The dishonesty that is involved in Roberts' refusal to answer

[cornermouse]

is quite alarming. Its a subtle form of dishonesty, but its still dishonesty.

As a parent, it seems to me he's also setting a bad example for any school children who are watching because their teachers gave them to it as a class assignment.

If he was really worthy of becoming the Chief Justice he would answer honestly. Of course, if he was really worthy of becoming the Chief Justice, Bush would never have nominated him.

[LSparkle]

1. He's so adept at avoiding direct answers, it's breathtaking

He can go on and on very artfully about WHY he can't answer the f***ing questions, eating up the members' time ... Total smoke and mirrors.

[acmejack]

3. He was a good lawyer.

The kind like Edwards, good enough to argue before the Supremes. The kind that is worth $6 million.

[shraby]

2. Those are called lies of omission.

[cornermouse]

5. His lies of omission are shouting out what he would do if

he gets in.

[AirAmFan]

4. Has any other nominee used the words "canon of judicial ethics" as often?

In one of his many question dodges, he even referred to an advisory opionion interpreting the "canon of judicial ethics" as preventing a nominee from answering questions at a Senate confirmation hearing!

What nonsense! OF COURSE, there's a pending case somewhere involving ANY CONCEIVABLE precedent or line of legal thinking. If Roberts's interpretation were correct, the Senate may as well give up its "advice and consent" role entirely.

[cynatnite]

6. Come on, John, you can say it...

You hate the ACLU, don't ya'. They need to goad him into losing his cool

[Dr Fate]

7. A DEM needs to say: "Watch how easy this is, Mr. Roberts...

"I believe that the correct decision was made in Roe v. Wade."

"See- its easy to make a direct statement"

"Now- it is your turn. There is nothing to be ashamed of, is there?- just say, into the camera whether you agree with Roe v. Wade or not. I agree with it. How about you?"