Judge Roberts: Day One Shenanigans
As was to be expected, the Left wasted little time in making their opening moves during this morning’s opening statements in Judge Robert’s confirmation hearings. Thomas and I watched it with extreme scrutiny, and we have compiled some of the more retarded comments below. This party is obviously desperate, and even if they do give Judge Roberts an easier time than expected, they will not waste time taking their partisan, jurisprudentially-inept swipes at the man.
And Sen. Kennedy wasted no time either. He took his fair share of swipes at Judge Roberts, and attempted to connect the victims of Katrina to Judge Roberts legal record regarding civil rights.
Every citizen counts. And we must continue to remove barriers that hold back millions of our people. And we must draw strength from our diversity as we compete in a new world of promise and peril.
So the central issue before us in these hearings is whether the Supreme Court will preserve the gains of the past and protect the rights that are indispensable to a modern, more competitive, more equal America.
Commitment to equality for all is not only a matter of fairness and conscience; it’s also our path to sustained national strength and purpose.
The people have a right to know that their government is promoting their interests, not the special interests.
When it comes to the price of gasoline and the safety of prescription drugs, the air we breathe and the water we drink and the food and other products we buy, the people have a right to keep government from intruding into their private lives and most personal decisions.
But the tragedy of Katrina shows in the starkest terms why every American needs an effective national government that will step in to meet urgent needs that individual states and communities cannot meet on their own.
Above all, the people and their Congress must have a voice in decisions that determine the safety of our country and the integrity of our individual rights.
We also are a government of the people in which citizens have a strong voice in the great issues that shape our lives.
Our systems of checks and balances was drawn up in full awareness of the principle that absolute power corrupts absolutely and was designed to make sure that no branch of government becomes so powerful that it can avoid accountability.
Now, that wasn’t taken in its entirety. It’s too damn long, and windbag goes on for another couple of paragraphs. Point being is has already set his plate. He’s going after Roberts on his civil rights issues. He’s also sending a message as to what his agenda is, which is bigger government, and Ol’ Uncle Teddy doesn’t want some young upstart—someone infinitely more qualified than himself—taking away his "precious."
Kennedy was not the only fool present this morning. To our readers—regular and new—I present to you Sen. Biden:
Judge, as you know, there’s a genuine intellectual debate going on in our country today over whether the Constitution is going to continue to expand the protections of the right to privacy, continue to empower the federal government to protect the powerless.
And it’s a big debate. All you got to do is turn to any Web site: American Enterprise Institute, left, right, center. It’s a gigantic debate. Hadn’t occurred, as you and I both know, and my colleagues know, in the last 70 years. It has not been this contentious; not just the politics but the debate, the intellectual debate.
For 70 years, there’s been a consensus, Judge, on our Supreme Court on these issues of privacy and protecting the powerless. And this consensus has been fully, fully embraced, in my view, by the American people.
But there are those who strongly disagree with the consensus, as is their right. And they seek to unravel the consensus.
And, Judge, you are in the unenviable position, as we talked about in my office, of being right in the middle of this fundamentally important debate.
And quite frankly, Judge, we need to know on which side of that divide you stand, for whoever replaces Justice Rehnquist, as well as Justice O’Connor, will play a pivotal role in this debate and for tens of millions of the American people, this is no academic exercise.
This is just the beginning, but without invoking Roe, Sen. Biden is invoking Roe. The far-reaching right to privacy—a right that does not exist ANYWHERE in our Constitution—was central to the decision in Roe; a precedent hammered home in Griswold.
Judge, I believe in a Constitution — as our Supreme Court’s first great chief who has been mentioned today, Justice Marshall, said in 1819, and I quote, a Constitution intended to endure for ages to come and consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.
That’s the Constitution I believe in. That’s the way I think we should look at the Constitution.
At its core, the Constitution envisions ever-increasing protections for human liberty and dignity for all its citizens and a national government empowered — empowered — to deal with these unanticipated crises.
Interesting this point. It is almost as though he is making the case that judicial activism is all right in his book. And I do hate to break the news to Sen. Biden that the Constitution envisions no such thing. The Framers assembled the basic freedoms of human beings within the Constitution, and did not create an empowered government. They limited the scope of the government for the sheer reason that they—the Founding Fathers—knew that a strong central government, like that in England, would trample their newly-founded rights. A separation of powers was needed, and created.
