Judicial Hearings

  1. 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 first closed-end question.. after a yes/no reply by Roberts..Mr. Kennedy went on again with another "rant" carefully not asking open-ended questions. I can see where this is going.

    If anyone is watching the hearings or staying abreast of the hearings you may add comments here.


    Marie
    •  
  2. 81 Comments

  3. by   Tweety
    He's off topic and taking advantage of his seniority on this committee and that's inappropriate.

    But part of me wants to say ROCK ON TED!

    I'm not watching the hearings. Mr. Bush wants him in, that's enough for me to know I don't like the man.
  4. by   Mkue
    He's (Kennedy) making himself look foolish..IMO...I'm sure eyes were rolling. :chuckle
  5. by   fab4fan
    Mr. Roberts seems to be quite adept at giving non-answer answers. And when questioned, he appears to look irritated that he should have to give any accounting at all, sort of like he has a divine right to the position because W wants him there.

    I heard one comentator describe his "boyish good looks and bright blue eyes..." Like those are qualifications for the position.
    Last edit by fab4fan on Sep 13, '05
  6. by   fab4fan
    FWIW, Mr. Kennedy, and any other member of the Judiciary Committee, have a perfect right to ask whatever questions are deemed relevant to try to get a handle on this guy's views, since he has been less than forthright heretofore.
  7. by   Mkue
    I wish Ted would ask more questions instead of using his time for political rants..well I hope the others ask open-ended questions and many..I think that's the best way to get information.
  8. by   VeryPlainJane
    The morning session of Roberts' confirmation hearing is over. Sen. Kennedy failed to land any blows and looked less-than-effective by asking lengthy questions and interrupting Roberts before the nominee could get two words out. Sen. Biden did a little better by mocking Roberts' assertion that his memos just reflect the opinion of his bosses. As Biden points out, Roberts in one memo writes "...and I strongly agree," making the obvious point that this sure SOUNDS like a staffer's personal opinion. Roberts danced away. But one interesting point:

    The White House has trumpeted the tens of thousands of documents released from Roberts' work in the Reagan administration and elsewhere as proof of how thoroughly vetted this nominee is. But Roberts has repeatedly made clear he believes we can draw ZERO assumptions about his personal views from any of it. No matter how passionately he may argue an issue or urge a stance in private memos, Roberts insists those statements merely reflect the position of his bosses that he was hired to work for and not necessarily his own.

    In short, since Roberts says we have to ignore virtually all of the 50,000+ pages of documents as revealing nothing about him and since his judicial career is extremely short, we are being asked to nominate someone that we know virtually nothing about. That should make EVERYONE uneasy (including the far right) so why is the left the only side that thinks we should know SOMETHING about what a nominee for the Supreme Court believes in?
  9. by   fab4fan
    This is a somewhat humorous take on the hearing proceedings, by Joel Achenbach, writer for the Washington Post **liberal newspaper alert**

    It's from his blog, "Achenblog." Baseball metaphors figure highly in it.

    http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/
  10. by   Mkue
    http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...uestions&hl=en

    In answering questions before the Judiciary Committee, Justice Ginsburg added her own twist to Senator Biden's standard for nominees. While Senator Biden had said that a nominee should decline to answer questions about how she would decide a specific case, which suggests that only prospective cases are off-limits, Justice Ginsburg declined to answer questions 2CR S8771. 3Id. (emphasis added). about her views on both prospective and many historical Supreme Court cases. She also declined to answer questions (or gave non-responsive answers to questions) involving a number of controversial issues, hypothetical facts, or areas in which she is not an expert. In the give-and-take of the hearing, Justice Ginsburg was not always consistent in the standards she applied in deciding whether to answer a question. For example, sometimes she answered questions on a controversial issue currently before the federal courts (such as the validity of Roe and its reasoning), and other times she would decline to answer a question specifically because the issue involved a controversial issue currently before the federal courts.
  11. by   Mkue
    The senators' invocation of Katrina is obscene and manipulative. They are highly frustrated that the electorate won't endorse their policy prescriptions for the nation and therefore rely on the judicial branch, entirely inappropriately and unconstitutionally, to effect their agenda. Roberts will either agree to accept their *********** of the Court's proper role -- which is inconceivable -- or they'll bully him, then vote to reject him -- which is guaranteed. But compared to the next nominee, Roberts will get off easy.http://www.townhall.com/columnists/d...20050914.shtml

    an opinion concerning Leahy and Kennedy bringing up Katrina during judicial hearings
  12. by   fab4fan
    I think we get your point: Give the guy carte blanche entree as the chief justice. How dare anyone ask pointed questions?

    W appointed him, and that should be enough.
  13. by   URO-RN
    Quote from Mkue
    He's (Kennedy) making himself look foolish..IMO...I'm sure eyes were rolling. :chuckle

    He needs another drink.
  14. by   fab4fan
    Quote from Jo Anne
    He needs another drink.
    That was really uncalled for; Mr. Kennedy has long since been sober. People here get upset when someone refers to the president's past drug and aclohol abuse...this is no different.

close