say he was greeted by dead silence. Only then did he realize he had forgotten to ask a question.

He clearly seems to manifest aamnesic-confabulatory syndrome. My educated guess is Korsakov's syndrome?If you factor in his gin blossom and whiskey palms all the signs are there.

Hey Teddy . . . you gotta go to AA

[ksquared]

Can we be nasty about Sen. Edward Kennedy who rattled on for quite some time yesterday then when he finished saying whatever he had to say he was greeted by dead silence. Only then did he realize he had forgotten to ask a question.

Chip, I am compelled by the evidence to respectfully disagree with your comments. Granted, Kennedy did go on a bit in the beginning of his 30 minutes allocated time period in yesterday’s session.

“The stark and tragic images of human suffering in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina have reminded us yet again that civil rights and equal rights are still the great unfinished business of America. The suffering has been disproportionately borne by the weak, the poor, the elderly and infirm, and largely African-Americans, who were forced by poverty, illness, unequal opportunity to stay behind and bear the brunt of the storm's winds and floods. I believe that kind of disparate impact is morally wrong in this, the richest country in the world.” Etc…..

But when he was through, he had lots of questions for Judge Roberts:

1.Do you believe that Congress has the power to pass laws aimed at eliminating discrimination in our society? Or do you believe that our hands are tied, that the elected representatives of the people of the United States are without the power to pass laws aimed at righting wrongs, ending injustice, eliminating the inequalities that we have just witnessed so dramatically and tragically in New Orleans?
2.So do you agree with the court's conclusion that the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race was unconstitutional?
3. And do you believe that the court had the power to address segregation of public schools on the basis of the equal protection clause of the Constitution?
4. And you're aware that the Brown was a unanimous decision?
5.Do you agree that the court was correct in basing its decision on real-world consideration of the role of public education at the time of its decision rather than the role of public education in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?
6. And I'd like to find out, Judge Roberts, whether you'd agree that the progress we made in civil rights over the past 50 years is irreversible.
7. I'd like to find out whether you think that these laws are constitutional or whether you have any concerns or questions about them. Do you have any concerns or reservations about the constitutionality of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that outlawed racial discrimination in public accommodations, employment and other areas?
8. Do you have any doubts as to the constitutionality of the '65 Voting Rights Act?
9. I'm just trying to find out, on the Voting Rights Act, whether you have any problem at all and trouble at all in terms of the constitutionality of the existing Voting Rights Act that was extended by the Congress.
10. How about the constitutionality of the '68 fair housing legislation that outlawed racial discrimination in housing?

to point out a few. In fact Senator Kennedy had so many questions he couldn’t even wait for Judge Roberts to finishing answering.

1.SPECTER: Let him finish his answer.
2.SPECTER: Let him finish his answer, Senator Kennedy.
3.SPECTER: Let him finish his answer, Senator Kennedy.
4.SPECTER: Let him finish his answer. That was a quite long question.
5.SPECTER: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. (you) Senator Kennedy just propounded a very, very long question. Now, let him (Judge Roberts) answer the question.

He had so many, he ran out of time.

KENNEDY: My time is up, Mr. Chairman.

SPECTER: Thank you very much, Senator Kennedy. (emphasis mine)

Personally, I don’t know which I’m enjoying more, watching it “live” or reading the transcripts the following day.

[Pete Hanlin]

I've been doing a little study of Justice Ginsberg- looks like she has written some interesting opinions on things like abortion (she believes federally funded abortions should be a right), prostitution (believes it should be legalized), age of consent (yeah, she really does feel 12 years old is appropriate).

Hmmm, while I wouldn't suggest she check in to a funny farm, I guess I really wouldn't want her raising my kids (but, since she's not the guardian we've listed in the event of our untimely demise, I guess I don't have to worry about that).

Ah well, conservatives have Justice Thomas (who is probably equally right of mainstream), so I guess it balances out in some sort of scary way.

[rep]

What is absolutely amazing is that during the Roberts hearing a Federal Judge in California has ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconsitutional in public schools.

