Judicial Hearings - page 4

I'm listening to the first Judicial hearing for Roberts and I couldn't help but notice that Ted Kennedy spent like 5 minutes on a political rant about Katrina, civil rights..etc.. before asking his... Read More

  1. by   Tweety
    Quote from stevielynn
    Please provide a link for the above article.

    Judge Robert's loyalty lies with the Constitutution of the United States of America.

    steph

    Sounds a bit naive Steph, but I hope that you're right.

    The whole process is irritating to me. Mr. Roberts is totally correct that his personal beliefs should be irrelevent in how he interprets the law, and I can only hope he holds steadfast to that principal.

    But the fact of the matter is personal beliefs and prejudices cloud the bests of judges and it's naive to think otherwise.

    I agree he got a few slam dunks in. But also a bit of dodge, duck, mislead and avoid.

    Mr. Kennedy has been through this process about 18 times. So yes, he's done his homework and knows what he's doing as irritating as it may be.

    http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/...ints-headlines
    Last edit by Tweety on Sep 16, '05
  2. by   URO-RN
    Quote from VeryPlainJane
    The job of a judge is to uphold the laws of the land and the will of the people (plural) whether they belong to a minority or a majority group or to the general public as a WHOLE. And to determine which judgement calls for the benefit of each group or all group. Placing ones opinion should only be hindged upon the will of a particular group or as a whole and not by one own selfish opinion. The GOAL is to uphold which Laws benefit to the greater public. The GOAL should not be self serving. To recognize this differences is one of the most valuable characteristic a judge should have...specially in a position of a chief justice in the supreme court.

    It would be dangerous or to put it mildly RISKY to place someone in this position who lack the wisdom to see the difference and to exercise this characteristic when it calls for. Surely there will be ruling that can be altered to a particular case where it only affects and pertain to a particular person or incident. It should be assesed carefully on a case by case basis. The ruling of a judge will (whether it is based on his belief or the beliefs of the MANY) will affect how it (the law) roles into and implemented to use and how it impact our daily lives.

    Common Sense must also be present in order to understand the general publics' views. Sadly to say I suspect Mr. Roberts experiences are weak in this areas. He believed he has served the most powerful and understand in a majority of the cases. Their views and how his ruling therefore is serving them only and not the considerable grater public impact. I question his loyalty to his superior. As an independent person who supposedly represent and shares the views for the good of the general public...I wonder if he truly recognizes that. Or is his will to win this position hinged upon the loyalty and the agenda of those he percieved to be his superior...the politicians and corporate buddies. If this is the case I doubt that he can effectively serve the public fairly. He needs to show a more proven record of rulings that benefited the greater public good.

    The Media and the government does not show enough evidence that this is man that has done or that has showed accomplisments that ruled and served the public well. I read that he has served the former presidents (Reagan and the Bushes).

    Contrary to the present situation and our lack of trust toward the current White House Administration I would be one thousand time careful on who we appoint in this position. We have to ask ourself, Where does his loyalty falls to? The President, corporation, himself or the people? How will he separate his duty and views as a judge versus his own personal view. For example, as we all know we all have our own personal view regarding pro-life, descrimination, religion, etc. If his personal likes and dislikes and opinion to a perticular issues, how will he shut that off and maintain focus on the will of people and serve those that affect the majority of that group. How does he intend to deparate his personal views from those cases that involve the views of a group of people.

    I am particularly interested his view of the current governmental power. If compelling evidences show that a government officials ...for example...The President of the United State...was found guilty of Treason...(minding the fact that the President has nominated him in this position), How would he rule on this case. Should the penalty or ruling be altered because of his loyalty to the President, his political view?, or will he reduce the penalty because of a "PAY BACK" of favors? How would he work through this process.....? What are his thoughts of the NIXON-Watergate situation? If he was a judge then, how would he rule the case? How about corporate loopholes, how can he best serve the legislature and the people to close the current loopholes we have in our legal systems? He would have the most impressive experiences in time as he goes through his career in time if and when he is confirmed to this position. How would his gained knowlege and expertise be of greatest benefit to this country...the people...and the law?