What is more amusing are certain things that Ol’ Slow Joe brings up where he’s flat, dead wrong on.
In 1965 the Constitution told the state to get out of married couples’ bedrooms by striking down a state law prohibiting married couples from using contraceptions.
This decision—Griswold—ripped away the rights that a State has under the 10th Amendment, and the high court did it again in Lawrence.
Judge, I don’t believe the Constitution — I don’t believe in a constitution where individuals could, for very long, have accomplished what we did had we read it in such a narrow way.
It’s not a narrow interpretation, Senator. It’s the right interpretation. The Left, for too long, has injected into the Constitution their broad interpretations, and in doing so they have severely injured the Constitution. One cannot broaden the scope of freedom without infringing on other along the way, and denying them their enumerated rights.
This next piece is from Sen. Feingold, and in my opinion is probably the most priceless piece of the opening statements. He makes no bones about what he expects from Judge Roberts.
So, like Senator Grassley, I am interested in this nominee’s views on a number of cases. I don’t think that getting his reaction to those decisions will commit him to vote in a certain way in a future case. After all, it is not that past case he will be deciding, but a different one.
Even the current justices, whose views on specific cases are well-known, since they either wrote or joined one opinion or another, do not have to recuse themselves from a future case just because we know what they think of a crucial precedent in that case.
So I am looking for Judge Roberts to be forthcoming with this committee about his views. So to show the Senate’s role in this process the respect it deserves, he should make every effort to be responsive.
He is sending a clear message that he will be opposed to Judge Roberts should Canon 5 be invoked by him. He wants answers, damn it! He wants the truth! And it is obvious that Sen. Feingold misses the point of an appealed case. A judge, in essence, is deciding the past case. Should he rule against the original or appealed decision, he is changing the initial outcome. If a murderer is convicted, and his appeals still uphold the conviction, and the Supreme Court hears the case and rule against the other courts, the entire verdict is overturned. He is a free man. So, yes, Judge Roberts would be deciding the past case as well as the current one.
In memo after memo, his writing were highly ideological and sometimes dismissive of the views of others.
I do, however, recognize that this is a different time and he has been nominated to play a different kind of role than he played in those early Reagan years.
So, frankly, I will be looking for a somewhat different John Roberts than the John Roberts of 1985.
As I have a chance to ask questions about topics such as executive power, civil liberties, voting rights, the death penalty and other important issues, I hope to see how his views have developed and changed over the years.
Of course, the best evidence of this would be some more recent writings of the nominee.
But the administration has steadfastly refused a reasonable request for documents pertaining to a small fraction of the cases in which he participated as deputy solicitor general during the administration of President George H.W. Bush.
I find this refusal very troubling in light of the ample precedent for releasing such documents in this kind of proceeding and the weakness of any claim that the release would damage the litigating position of the United States over 12 years later.
I also must say candidly, the refusal gives rise to a reasonable inference that the administration has something to hide here.
And here, Sen. Feingold tosses the gauntlet down, and demands that Roberts had better have changed his ideological views since 1985. Please, Senator. He is a judge, and a damn good one to boot. I doubt that his views have changed much, if at all. But the role of a judge is not to institute his views, but what is sound within the law. As Judge Roberts eloquently used the analogy of an umpire, it is correct. A judge interprets the law. He does not make it up, or inject his personal preferences into the decision.
Be patient, folks. We’ve got two more to go through. Next up his Sen. Schumer. And I still swear he’s sharing a pickled brain with Sen. Kennedy.
To me, the pivotal question which will determine my vote is this: Are you within the mainstream — albeit the conservative mainstream — or are you an ideologue who will seek to use the court to impose your views upon us as certain judges, past and present on the left and on the right, have attempted to do?
The American people need to learn a lot more about you before they and we can answer that question.
You are, without question, an impressive, accomplished and brilliant lawyer. You’re a decent and honorable man. You have a remarkable resume. There are those who say your outstanding and accomplished resume should be enough, that you should simply promise to be fair and that we should confirm.
I disagree. To me, the most important function of these hearings — because it’s the most important qualification for a nominee to the Supreme Court — is to understand your legal philosophy and judicial ideology.