The case is headed straight back to the Supreme Court which ruled last time that athiest Michael Newdow had no standing to bring the suit because he did not have custody of his child who was objecting to saying "under God" in the pledge.

Newdow now has two other children and their parients involved in the new ruling with the same objection.

First prayer and now the Pledge of Allegiance.

Rep

[Spexvet]

What is absolutely amazing is that during the Roberts hearing a Federal Judge in California has ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconsitutional in public schools.

The case is headed straight back to the Supreme Court which ruled last time that athiest Michael Newdow had no standing to bring the suit because he did not have custody of his child who was objecting to saying "under God" in the pledge.

Newdow now has two other children and their parients involved in the new ruling with the same objection.

First prayer and now the Pledge of Allegiance.

Rep

Maybe they could customize the pledge.

"One nation, under (insert God, Allah, Buddah, Jehovah, Odin, Zeuss, Satan, Brahma, Lao Tsu, etc.)"

Would that make everyone happy?

[karen]

*sigh* guess I will have to go to Texas sooner than I thought, this whole pledge thing is too much. Either that or I am going to law school so I can be a judge so I can make my own rules.

I find this whole process fascinating. It is interesting that some of the Senators seem to think that judges get to MAKE laws (I do believe Roberts cleared that up yesterday) Since he is not going to answer the questions they want him to I wonder why they ask....It is a bit of a 3 ring circus. These events seem to bring out the worst of both sides though.

12 as the age of consent??? I wonder if she has any daughters or grandaughters.

[shanbaum]

I find this whole process fascinating. It is interesting that some of the Senators seem to think that judges get to MAKE laws (I do believe Roberts cleared that up yesterday)

Most of the law that applies in this country is judge-made, and an awful lot of it was settled by and in a foreign country (England).

I would venture to say that the bulk of statutory law continues to be based on the common law (though that's an only-somewhat-educated guess); in any case, common-law principles invariably guide the interpretation of statutes, which interpretation is invariably necessary, as legislatures simply aren't very good at saying what they mean (not that courts are uniformly better).

I haven't been able to watch the hearings, unfortunately, but it was interesting to read the account of Specter haranguing Roberts about the Rehnquist court's judicial activism - wherein the more conservative members of the court banded together to strike down legislation at a rate not seen since the 30's.

Ah, the 30's... now there was an activist (and very conservative) bench (ca. 1890-1937).

BTW, you don't necessarily have to be a lawyer to be a judge (that almost certainly varies amongst states), so, find a state where judges are elected, and go for it. You would undoubtedly come up with some interesting decisions if you had no legal training, and your decisions would probably frequently get reversed on appeal, at least at first. I suspect you would learn very quickly how not black-and-white the world is.

Trivia for the day: judges in CA have to resign from the bar.

[wmcdonald]

I am often hearing folks who are not Democats refering to the "Democrat Party". It should be Democratic Party. You do not often see Democrats calling the opposition the "Republic" party. Maybe it is a veiled attempt (or maybe not so veiled) to slur the democrats. As a life-long Democrat, I think we do a good enough job of that ourselves.

[coda]

I've been doing a little study of Justice Ginsberg- looks like she has written some interesting opinions on things like abortion (she believes federally funded abortions should be a right), prostitution (believes it should be legalized), age of consent (yeah, she really does feel 12 years old is appropriate).

Pete, I believe this to be a somewhat disingenuous slur from the conservative side of the asile. These three opinions were written in her capacity as an employee of the ACLU. Judge Roberts has repeatedly said that the opinions he wrote for the Regan (and presumably Bush) administration were not his opinions but those of his employeers and should not be considered to be indicitive of his own opinions. When given the opportunity the Republican Senators involved support this assertion. I believe Justice Ginsberg should certainly be given the same consideration but apparently some of the Republican Senators would disagree with me.

[Spexvet]

I've been doing a little study of Justice Ginsberg- looks like she has written some interesting opinions on things like abortion (she believes federally funded abortions should be a right),

It would save welfare costs / taxes for you folks who hate to pay taxes...

prostitution (believes it should be legalized),

Is it a problem in Nevada? ;)

age of consent (yeah, she really does feel 12 years old is appropriate).

