Wow! A Supreme Court Chief Justice who answers only

[cornermouse]

republican's questions. I can hardly wait... :thumbsdown:

[napi21]

1. Naw, that was a cheap shot. I've been watching this stuff all day,

and Roberts has answered a lot of questions from the Dems too. He refused to answer those that asked for a direct opinion on an issue that was likely to come before the court soon, but I would expect that response from any Dem nominee as well.

It is difficult to tell exactly how conservative he really is, and that's by design. Playin a little devils advocate here, would you really want him to say "sure, Roe is for sure settled law, and I won't vote to overturn it", only to have a bunch of Pub RW nuts vote against him, then risk one of the real radicals on Shrub's short list?

So far, he appears much more intelligent and capable than Thomas ever did, and that's the onlu SC nominee hearings that I personally watched and can have an opinion. As far as I can tell right now, Roberts doesn't seem to be a radical. WE know any Shrub nominee is going to be conservative, so I think it's worth paying attention to the rest of the hearings, and give this guy a reasonable assessment.

[cornermouse]

2. He is intelligent. He is also a radical.

Make no mistake, there is nothing conservative about this individual.

[Pepperbelly]

3. how do you know that?

Advocacy papers do not necessarily speak to personally held opinions. It's more like this is "what the client wants so how does the law support that proposition" rather than a "I believe thus and such."

[cornermouse]

8. And if he didn't agree with those positions he could have walked

away at any time.

We're not talking about a public defense attorney who has to put up with and find a way to sincerely defend a client that he doesn't like or agree with. We're not talking about someone who was trying to scrape up clients. We're talking about someone who is deeply involved in republican politics. We're talking about someone who, if he was dealing with a client whose proposition was repugnant to his ethics or morals, could have simply said "Find another attorney. I'm out of here."

[Pepperbelly]

16. Would that even be ethical?

I don't know if a lawyer can just do that.

[Ms. Toad]

10. That has been my general presumption,

having been in the position of arguing for clients whose beliefs I do not share.

I am troubled, however, by what has been reported as frequent use of "I" in such briefs. For someone reportedly as polished as Roberts is, writing in that style is incredibly careless at a minimum. Were I questioning Roberts, that is what I would look for in his writings and would press him on.

Attorneys are paid to be advocates - it is generally an ethical violation not to advocate zealously on behalf of one's clients. It is not required (and is generally very bad form) to argue "I believe," "I feel," etc. While I might slip if I really did philosophically concur with my client's perspective, I find it hard to believe that kind of slip would be made if I were philosophically neutral or opposed to my client's position.

[Pepperbelly]

11. Fair enough ...

I had not looked at it quite that way. The use of "I" could be troubling. Also, in that same context, would it matter what sort of document we were examing? If they were brain-storming back and forth in writing regarding the issues, would the language be as signficant?

Just curious ... I mean, would a "I believe that we could slip that in under the Distended Gasbag Rule" or something like that ...

[Ms. Toad]

22. My understanding is,

that several such statements were included in court briefs along the lines of "I believe the court should..." (Which is different from saying, "The law requires" or "My client requests" or even "The court should") but I haven't found and plowed through his court filings.

In many instances the law is flexible - two (or more) different results are consistent with other court decisions. You pick the side your client is on and make the strongest case possible that the law requires (or permits) what your client is seeking. A good attorney can easily make convincing arguments on both sides of the issue, regardless of his or her personal beliefs - that's part of solid legal training.

I am capable of arguing both for and against the imposition of the death penalty. Because my opposition to the death penalty is such a core issue for me I can easily imagine myself slipping into emotional rather than legal arguments - or arguing in the first person - in arguments opposing the death penalty. It is inconceivable, however, that I would slip when arguing in favor of the death penalty and say (for example), "I believe that the fact that counsel slept through witness testimony did not render his assistance ineffective, because counsel did not sleep through crucial parts of the testimony." (As a practical matter, I refuse to argue in favor of the death penalty.)

It is those slips, where Roberts apparently let his professional facade slide that I would expect to be informative of his true feelings. (I would not necessarily say this about every attorney, since it is very hard to train "I" based arguments out of young attorneys - particularly when arguing cases that align with their passion. From all accounts I have read, however, Roberts is a skilled appellate attorney who has argued both sides of many issues. He should not be making such slips - and when he does it may be indicative of strong feelings his legal skills didn't quite overcome.