They’re pretty plain-spoken, Senator. We, at the Asylum, have seen the same documents that you have. Roberts is no more out of the mainstream than the average Joe six-pack. Compared to your party, he’s extreme because you moonbats are on the extreme fringe of your party; further than Michael Moore and George Soros put together.
To those who say ideology doesn’t matter, they should take their quarrels to President Bush. I began to argue that a nominee’s judicial ideology was crucial four years ago. Then, I was almost alone.
Aw, man. Give me a break, and give it a rest, already. Gore was already screwed in that election, and had the Left just simply let it go, this would have been settled. Instead, they threw the biggest, televised hissy fit for the world to see, and Gore proceeded to drag the case up to the Supreme Court. Lord, get over yourselves already.
Some have argued that questioning a nominee about his or her personal views of the Constitution or about decided cases indicates prejudgment about a future case.
It does nothing of the sort.
Most nominees who have come before us, including Justice Ginsburg, whose precedents you often cite, have answered such questions.
Contrary to popular mythology, when she was a nominee, Justice Ginsburg gave lengthy answers to scores of questions about constitutional law and decided cases, including individual autonomy, the First Amendment, criminal law, choice, discrimination and gender equality.
Although there were places she said she did not want to answer, she spoke about dozens of Supreme Court cases and often gave her unvarnished impressions, suggesting that some were problematic in their reasoning while others were eloquent in their vindication of important constitutional principles.
See why I took the pickled brain swipe at him? Justice Ginsburg refused to answer over 60 pointed questions, ranging on a variety of issues including abortion, privacy, and even same-sex relationships and marriages. She flat-out refused to answer them, citing Canon 5 of legal ethics. Judge Roberts should be allowed the same leeway, and bullies like Chuckie Schumer should sit back, shut up, and suck it up.
And now, we move on to everyone’s favorite Senator. Yes, it is the one that slandered our troops a few months back. I present Sen. Durbin.
Judge Roberts, if you’re confirmed, you will be the first Supreme Court justice in the 21st century. The basic question is this: Will you restrict the personal freedoms we enjoy as Americans or will you expand them?
Another question whether or not he would be an activist. His records are opened. We have all seen them. They are available in the links below, as is the complete transcript of the opening day’s hearings. One need only read the man’s thoughts to see where he stands. There can be no extension of freedoms unless done so through the proper amending process.
Judge Roberts, I hope that you agree America must never return to those days of discrimination and limitations on our freedom.
Now, some of the memos you wrote that I talked to you about in my office many, many years ago in the Reagan administration have raised some serious concerns about where you stand on civil rights, on women’s rights, concerns that have led some of the most respected civil rights groups in America to openly oppose your nomination.
So it’s important for you at this hearing to answer the questions and to tell us your views on civil rights and equality and the role of courts in protecting these basic freedoms.
Sen. Durbin is taking cues from Sen. Kennedy with this statement. No one in their right mind would want to return to that era in this nation’s history. The Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal." The discrimination of the past is repulsive, but we are much further from that ugly past than we are closer to it. To even suggest that Judge Roberts would be in favor of such a return is reprehensible.
And you can find it in the eagerness to authorize the government to pry into our financial records, medical records and library records.
Nice swipe at the administration over the Patriot Act; an act from Congress that the Supreme Court has already upheld. And maybe that is what scares Sen. Durbin. He might be afraid that if the Supreme Court was willing to overlook some things that go against the ever-encompassing privacy right, they might be willing to reverse Roe. Especially when the court wakes up, and realizes its decision has led to the murder of over forty million babies on a misinterpreted amendment, and a serious diversion from what is sound jurisprudence.
But yes, the Democrats tossed the gauntlet down this morning. This confirmation isn’t going to be pretty. They were willing to lower themselves with partisan swipes this morning, and it’s only going to get worse. I do hope Judge Roberts has a strong stomach. He’s going to need it. For that matter, so will many of us who will be watching the events unfold, including the two of us.
http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=1201 (Here is the transcript link)
Special Note: Welcome readers of Republican Jen, and thank you Jen for posting up our link, and giving us the great words of praise. We try to do our best, and we’re happy you recognize our hard work.
http://journals.aol.com/republicanjen/RepublicanJen/
The Bunny ;) & Publius II
As was to be expected, the Left wasted little time in making their opening moves during this morning’s opening statements in Judge Robert’s confirmation hearings. Thomas and I watched it with extreme scrutiny, and we have compiled some of the more retarded comments below. This party is obviously desperate, and even if they do give Judge Roberts an easier time than expected, they will not waste time taking their partisan, jurisprudentially-inept swipes at the man.