There is some legitimacy to this. A Jewish girl has her Bat Mitzvah at 12 (and she worships the same God that you do), and some states allow marriage (with parental consent) at 12. I don't agree with this opinion, but it's not an opinion based on nothing.

[EyeManFla]

[QUOTE=Spexvet]It would save welfare costs / taxes for you folks who hate to pay taxes...


"Fight Taxes-Be Pro Choice" - I can't wait for that bumber sticker


Is it a problem in Nevada? ;)


The difference between a lawyer and a hooker? At least the hooker tells you your going to get *******!


There is some legitimacy to this. A Jewish girl has her Bat Mitzvah at 12 (and she worships the same God that you do), and some states allow marriage (with parental consent) at 12. I don't agree with this opinion, but it's not an opinion based on nothing.

"Save a Sheep-Lower the Age of Consent" - I want to put that right next to the other bumbersticker.....

[EyeManFla]

I've come to the conclusion that the Kennedy Brothers are like the Beatles...and Teddy is Ringo!:cheers:

[Spexvet]

I've come to the conclusion that the Kennedy Brothers are like the Beatles...and Teddy is Ringo!:cheers:

I've come to the conclusion that the Bush Brothers are like the Monkees...and George W is Peter Tork!

[Steve Machol]

I've come to the conclusion that the Bush Brothers are like the Monkees...and George W is Peter Tork!

I met Peter Tork. He is a gentle and genuinely nice guy. I didn't notice any similarities to Geroge W at all.

[karen]

BTW, you don't necessarily have to be a lawyer to be a judge (that almost certainly varies amongst states), so, find a state where judges are elected, and go for it. You would undoubtedly come up with some interesting decisions if you had no legal training, and your decisions would probably frequently get reversed on appeal, at least at first. I suspect you would learn very quickly how not black-and-white the world is.

Trivia for the day: judges in CA have to resign from the bar.

Darling, are you saying that I don't know how not black and white the world is?????????? I for one think some background in the law would be helpful in that judge thing so I guess I will have to pass. Although I think elected judges would be more accountable than appointed ones.

P.S, can you image getiing married to a 12 year old girl??? I was just starting my menstrual stuff and all that crazy hormone stuff racing around and I was skinny and flat chested and who the heck would find that attractive?? (perhaps that question should go unanswered ) Who wants to volunteer for that train wreck???

[Pete Hanlin]

Pete, I believe this to be a somewhat disingenuous slur from the conservative side of the asile. These three opinions were written in her capacity as an employee of the ACLU. Judge Roberts has repeatedly said that the opinions he wrote for the Regan (and presumably Bush) administration were not his opinions but those of his employeers and should not be considered to be indicitive of his own opinions.
Good point... Judge Roberts has made a point of distancing himself from some of his writings- did Justice Ginsberg ever attempt to clarify a difference between her personal views and those of the ACLU? Just curious...

Speaking of the ACLU, I'd really like to think there is some good in the hearts of the people associated with this organization (I find that even the most "out there" groups start out with some kind of noble cause). Darn if I can figure out what it is, however- every time I see an ACLU stand on an issue, I have to wonder what these people are thinking. Does anyone understand the basic foundation for the American Civil Liberties Union? If I had to guess, I would suppose the ACLU came about during the 50s or 60s in response to segregation and racism and just wandered off from their origins somewhere along the way.

[Pete Hanlin]

I met Peter Tork. He is a gentle and genuinely nice guy. I didn't notice any similarities to Geroge W at all.
Wow, that took me back to my all-time favorite retort by a Democrat in a political debate. VP candidate Bentson looks over to Dan Quayle (who had been making a lot of references to JFK) and saying "I knew John F. Kennedy- John F. Kennedy was a friend of mine- and you, sir, are no John F. Kennedy!" Can you believe that was 17 years ago now???