    But why care it's only our freedom!
    We need a link for this article.
  3. by   VeryPlainJane
    This isn't an article


    Quote from URO-RN
    We need a link for this article.
  4. by   Tweety
    Quote from VeryPlainJane
    This isn't an article

    WOOT! I presumed they were your own thoughts, but when they asked for a link, I said....hmmm.....VPJ knows by now not to cut and paste an article.

    Woot!
  5. by   URO-RN
    Quote from Tweety
    WOOT! I presumed they were your own thoughts, but when they asked for a link, I said....hmmm.....VPJ knows by now not to cut and paste an article.

    Woot!
    what's that supposed to mean, Tweety?
  6. by   Tweety
    Quote from URO-RN
    what's that supposed to mean, Tweety?

    I'm saying you and Steph thought she was cutting and pasting and article. I didn't think she was because it's been made very clear by the moderators the past few weeks that we are not to cut and past articles. VPJ has providing many links the past few weeks to articles, and I didn't think she forgot that.

    No offense to you and Steph. My first reaction was not that it was an article, but that she wrote it herself. But I had to stop and think after you and Steph asked for a link, that I might be wrong.
  7. by   URO-RN
    Quote from Tweety
    I'm saying you and Steph thought she was cutting and pasting and article. I didn't think she was because it's been made very clear by the moderators the past few weeks that we are not to cut and past articles. VPJ has providing many links the past few weeks to articles, and I didn't think she forgot that.

    No offense to you and Steph. My first reaction was not that it was an article, but that she wrote it herself. But I had to stop and think after you and Steph asked for a link, that I might be wrong.
    no offense taken...it was just unclear to me.
  8. by   Mkue
    Quote from stevielynn
    Teddy Kennedy's 5 or 6 minutes meandering questions are irritating. I mentioned this one briefly but thought in order to get the whole gist of it I would give you the whole encounter between Kennedy and Roberts today.


    Ted Kennedy: "You mentioned in your memoranda that we should -- and you're familiar, I think, with these words,". . . "As you well know... You're familiar with these words.". . "You mentioned in your memoranda that we should -- and you're familiar, I think, with these words -- they've been written up on the journals. You can probably recognize them. 'We should ignore the assertion that the EEOC is un-American, the truth of the matter notwithstanding.' Is there some reason that you would make a comment like that that the EEOC is un-American?"

    Mr. Roberts: Well, Senator you do have to read the memo, I think, in its entirety to put it in context. That was not my language. That was the language, the "un-American" reference was the language that was employed by an individual who had a case before the EEOC. He actually won his case before the EEOC, but he didn't like the difficulty and the time involved. He wrote to the president, and he said two things. One, that his treatment at the hands of the EEOC was un-American, and, two, that the president had promised in the campaign to abolish the EEOC, and he wanted to hold the president to that promise. It was my responsibility to figure out how to respond to this complaint that had been received. When you read the whole memorandum, you see two points. The first is that I was unable to determine, in the short time I had to respond, whether or not the president had made such a pledge to abolish the EEOC. I simply didn't know, and I said that in the paragraph if you read it, and that's what "the truth of the matter notwithstanding" is referring to. The question of whether or not the president had promised to abolish the EEOC. I say right in the memo that we cannot determine that, and whether his treatment was "un-American" or not is beside the point; we don't interfere with the activities of the EEOC. That was the conclusion, and that's what we did in that case.

    Kennedy's excuse is, "Well, parts of this are redacted," and Roberts nails him again. "No, Senator, it's just a couple of names that are redacted."

    "Senator Kennedy, if you read the whole memo, you'll find out it wasn't I who said the EEOC is un-American; it said the client who won the case said the EEOC was un-American." Kennedy says, "Well, as you know, this memo has been redacted, and I think, in fairness, in fairness to the committee, if we can get out the other redactions, it'll be a more accurate kind of a complete record," and then Specter says, "Well, if it's possible for Judge Roberts to deal with the redactions..."