And Sen. Kennedy wasted no time either. He took his fair share of swipes at Judge Roberts, and attempted to connect the victims of Katrina to Judge Roberts legal record regarding civil rights.
Every citizen counts. And we must continue to remove barriers that hold back millions of our people. And we must draw strength from our diversity as we compete in a new world of promise and peril.
So the central issue before us in these hearings is whether the Supreme Court will preserve the gains of the past and protect the rights that are indispensable to a modern, more competitive, more equal America.
Commitment to equality for all is not only a matter of fairness and conscience; it’s also our path to sustained national strength and purpose.
The people have a right to know that their government is promoting their interests, not the special interests.
When it comes to the price of gasoline and the safety of prescription drugs, the air we breathe and the water we drink and the food and other products we buy, the people have a right to keep government from intruding into their private lives and most personal decisions.
But the tragedy of Katrina shows in the starkest terms why every American needs an effective national government that will step in to meet urgent needs that individual states and communities cannot meet on their own.
Above all, the people and their Congress must have a voice in decisions that determine the safety of our country and the integrity of our individual rights.
We also are a government of the people in which citizens have a strong voice in the great issues that shape our lives.
Our systems of checks and balances was drawn up in full awareness of the principle that absolute power corrupts absolutely and was designed to make sure that no branch of government becomes so powerful that it can avoid accountability.
Now, that wasn’t taken in its entirety. It’s too damn long, and windbag goes on for another couple of paragraphs. Point being is has already set his plate. He’s going after Roberts on his civil rights issues. He’s also sending a message as to what his agenda is, which is bigger government, and Ol’ Uncle Teddy doesn’t want some young upstart—someone infinitely more qualified than himself—taking away his "precious."
Kennedy was not the only fool present this morning. To our readers—regular and new—I present to you Sen. Biden:
Judge, as you know, there’s a genuine intellectual debate going on in our country today over whether the Constitution is going to continue to expand the protections of the right to privacy, continue to empower the federal government to protect the powerless.
And it’s a big debate. All you got to do is turn to any Web site: American Enterprise Institute, left, right, center. It’s a gigantic debate. Hadn’t occurred, as you and I both know, and my colleagues know, in the last 70 years. It has not been this contentious; not just the politics but the debate, the intellectual debate.
For 70 years, there’s been a consensus, Judge, on our Supreme Court on these issues of privacy and protecting the powerless. And this consensus has been fully, fully embraced, in my view, by the American people.
But there are those who strongly disagree with the consensus, as is their right. And they seek to unravel the consensus.
And, Judge, you are in the unenviable position, as we talked about in my office, of being right in the middle of this fundamentally important debate.
And quite frankly, Judge, we need to know on which side of that divide you stand, for whoever replaces Justice Rehnquist, as well as Justice O’Connor, will play a pivotal role in this debate and for tens of millions of the American people, this is no academic exercise.
This is just the beginning, but without invoking Roe, Sen. Biden is invoking Roe. The far-reaching right to privacy—a right that does not exist ANYWHERE in our Constitution—was central to the decision in Roe; a precedent hammered home in Griswold.
Judge, I believe in a Constitution — as our Supreme Court’s first great chief who has been mentioned today, Justice Marshall, said in 1819, and I quote, a Constitution intended to endure for ages to come and consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.
That’s the Constitution I believe in. That’s the way I think we should look at the Constitution.
At its core, the Constitution envisions ever-increasing protections for human liberty and dignity for all its citizens and a national government empowered — empowered — to deal with these unanticipated crises.
Interesting this point. It is almost as though he is making the case that judicial activism is all right in his book. And I do hate to break the news to Sen. Biden that the Constitution envisions no such thing. The Framers assembled the basic freedoms of human beings within the Constitution, and did not create an empowered government. They limited the scope of the government for the sheer reason that they—the Founding Fathers—knew that a strong central government, like that in England, would trample their newly-founded rights. A separation of powers was needed, and created.
