Roberts wouldn't answer questions involving precedent at the 2003 hearing

[bigtree]

Democrats Seek to Build Case Against Bush Court Nominee . . .

. . . at the hearings in 2003, Roberts refused to identify three Supreme Court decisions still in force with which he disagreed. It wouldn't be ``appropriate for a judicial nominee to criticize binding precedent,'' Roberts told the Judiciary Committee.

and then there are memos he wrote while working on that legal brief urging the Supreme Court to overturn its 1973 decision legalizing abortion nationwide.

Democrats may seek memos Roberts wrote as a Justice Department lawyer in the administration of President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father. During that period, Roberts signed a legal brief urging the Supreme Court to overturn its 1973 decision legalizing abortion nationwide.

The Bush administration refused to give the Senate copies of memos another nominee, Miguel A. Estrada, wrote when he served in a similar Justice Department job. Estrada withdrew from consideration for the same appeals court in Washington where Roberts sits after Democrats blocked votes on the nomination.

In blocking Estrada, Democrats cited his unwillingness to answer questions about his judicial philosophy and the government's refusal to provide his memos. Schumer said he finds a parallel with Roberts. ``I can't think of another nominee other than Miguel Estrada who is less forthcoming,'' Schumer said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aS88w9OTqRqc&refer=top_world_news

[janedoe]

1. Does that count his helping to set a precedent in 2000?

He helped to get the FL vote recount stopped ...and a president appointed.

I have a problem with this president setting.

[Walt Starr]

4. No precedent was set in the 2000 decision in Bush v. Gore

The slimes left that as an out. It cannot be considered as precedent.

That means that under identical circumstances where the participants were reversed, they would be free to decide precisely the opposite way and not overturn the original decision.

[bryant69]

2. That might be a good linfe of attack

Why is President Bush's nominee afraid to answer simple questions?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[bigtree]

3. It worked before, and we know how many secrets this administration has

Of course, this is just one avenue of attack that we can take.

At the very least, he should be required to lay his judicial philosophy on the table, without broad qualifications.