More On The Robert’s War
As an Arizona resident, I shudder every time I hear Sen. John McCain speak. This man has more balls than brains, and his brazen blow-offs to the citizens of this state are appalling. This is a man that needs to go when his next election comes around—whether it be for his seat again, or for president. This man claims that he is a Reagan Republican, and every time he invokes that, I’m sure the former president spins in his grave.
John McCain is a US senator that is clearly drunk from his own power. And if, as a resident of this state, I’m that repulsed by John McCain I can only wonder how the citizens of New York feel about Sen. Chuck Schumer.
Sen. Schumer has been leading the Democrat attack on Judge John Roberts. He was one of the first ones out the gate taking swipes at the man, including reminding everyone why he was the only dissenting vote in the Senate when Roberts was confirmed to the DC Court. Now, he’s dragging out the same old playbook.
Here’s the strategy that Schumer and others on the Left are using. First, they’ve demanded documents from the White House during Roberts tenure as solicitor general. Now, for those that are inept in the realm of jurisprudence—like the moron I dealt with last night—that, in short, is a no-no. As solicitor general, Roberts’ client was the US government. The White House has released some 70,000-plus pages of documents during his time there. These are all documents that are available to the public. The vast majority of these documents can be found in the respective presidential libraries of Pres. Reagan and Pres. Bush (41), and within the National Archives. They want more than what is out there, and previous solicitor generals have stepped forward and told the White House not to give into the demands.
Second, Schumer is still steamed that Roberts did not answer everyone of his invasive questioning. So, he’s going to go through this again. Schumer is planning to ask Roberts about a number of things; many of the issues being involved in potential Supreme Court cases. When Justice Ginsburg went before the committee during her confirmation, she invoked Canon 5, which has since then been referred to as the Ginsburg Rule.
Canon 5 "prohibits a candidate for judicial office from making statements that commit the candidate regarding cases, controversies or issues likely to come before the court. As a corollary, a candidate should emphasize in any public statement the candidate’s duty to uphold the law regardless of his or her personal views."
That is according to the ABA’s website. The Canon includes other points in it, but this is the point that Ginsburg made during her hearings. Schumer is going to have absolute fits if Roberts steps up, and invokes the Canon. But he is doing it because of the Canon, and his views that he’s not going to speak on such subjects. According to a list of questions Schumer wants to ask the nominee — one numbered question reads: "Do you believe that Roe v. Wade (1973) was correctly decided? What is your view on the quality of the legal reasoning in the case? Do you believe that it reached the right result?"
Other issues Schumer plans on asking Roberts about include the First Amendment and Commerce Clause of the Constitution, under what circumstances it's appropriate for the Supreme Court to overturn "well-settled precedent" and Supreme Court cases Roberts considers the product of "judicial activism."
No offense to Schumer, but he’s not going to get any answers on those issues. Roe is most definitely off-limits. The Court seems to address a case on abortion almost every session. He’s not going to give answers on the First Amendment, especially those regarding the inflamed arguments over the Establishment Clause; much like Roe, cases involving the Establishment Clause are quite common for the high court.
The final part of the strategy is to, in concert with the above, ultimately delay his hearings. The Democrats are heartened by the fact that O’Connor will return to the bench on Oct. 1st if no nominee has succeeded making it through the confirmation process. It will give them time to go find dirt on Roberts, which I doubt there’s much, and use that against him like they did to Bork and Thomas. They’re hoping the above strategy will give them enough time and traction to derail Roberts.
But as I said above, Schumer’s not the only one. The Democrats have their fair share of nuts on this nominee. Trent Lott reminded people recently that Sen. Biden stood up for Ginsburg during her confirmation skirmish that she didn’t have to answer all the questions presented to her. In all, I believe there were over 30 questions that Justice Ginsburg refused to answer.
But Biden's office said that while it's improper to ask a judge how he or she would rule in a case, he's "likewise always maintained that it's fair game to examine the constitutional methodology and judicial philosophy which the nominee would bring to consideration of issues which come before the Supreme Court.
"The two positions are not inconsistent, but the GOP has tried to conflate them, in an attempt to argue that any questioning about a nominee's judicial philosophy or constitutional methodology is out of line. They're wrong," reads a statement released by Biden's office.
During his floor statement on July 15, 1993, Biden said, "In my view, the public is best served by questions that initiate a dialogue with the nominee, not about how she will decide any specific case that may come before her, but about the spirit and method she will bring to the task of judging."
Which is all fine and dandy, but that’s not how their side of the aisle plays the game. People like Biden and Schumer aren’t going to just question his methodology in determining what is and what isn’t Constitutional. They’re going to ask direct questions, and they’re going to throw a hissy fit when Roberts tells them to pound sand.