What is more amusing are certain things that Ol’ Slow Joe brings up where he’s flat, dead wrong on.
In 1965 the Constitution told the state to get out of married couples’ bedrooms by striking down a state law prohibiting married couples from using contraceptions.
This decision—Griswold—ripped away the rights that a State has under the 10th Amendment, and the high court did it again in Lawrence.
Judge, I don’t believe the Constitution — I don’t believe in a constitution where individuals could, for very long, have accomplished what we did had we read it in such a narrow way.
It’s not a narrow interpretation, Senator. It’s the right interpretation. The Left, for too long, has injected into the Constitution their broad interpretations, and in doing so they have severely injured the Constitution. One cannot broaden the scope of freedom without infringing on other along the way, and denying them their enumerated rights.
This next piece is from Sen. Feingold, and in my opinion is probably the most priceless piece of the opening statements. He makes no bones about what he expects from Judge Roberts.
So, like Senator Grassley, I am interested in this nominee’s views on a number of cases. I don’t think that getting his reaction to those decisions will commit him to vote in a certain way in a future case. After all, it is not that past case he will be deciding, but a different one.
Even the current justices, whose views on specific cases are well-known, since they either wrote or joined one opinion or another, do not have to recuse themselves from a future case just because we know what they think of a crucial precedent in that case.
So I am looking for Judge Roberts to be forthcoming with this committee about his views. So to show the Senate’s role in this process the respect it deserves, he should make every effort to be responsive.
He is sending a clear message that he will be opposed to Judge Roberts should Canon 5 be invoked by him. He wants answers, damn it! He wants the truth! And it is obvious that Sen. Feingold misses the point of an appealed case. A judge, in essence, is deciding the past case. Should he rule against the original or appealed decision, he is changing the initial outcome. If a murderer is convicted, and his appeals still uphold the conviction, and the Supreme Court hears the case and rule against the other courts, the entire verdict is overturned. He is a free man. So, yes, Judge Roberts would be deciding the past case as well as the current one.
In memo after memo, his writing were highly ideological and sometimes dismissive of the views of others.
I do, however, recognize that this is a different time and he has been nominated to play a different kind of role than he played in those early Reagan years.
So, frankly, I will be looking for a somewhat different John Roberts than the John Roberts of 1985.
As I have a chance to ask questions about topics such as executive power, civil liberties, voting rights, the death penalty and other important issues, I hope to see how his views have developed and changed over the years.
Of course, the best evidence of this would be some more recent writings of the nominee.
But the administration has steadfastly refused a reasonable request for documents pertaining to a small fraction of the cases in which he participated as deputy solicitor general during the administration of President George H.W. Bush.
I find this refusal very troubling in light of the ample precedent for releasing such documents in this kind of proceeding and the weakness of any claim that the release would damage the litigating position of the United States over 12 years later.
I also must say candidly, the refusal gives rise to a reasonable inference that the administration has something to hide here.
And here, Sen. Feingold tosses the gauntlet down, and demands that Roberts had better have changed his ideological views since 1985. Please, Senator. He is a judge, and a damn good one to boot. I doubt that his views have changed much, if at all. But the role of a judge is not to institute his views, but what is sound within the law. As Judge Roberts eloquently used the analogy of an umpire, it is correct. A judge interprets the law. He does not make it up, or inject his personal preferences into the decision.
Be patient, folks. We’ve got two more to go through. Next up his Sen. Schumer. And I still swear he’s sharing a pickled brain with Sen. Kennedy.
To me, the pivotal question which will determine my vote is this: Are you within the mainstream — albeit the conservative mainstream — or are you an ideologue who will seek to use the court to impose your views upon us as certain judges, past and present on the left and on the right, have attempted to do?
The American people need to learn a lot more about you before they and we can answer that question.
You are, without question, an impressive, accomplished and brilliant lawyer. You’re a decent and honorable man. You have a remarkable resume. There are those who say your outstanding and accomplished resume should be enough, that you should simply promise to be fair and that we should confirm.
I disagree. To me, the most important function of these hearings — because it’s the most important qualification for a nominee to the Supreme Court — is to understand your legal philosophy and judicial ideology.