    ROBERTS: I think the redactions simply identified the individual that was making the complaint who had his case. The only thing I would emphasize is that the language that was quoted was part of a sentence, and the question of what "the truth of the matter" is referring to goes to the first part of the sentence that was not read, which is the assertion, the assertion that the president promised to abolish the EEOC. That was the matter that I could not determine in the time available whether that was correct or not, so I said, "The truth of that matter notwithstanding..." and I'd also emphasize that any reference to the phrase "un-American" is always in quotes to make it clear that that's what the writer of the letter said, and certainly not what I said, and it was certainly not my view then or now.

    Specter finally says, "Senator Kennedy, really, this is over. You want to keep pursuing it?"

    SESSIONS: Judge Roberts, I commend you on your good humor, and even when they read a memo suggesting you said the EEOC was un-American when actually all you were doing was quoting a complaint and that you defended the EEOC and its rights, and defended it aggressively in that memo.


    SLAM DUNK AGAIN :hatparty:

    steph
    OMG..Kennedy was being quite ridiculous..IMO
  9. by   Mkue
    Quote from Tweety
    I'm saying you and Steph thought she was cutting and pasting and article. I didn't think she was because it's been made very clear by the moderators the past few weeks that we are not to cut and past articles. VPJ has providing many links the past few weeks to articles, and I didn't think she forgot that.

    No offense to you and Steph. My first reaction was not that it was an article, but that she wrote it herself. But I had to stop and think after you and Steph asked for a link, that I might be wrong.
    I thought we are allowed to paste a portion of an article, but not the entire article.

    and I'm not referring to VeryPlainJanes post.
  10. by   rn/writer
    the job of a judge is to uphold the laws of the land and the will of the people (plural) whether they belong to a minority or a majority group or to the general public as a whole.

    where to begin, where to begin. the job of the us supreme court is to review and interpret the law as it has been applied by lower courts to ensure that previous rulings are in harmony with the constitution. it is expected that the legislative branch of government has already addressed and included "the will of the people" in the drafting of the laws.

    and to determine which judgement calls for the benefit of each group or all group. placing ones opinion should only be hindged upon the will of a particular group or as a whole and not by one own selfish opinion.

    the supreme court justices do not make their decisions based on what might benefit one group or another. they do not look at what the law should say but what it actually says. it is the job of the legislature to ascertain how the law should be written and whom it should protect.
    at the supreme court level, the word opinion refers to a carefully researched position on how previously made decisions regarding the case at hand stack up against the law. the legal opinions a justice presents may well differ from his personal views.

    the goal is to uphold which laws benefit to the greater public. the goal should not be self serving. to recognize this differences is one of the most valuable characteristic a judge should have...specially in a position of a chief justice in the supreme court.

    the goal is to uphold the laws as they are written and to reconcile any conflicts by determining which aspects of contradictory statutes and precedent should carry greater weight. the judiciary has not been charged with making sure that laws are written to benefit the most deserving groups and individuals. again, this is the job of the law-makers. the job of the court is to make sure the laws enacted by the legislature are constitutional in their definition and are fairly and consistently applied.

    the ruling of a judge will (whether it is based on his belief or the beliefs of the many) will affect how it (the law) roles into and implemented to use and how it impact our daily lives.

    the rulings of a supreme court justice should not be based on his personal beliefs, nor should they be based on popular opinion. his or her rulings should find their foundation in the facts of the constitution and in two hundred years of commentary and precedent.

    common sense must also be present in order to understand the general publics' views.

    the supreme courts job is to look at the appellate court's rulings and detemine if they were correct. the general public's view is not a part of this process.