Leahy’s office is playing dodgeball by not answering questions from the MSM over what he will do. He’s a focus because he was one of those after the nomination that started talking about how "extreme" Roberts was. Durbin, Kennedy, and Boxer are among the others, though Boxer recanted within a day or so and said he wasn’t that bad. The only person that hasn’t said much about him, and it intrigues me, is Sen. Clinton. I’m not intrigued because it’s Sen. Clinton. I’m intrigued that as a lawyer she doesn’t seem to have an opinion. She has simply stated that he should receive a fair hearing, and his vote on the floor of the Senate. No, she’s not sick. She’s still trying to drag herself to the middle.
There is nothing in Roberts’ writings or his past to give anyone any serious pause. No offense to Ann, but she’s well-grounded in her worries, but way off base for screeching about him. And no, just because he’s been received well by the Democrats doesn’t mean he’s another Souter, Ann. I stated my two opinions on why the Democrats are playing nice. First, they really can’t find anything. (Come on, Schumer was screaming about some frog case in California. That isn’t much, and Roberts was right on in his decision.)
Second, they’re going to let Roberts slide through, hoping someday he may be as senile as Justice Stevens, or as loony as Justice Kennedy, so that when the next one comes up, they can go back to their extreme business as usual. And when we raise a stink, they’re going to point to Roberts. And they’re going to say, "See, we played nice with him but Judge (insert name here) is just too extreme."
It’s time for the Democrats to wake up. You’ve already lost this fight. The Gang of Fourteen has deserted them, and see no problem with Roberts. Ben Nelson from Nebraska, a Democrat facing an uphill battle for reelection in 2006, came out today after an interview he had with Roberts.
(Hat-Tip: Captain’s Quarters)
Supreme Court nominee John Roberts gave assurances he wouldn't be an activist if confirmed, a key Democrat who already was leaning toward supporting him said Thursday.
"I don't see anything that's going to be disturbing" in his record, Sen. Ben Nelson told reporters after a 30-minute meeting with President Bush's choice to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor on the high court.
Democrats have been pushing to review as many of Roberts' writings as possible, hoping to gain a better understanding of his personal views and the extent to which he might seek to inject them into his judicial rulings.
"He said he would not be an activist judge," Nelson said.
Chuck, the fight’s over, and your side has lost again. You can’t win an election, and only through dirty back room deals can you win the fight for the judiciary. People see this, and they’re disgusted by this. They’re disgusted by a party that is so drunk from it’s own power, and so frightened they’re going to lose more, that they’re doing everything they can to keep it. The mandate that a congressmen has when he steps up to serve his people is to make decisions that makes America better. It’s not to play petty partisan games to hold onto your job. The nation comes first. Somewhere, throughout the 229 years this nation has existed, the politicos in DC have forgotten that.
Publius II
As an Arizona resident, I shudder every time I hear Sen. John McCain speak. This man has more balls than brains, and his brazen blow-offs to the citizens of this state are appalling. This is a man that needs to go when his next election comes around—whether it be for his seat again, or for president. This man claims that he is a Reagan Republican, and every time he invokes that, I’m sure the former president spins in his grave.
John McCain is a US senator that is clearly drunk from his own power. And if, as a resident of this state, I’m that repulsed by John McCain I can only wonder how the citizens of New York feel about Sen. Chuck Schumer.
Sen. Schumer has been leading the Democrat attack on Judge John Roberts. He was one of the first ones out the gate taking swipes at the man, including reminding everyone why he was the only dissenting vote in the Senate when Roberts was confirmed to the DC Court. Now, he’s dragging out the same old playbook.
Here’s the strategy that Schumer and others on the Left are using. First, they’ve demanded documents from the White House during Roberts tenure as solicitor general. Now, for those that are inept in the realm of jurisprudence—like the moron I dealt with last night—that, in short, is a no-no. As solicitor general, Roberts’ client was the US government. The White House has released some 70,000-plus pages of documents during his time there. These are all documents that are available to the public. The vast majority of these documents can be found in the respective presidential libraries of Pres. Reagan and Pres. Bush (41), and within the National Archives. They want more than what is out there, and previous solicitor generals have stepped forward and told the White House not to give into the demands.
Second, Schumer is still steamed that Roberts did not answer everyone of his invasive questioning. So, he’s going to go through this again. Schumer is planning to ask Roberts about a number of things; many of the issues being involved in potential Supreme Court cases. When Justice Ginsburg went before the committee during her confirmation, she invoked Canon 5, which has since then been referred to as the Ginsburg Rule.
Canon 5 "prohibits a candidate for judicial office from making statements that commit the candidate regarding cases, controversies or issues likely to come before the court. As a corollary, a candidate should emphasize in any public statement the candidate’s duty to uphold the law regardless of his or her personal views."
That is according to the ABA’s website. The Canon includes other points in it, but this is the point that Ginsburg made during her hearings. Schumer is going to have absolute fits if Roberts steps up, and invokes the Canon. But he is doing it because of the Canon, and his views that he’s not going to speak on such subjects. According to a list of questions Schumer wants to ask the nominee — one numbered question reads: "Do you believe that Roe v. Wade (1973) was correctly decided? What is your view on the quality of the legal reasoning in the case? Do you believe that it reached the right result?"