They’re pretty plain-spoken, Senator. We, at the Asylum, have seen the same documents that you have. Roberts is no more out of the mainstream than the average Joe six-pack. Compared to your party, he’s extreme because you moonbats are on the extreme fringe of your party; further than Michael Moore and George Soros put together.
To those who say ideology doesn’t matter, they should take their quarrels to President Bush. I began to argue that a nominee’s judicial ideology was crucial four years ago. Then, I was almost alone.
Aw, man. Give me a break, and give it a rest, already. Gore was already screwed in that election, and had the Left just simply let it go, this would have been settled. Instead, they threw the biggest, televised hissy fit for the world to see, and Gore proceeded to drag the case up to the Supreme Court. Lord, get over yourselves already.
Some have argued that questioning a nominee about his or her personal views of the Constitution or about decided cases indicates prejudgment about a future case.
It does nothing of the sort.
Most nominees who have come before us, including Justice Ginsburg, whose precedents you often cite, have answered such questions.
Contrary to popular mythology, when she was a nominee, Justice Ginsburg gave lengthy answers to scores of questions about constitutional law and decided cases, including individual autonomy, the First Amendment, criminal law, choice, discrimination and gender equality.
Although there were places she said she did not want to answer, she spoke about dozens of Supreme Court cases and often gave her unvarnished impressions, suggesting that some were problematic in their reasoning while others were eloquent in their vindication of important constitutional principles.
See why I took the pickled brain swipe at him? Justice Ginsburg refused to answer over 60 pointed questions, ranging on a variety of issues including abortion, privacy, and even same-sex relationships and marriages. She flat-out refused to answer them, citing Canon 5 of legal ethics. Judge Roberts should be allowed the same leeway, and bullies like Chuckie Schumer should sit back, shut up, and suck it up.
And now, we move on to everyone’s favorite Senator. Yes, it is the one that slandered our troops a few months back. I present Sen. Durbin.
Judge Roberts, if you’re confirmed, you will be the first Supreme Court justice in the 21st century. The basic question is this: Will you restrict the personal freedoms we enjoy as Americans or will you expand them?
Another question whether or not he would be an activist. His records are opened. We have all seen them. They are available in the links below, as is the complete transcript of the opening day’s hearings. One need only read the man’s thoughts to see where he stands. There can be no extension of freedoms unless done so through the proper amending process.
Judge Roberts, I hope that you agree America must never return to those days of discrimination and limitations on our freedom.
Now, some of the memos you wrote that I talked to you about in my office many, many years ago in the Reagan administration have raised some serious concerns about where you stand on civil rights, on women’s rights, concerns that have led some of the most respected civil rights groups in America to openly oppose your nomination.
So it’s important for you at this hearing to answer the questions and to tell us your views on civil rights and equality and the role of courts in protecting these basic freedoms.
Sen. Durbin is taking cues from Sen. Kennedy with this statement. No one in their right mind would want to return to that era in this nation’s history. The Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal." The discrimination of the past is repulsive, but we are much further from that ugly past than we are closer to it. To even suggest that Judge Roberts would be in favor of such a return is reprehensible.
And you can find it in the eagerness to authorize the government to pry into our financial records, medical records and library records.
Nice swipe at the administration over the Patriot Act; an act from Congress that the Supreme Court has already upheld. And maybe that is what scares Sen. Durbin. He might be afraid that if the Supreme Court was willing to overlook some things that go against the ever-encompassing privacy right, they might be willing to reverse Roe. Especially when the court wakes up, and realizes its decision has led to the murder of over forty million babies on a misinterpreted amendment, and a serious diversion from what is sound jurisprudence.
But yes, the Democrats tossed the gauntlet down this morning. This confirmation isn’t going to be pretty. They were willing to lower themselves with partisan swipes this morning, and it’s only going to get worse. I do hope Judge Roberts has a strong stomach. He’s going to need it. For that matter, so will many of us who will be watching the events unfold, including the two of us.
http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=1201 (Here is the transcript link)
Special Note: Welcome readers of Republican Jen, and thank you Jen for posting up our link, and giving us the great words of praise. We try to do our best, and we’re happy you recognize our hard work.
http://journals.aol.com/republicanjen/RepublicanJen/
The Bunny ;) & Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 2:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home