[many a good man]

4. Opus Dei

'Nuff said!

[Pepperbelly]

14. Hardly ... say more, please.

Here is where I am in relation to this ...

I fully realize that Bush will not nominate someone that I think should actually be on the court. They are going to be someone who would not be on even my longest list. However, it is he who gets to nominate. So I am left with looking at where the nominees sits on the continuum of suckiness. Do they suck just a little or do they suck so hard as to suck the very light, life, and love from the entire room when they enter?

So, Opus Dei. Are you saying that he is a member?

If he is, what does that mean specifically?

[many a good man]

18. On the far right end of the "Continuum of Suckiness"

He's precisely the most dangerous nominee because he's NOT a foam-at-the-mouth, right-tard lunatic. He's too damn SMART, a lawyer's lawyer. He'll be the first CJ to find stare decisis in the Old Testament!

Opus Dei: Arlen Specter should make Roberts disrobe in the committee room and show us his lash marks....

Corporal Mortification in Opus Dei

[stray cat]

6. Thanks for an objective informed opinion.

Keep watching and keep posting for those of us who can't watch as closely. Thanks again.

[Kingshakabobo]

9. I bet he answered a few questions the "right way" in private when...

they "vetted" him.

That's what bugs me the most about this whole process. Bush's gang gets to ask any question they please and they get to make a decision based on his answers or lack there of. No mention of that in the MSM.

[calico1]

13. I remember when Souter was being qustioned in

his confirmation hearing. He refused to answere how he felt about Roe v. Wade and that had a lot of abortion rights groups all angry and upset. And look how he turned out. I am not saying this guy is good or not good. But Supreme Court Justices do not always please the Presidents that apppoint them. Blackmun was appointed by a Republican and he turned out to be one of the most Liberal we have ever had. The feeling I get so far is he does not give me the creeps like Scalia and Thomas did. I could be wrong of course. But that's how I feel so far.

[Atman]

21. Anderson Cooper pointed out the absurdity of the process...

This is perhaps the most important job interview in the world, and the best strategy to land the job is to not answer questions. Would you nail that good job as Big Corp. if you told he HR people that you wouldn't answer their interview questions, because you might have to actually do your job afterwards, and they'd have to wait and see what you'd do when the time comes?

What the fuck kind of process is this?

[punpirate]

5. Has any committee member...

... Republican or Democrat, asked him about his apparent indifference to ethical rules of conduct with regard to sitting on a case in which the administration was a party while he was being interviewed by the administration for the SC position?

That one thing should sink him. The Republicans destroyed Abe Fortas in `68 for much less.

[shraby]

7. Russ Feingold did, but I didn't hear the answer.

[Freedom Socialist]

12. Hmmm...

I'd say he's better than Scalia, Thomas, or that racist fuck who just got his one way ticket to Hell, but I fail to see how smelling better than three turds is much of an accomplishment.

[Pepperbelly]

15. Good point ...

see my post #14 regarding the "continuum of suckiness" of nominees I wouldn't choose myself.

[stepnw1f]

17. Yeah... Another Partisan Hack

Great... and he's gonna be the Chief Justice?

[Sgent]

19. Personally

I thought his answer to questions on his judicial philosophy were quite relavent, and possibly indicates he's not another Scalia/Thomas.

The fact that he refuses to identify himself as an originalist or textualist, and uses whatever philosophy makes the most sense for a given case, was encouraging.

Also the fact that he so strongly supports Brown v. Board, often seen as a hallmark of judicial activism by those on the right, indicates he believe constitutional interpretation can be fluid. He also refused to say that "legislating from the bench" was wrong if looking at a given argument in a given case.

The more I see of this guy, the more impressed I am. Would I have nominated him? Absolutely not. That being said, given him vs. Ms. Brown or the like I think he's much better.

[Vinnie From Indy]

20. Trust Me! If BushCo. Inc. Wants Roberts, America Doesn't

Have these guys given you ONE SINGLE FRICKIN REASON to believe that their entire agenda isn't based on greed, evil and opportunity? Roberts isn't an anomaly! He isn't a mistake! BushCo. wants to sew up the judiciary. The final piece to the puzzle if you will. The situation reminds me of the famous scorpion and frog story. It's their nature, don't be fooled.

Don't the Opus Dei followers wear a barbed leg band for a few hours a day? Is Roberts an Opus Dei?