Roberts Confirmation Hearings

[Piglet 0]

Anyone watching these? Roberts appears to be taking the high road, and has passed what "litmus tests" I had:

1. He has not stonewalled, but has answered questions about particular issues.

2. He says he believes in a Constitutional right to privacy, emanating from other rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. To my mind, this is THE most important test to see if a judge will uphold civil liberties.

3. He promises to uphold precedents ("Stare Decisis", as the lawyers call it), being an actual conservative jurist who believes in judicial restraint, not an activist political conservative.

Plus, I like his analogy of the judge as umpire.

He's either a real judicial moderate in the O'Connor mold, or he's flat out lying through his teeth and intends to torch the American way as soon as he's on the bench. The latter wouldn't surprise me, since I'm a cynical brat and inclined to believe the worst about anyone in Washington, but it's only suspicion, not proof.

The Administration prepared well. Were I a Senator, I'd vote to confirm. And I expect my (Georgia) constituents would want me to.

[Tigermike 3,840]

I have not been watching, but am glad he is holding up well.

I would like to ask a question. If he had chosen to not answer a "political" question and instead said, "I refuse to answer that question and in effect prejudge a hypothetical case that may or may not ever come before the court." Much as Ruth Bader Ginsburg did during her confirmation hearings. How would you be looking at Roberts then? Would you then be saying he was stonewalling?

[AURaptor 1,137]

...or he's flat out lying through his teeth and intends to torch the American way as soon as he's on the bench. The latter wouldn't surprise me, since I'm a cynical brat and inclined to believe the worst about anyone in Washington, but it's only suspicion, not proof.

Can you say, FLAME ON!

Me thinks you're confusing Judge Roberts w/ the likes of John Ashcroft. I doubt Roberts is a yellow line down the road like O'Conner, but he does seem fairly sensible, none the less.

[AUdaREALsecTigers 2]

He put the smack down on Ted Kennedy for misinterpreting past arguments and positions and taking some of his arguments out of context.

[Piglet 0]

I have not been watching, but am glad he is holding up well.

I would like to ask a question.  If he had chosen to not answer a "political" question and instead said, "I refuse to answer that question and in effect prejudge a hypothetical case that may or may not ever come before the court."  Much as Ruth Bader Ginsburg did during her confirmation hearings.  How would you be looking at Roberts then?  Would you then be saying he was stonewalling?

181006[/snapback]

I suppose it depends on the question, exactly, but most likely I sure would. An answer like that is politicalspeak for "I've prejudged the issue and I'm too much of a coward to say so because I'm afraid my view isn't the politically popular one". Why should I have respect for a nominee too cowardly to explain their positions?

On big ticket issues like abortion, I reckon the people and their representatives have a right to know whether a given judge intends to uphold or overturn the precedent, and whether their reasoning is based on precedent, the Constitution, the Bible, or what have you. If they refuse, why shouldn't I conclude they're hiding something? If they say they don't know, why shouldn't I conclude they're either liars or unqualified?

I'm not saying I'd always vote against someone just for that, but it sure would be a big strike against them.

[WarTim 3,532]

So long as he does not answer the "Right to DEATH" question, he will be fine. It does not matter where he stands on any other subject...To liberals that is.

[Ranger12 53]

I actually heard him refuse to answer a couple of questions by saying "I will do the same as nominees that have preceded me and decline to answer that question". That is hilarious!