Other issues Schumer plans on asking Roberts about include the First Amendment and Commerce Clause of the Constitution, under what circumstances it's appropriate for the Supreme Court to overturn "well-settled precedent" and Supreme Court cases Roberts considers the product of "judicial activism."
No offense to Schumer, but he’s not going to get any answers on those issues. Roe is most definitely off-limits. The Court seems to address a case on abortion almost every session. He’s not going to give answers on the First Amendment, especially those regarding the inflamed arguments over the Establishment Clause; much like Roe, cases involving the Establishment Clause are quite common for the high court.
The final part of the strategy is to, in concert with the above, ultimately delay his hearings. The Democrats are heartened by the fact that O’Connor will return to the bench on Oct. 1st if no nominee has succeeded making it through the confirmation process. It will give them time to go find dirt on Roberts, which I doubt there’s much, and use that against him like they did to Bork and Thomas. They’re hoping the above strategy will give them enough time and traction to derail Roberts.
But as I said above, Schumer’s not the only one. The Democrats have their fair share of nuts on this nominee. Trent Lott reminded people recently that Sen. Biden stood up for Ginsburg during her confirmation skirmish that she didn’t have to answer all the questions presented to her. In all, I believe there were over 30 questions that Justice Ginsburg refused to answer.
But Biden's office said that while it's improper to ask a judge how he or she would rule in a case, he's "likewise always maintained that it's fair game to examine the constitutional methodology and judicial philosophy which the nominee would bring to consideration of issues which come before the Supreme Court.
"The two positions are not inconsistent, but the GOP has tried to conflate them, in an attempt to argue that any questioning about a nominee's judicial philosophy or constitutional methodology is out of line. They're wrong," reads a statement released by Biden's office.
During his floor statement on July 15, 1993, Biden said, "In my view, the public is best served by questions that initiate a dialogue with the nominee, not about how she will decide any specific case that may come before her, but about the spirit and method she will bring to the task of judging."
Which is all fine and dandy, but that’s not how their side of the aisle plays the game. People like Biden and Schumer aren’t going to just question his methodology in determining what is and what isn’t Constitutional. They’re going to ask direct questions, and they’re going to throw a hissy fit when Roberts tells them to pound sand.
Leahy’s office is playing dodgeball by not answering questions from the MSM over what he will do. He’s a focus because he was one of those after the nomination that started talking about how "extreme" Roberts was. Durbin, Kennedy, and Boxer are among the others, though Boxer recanted within a day or so and said he wasn’t that bad. The only person that hasn’t said much about him, and it intrigues me, is Sen. Clinton. I’m not intrigued because it’s Sen. Clinton. I’m intrigued that as a lawyer she doesn’t seem to have an opinion. She has simply stated that he should receive a fair hearing, and his vote on the floor of the Senate. No, she’s not sick. She’s still trying to drag herself to the middle.
There is nothing in Roberts’ writings or his past to give anyone any serious pause. No offense to Ann, but she’s well-grounded in her worries, but way off base for screeching about him. And no, just because he’s been received well by the Democrats doesn’t mean he’s another Souter, Ann. I stated my two opinions on why the Democrats are playing nice. First, they really can’t find anything. (Come on, Schumer was screaming about some frog case in California. That isn’t much, and Roberts was right on in his decision.)
Second, they’re going to let Roberts slide through, hoping someday he may be as senile as Justice Stevens, or as loony as Justice Kennedy, so that when the next one comes up, they can go back to their extreme business as usual. And when we raise a stink, they’re going to point to Roberts. And they’re going to say, "See, we played nice with him but Judge (insert name here) is just too extreme."
It’s time for the Democrats to wake up. You’ve already lost this fight. The Gang of Fourteen has deserted them, and see no problem with Roberts. Ben Nelson from Nebraska, a Democrat facing an uphill battle for reelection in 2006, came out today after an interview he had with Roberts.
(Hat-Tip: Captain’s Quarters)
Supreme Court nominee John Roberts gave assurances he wouldn't be an activist if confirmed, a key Democrat who already was leaning toward supporting him said Thursday.
"I don't see anything that's going to be disturbing" in his record, Sen. Ben Nelson told reporters after a 30-minute meeting with President Bush's choice to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor on the high court.
Democrats have been pushing to review as many of Roberts' writings as possible, hoping to gain a better understanding of his personal views and the extent to which he might seek to inject them into his judicial rulings.
"He said he would not be an activist judge," Nelson said.
Chuck, the fight’s over, and your side has lost again. You can’t win an election, and only through dirty back room deals can you win the fight for the judiciary. People see this, and they’re disgusted by this. They’re disgusted by a party that is so drunk from it’s own power, and so frightened they’re going to lose more, that they’re doing everything they can to keep it. The mandate that a congressmen has when he steps up to serve his people is to make decisions that makes America better. It’s not to play petty partisan games to hold onto your job. The nation comes first. Somewhere, throughout the 229 years this nation has existed, the politicos in DC have forgotten that.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 11:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home