One of the truly best lines in a political debate- ever! Right up there with Reagan's "there you go again" to President Carter, and Cheney's "we'd like to help you arrange that" when Sen. Leiberman stated that he'd like to get back to the private sector so he could make a lot of money like Cheney had.

Ah well, anyway, just wanted to confirm reception of your assessment of W as a brutal and a disingenuously rotten person... (and note the subtlety and similarity to Lloyd Bentson ;^).

[spartus]

My last foray into any political discussion around here ended badly, so I'll do my best to behave. ;)

What is absolutely amazing is that during the Roberts hearing a Federal Judge in California has ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconsitutional in public schools.

First prayer and now the Pledge of Allegiance.

I only glanced at the court's opinion, but it's pretty straightforward. The "under god" portion is the only part they've ruled unconstitutional, and that's simply because making children (or anyone)--who may be atheist, polytheist, or simply call their god something different than "god"--include a recognition of any god may somehow impact their religious beliefs--or lack thereof. Take it out, make it not compulsory to say that particular phrase, allow a little [insert deity of choice] fudging, whatever. If you were Christian in a predominantly Taoist country, would you enjoy pledging your allegiance to the Buddha every morning?

As far as prayer, pray all you want in class or out, just don't make it mandatory or allow teachers to lead the class in prayer. Really simple.

Maybe they could customize the pledge. "One nation, under (insert God, Allah, Buddah, Jehovah, Odin, Zeuss, Satan, Brahma, Lao Tsu, etc.)" Would that make everyone happy?

Great minds etc. etc.

Does anyone understand the basic foundation for the American Civil Liberties Union? If I had to guess, I would suppose the ACLU came about during the 50s or 60s in response to segregation and racism and just wandered off from their origins somewhere along the way.

The ACLU gets a really, really bad rap for some reason. I just looked it up and learned some interesting stuff:

The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty. We work daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Our job is to conserve America's original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Why -- they sound like Strict Constructionists!

The American system of government is founded on two counterbalancing principles: that the majority of the people governs, through democratically elected representatives; and that the power even of a democratic majority must be limited, to ensure individual rights.
Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth) and the Nineteenth Amendment (women's suffrage), adopted in 1920.

People tend to forget that the purpose of the Constitution and the better Amendments (by which I mean the ones that haven't been repealed by other amendments) were to restrict the power of government, not as the flag-burning-amendment proponents would have you believe, restrict the rights of people.

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:
* Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.

* Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

I have a feeling that the second item is where a great deal of the criticism comes from. Without trying to ignite a firestorm on this particular topic, there are those who would like to see a class "more equal than others", to steal a line from an author more well-known lately for his other very famous work. ;) I feel that the sense of fair play--that if you play by the rules, you can set your goals as high as you want and, if you work hard for them, you can achieve it here--is an important and unique part of the shaping of America. You know, the Land of Opportunity and stuff. I see that dream slipping away for many people, for many reasons, and it's sad to see.

* Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

This is important and topical. If I had an opportunity to lob any question to Roberts, it would be about this very topic. Not for tinfoil-hat Patriot Act reasons, but in regards to the Jose Padilla case. I have little doubt that he's guilty as hell, but he's been sitting in a military prison for three years now, no trial, no hearings--I don't even think he got access to a lawyer for a year. Since I've still got this Constitution page open, I don't see anything about enemy combatants and suspending the rule of law for them here.

* Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

I think everyone likes privacy, right? I know I'm a fan.

The ACLU was founded by Roger Baldwin, Crystal Eastman, Albert DeSilver and others in 1920. We are nonprofit and nonpartisan and have grown from a roomful of civil liberties activists to an organization of more than 400,000 members and supporters. We handle nearly 6,000 court cases annually from our offices in almost every state.

Founded the same year as the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified. I'm guessing that's the movement that helped to set the formation in motion.

I appreciate them in that they stand by their convictions and go to bat for anyone, even Rush Limbaugh, filing privacy paperwork on his behalf. And really, this (link safe for work, except for some language) still makes me laugh years later, because it's almost plausible.

As far as activist groups that are "out there", PETA is one I can't wrap my head around. I love animals as much as the next guy, but they're...nutty.