    sadly to say i suspect mr. roberts experiences are weak in this areas. he believed he has served the most powerful and understand in a majority of the cases. their views and how his ruling therefore is serving them only and not the considerable grater public impact. i question his loyalty to his superior. as an independent person who supposedly represent and shares the views for the good of the general public...i wonder if he truly recognizes that. or is his will to win this position hinged upon the loyalty and the agenda of those he percieved to be his superior...the politicians and corporate buddies. if this is the case i doubt that he can effectively serve the public fairly. he needs to show a more proven record of rulings that benefited the greater public good.

    once again, the loyalty of a supreme court justice is to the valid and correct interpretation of the law as it relates to previously tried cases. this court is removed from serving the public directly because the founding fathers wanted them to be free from undue influence. the various local, state, and federal legislatures are charged with the immediate burden of looking out for public well being. the court protects the public indirectly by making sure that the laws themselves are consistent with the constitution and that they are being fairly applied.

    the media and the government does not show enough evidence that this is man that has done or that has showed accomplisments that ruled and served the public well. i read that he has served the former presidents (reagan and the bushes).

    at his federal court confirmation hearing two years ago, there were many legislators on both sides of the aisle who praised roberts for his superior qualifications and his amazing grasp of both constitutional principles and case law. even now, there are democrats who concede that he is among the best, if not the best federal judge currently on the bench.

    contrary to the present situation and our lack of trust toward the current white house administration i would be one thousand time careful on who we appoint in this position. we have to ask ourself, where does his loyalty falls to? the president, corporation, himself or the people?

    his loyalty is to the correct application of the law as it relates to the constitution of the united states.

    how will he separate his duty and views as a judge versus his own personal view. for example, as we all know we all have our own personal view regarding pro-life, descrimination, religion, etc. if his personal likes and dislikes and opinion to a perticular issues, how will he shut that off and maintain focus on the will of people and serve those that affect the majority of that group. how does he intend to deparate his personal views from those cases that involve the views of a group of people.

    he should not be torn between personal views and the ability to focus on the will of the people because neither one of those is what should determine his choices. remember, the will of the people is inferred to already be contained in the law.

    i think a great many people are unclear about how the supreme court works. they do not hear any case the first time it goes to trial. only after a case has been decided at a lower level can it be appealed to a higher court. and there are often a number of layers between the original court and the supreme court. the supreme court declines to consider most of the cases it is asked to review. it isn't simply a court of last resort. the matters put before it have to contain some element of constitutional significance.

    when the supreme court does agree to hear a case, it is not as if the complainant gets to mount a whole new case. the court is going to review the merits of what has already taken place and will reverse a lower court decision only if the law was incorrectly interpreted or applied, or if the complainant's constitutional rights were somehow violated. for the record, the complainant does not even attend the hearing. only the attorneys are allowed to be a part of the proceedings.

    as you can see, there isn't much room in this equation for personal opinion, popular opinion, or undue influence. supreme court justices don't have to curry favor as they are appointed for life (and that insularity was the intent of the framers).

    john roberts said a supreme court justice is like an umpire. he neither pitches nor swings at the ball, but only evaluates the quality of what he sees before him. i think this is an apt analogy.
  11. by   Mkue
    Excellent post Miranda.. "he is like an umpire"

    Bravo
  12. by   fab4fan
    I thought it was very clear that VPJ was posting her thoughts. She is allowed to do that, I presume?

    That's far different from the posts that go:"Somewhere I read something that somebody said about something..." and then no link.
  13. by   VeryPlainJane
    "He should not be torn between personal views and the ability to focus on the will of the people because neither one of those is what should determine his choices. Remember, the will of the people is inferred to already be contained in the law."

    When I say the will of the people I am referring to the laws they are reviewing.

    "He should not be torn between personal views and the ability to focus on the will of the people because neither one of those is what should determine his choices. Remember, the will of the people is inferred to already be contained in the law."

    A lot of people are afraid that he his personal views will affect his ability to focus on the will of the people that is why it's important that this veting session is going on...Making fun of democrats or republicans for asking questions is silly, there are questions that need to be asked. Roberts has not been on the sitting judge long we have no idea what kind of judge he is...other than who he worked for.

close