Adopt A Box O’ Docs Part VII: A Review Of Woodley
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/roberts/
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/roberts/Box47JGRRecessAppointments10.pdf
This box contains sixty-two pages in it, and like the previous box, Roberts is not mentioned. The first few pages is a complete overview of Woodley—the case heard by the 9th Circuit Court regarding an overturned case over the issue of a jurist recessed to a District Court. Roberts does not contribute one whit’s worth of information to the review, or of the concluding memo.
The second part of the box is a set of photocopied pages from a law review book on the case. It is thorough. It is informative on the case. And I had to hold back from writing a lengthy diatribe about the case. It’s a hobby that I have to address court cases, and by our readers approval of my assessments, I’m pretty good at it. But that isn’t why Marcie and I are involved in this. This isn’t about us. It’s about locating anything that may cause some problems in the Roberts confirmation process.
Woodley has little to do with Roberts, aside from the fact that he cited it a few times in previous boxes that we have covered. But, again, he is not involved in the case directly. He did not submit the briefs to the 9th Circuit Court, as far as we can tell. His name nor initials appear anywhere in any sort of involvement in this case. So, the Democrats cannot hope to hang him over this. (Now, if we are incorrect in this assertion, and he did have a hand in this case, someone please let us know through our comments section.) But thus far, we have found no direct connection to Roberts within this case.
His only connection to it is his citation of it in memos addressing Sen. Byrd’s little spat with the White House over recess appointments. If the Democrats want to question him over whether he believes the president has the right and the power to perform such an appointment, I expect him to answer in the affirmative.
And that should go without saying. It is in the Constitution. We have cited it in this series of posts, and we cited it prior to the Gang of Fourteen deal. The president has the right—no, scratch that, he has the power—to make recess appointments. These appointments are those that should be vetted through the Senate confirmation process. The president exercised this power with UN Ambassador Bolton. Bolton will receive his vote with the Senate convenes it’s next session.
But the Democrats can’t hold Roberts up over his proper interpretation of the Constitution. If they do, it’s time the voters remove the inept ones. There are no extraordinary circumstances that we can find on Roberts for this issue, or any other ones covered by the other bloggers participating in this vetting of his records, to bar him from the high court.
The Bunny & Publius II
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/roberts/
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/roberts/Box47JGRRecessAppointments10.pdf
This box contains sixty-two pages in it, and like the previous box, Roberts is not mentioned. The first few pages is a complete overview of Woodley—the case heard by the 9th Circuit Court regarding an overturned case over the issue of a jurist recessed to a District Court. Roberts does not contribute one whit’s worth of information to the review, or of the concluding memo.
The second part of the box is a set of photocopied pages from a law review book on the case. It is thorough. It is informative on the case. And I had to hold back from writing a lengthy diatribe about the case. It’s a hobby that I have to address court cases, and by our readers approval of my assessments, I’m pretty good at it. But that isn’t why Marcie and I are involved in this. This isn’t about us. It’s about locating anything that may cause some problems in the Roberts confirmation process.
Woodley has little to do with Roberts, aside from the fact that he cited it a few times in previous boxes that we have covered. But, again, he is not involved in the case directly. He did not submit the briefs to the 9th Circuit Court, as far as we can tell. His name nor initials appear anywhere in any sort of involvement in this case. So, the Democrats cannot hope to hang him over this. (Now, if we are incorrect in this assertion, and he did have a hand in this case, someone please let us know through our comments section.) But thus far, we have found no direct connection to Roberts within this case.
His only connection to it is his citation of it in memos addressing Sen. Byrd’s little spat with the White House over recess appointments. If the Democrats want to question him over whether he believes the president has the right and the power to perform such an appointment, I expect him to answer in the affirmative.
And that should go without saying. It is in the Constitution. We have cited it in this series of posts, and we cited it prior to the Gang of Fourteen deal. The president has the right—no, scratch that, he has the power—to make recess appointments. These appointments are those that should be vetted through the Senate confirmation process. The president exercised this power with UN Ambassador Bolton. Bolton will receive his vote with the Senate convenes it’s next session.
But the Democrats can’t hold Roberts up over his proper interpretation of the Constitution. If they do, it’s time the voters remove the inept ones. There are no extraordinary circumstances that we can find on Roberts for this issue, or any other ones covered by the other bloggers participating in this vetting of his records, to bar him from the high court.
The Bunny & Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 2:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home