Re: Roberts... what am I missing?

[LuckyTheDog]

I simply don't see why Senators can't just say this:

"OK, judge... you are a constitutional lawyer, right? You have argued before the court and been a clerk there, right? Well, then, answer this: based on your observation and study, are there any USSC decisions of the past several decades that you think were just dead wrong and should be overturned?"

Why would that be out of bounds?

:shrug:

[SteppingRazor]

1. Because it would bias possible future decisions.

At least, that's the excuse. If he offers his opinion on previous rulings, if a new case should come before the court which deals with that ruling, he can't go into it with perceived objectivity.

[Orrex]

2. He would answer:

"I can't comment on that because it pertains to cases that might come before the court during my term."

He's answered other questions that way, and he sure as hell wouldn't answer your question in anything like a straightforward or candid way.

[LuckyTheDog]

3. I get that

But I just don't get why Senators should not be able to even ask if he has his mind already made up about certain issues that might come before the court.

[SoCalDem]

4. Have you ever had a job interview.....

where you refused to answer questions that pertained to the job you were being considered for??

Say..you are interviewing for a position as a math teacher, but you refused to answer any questiopns about math or your teaching qualifications..you only would answer questions about say...baking cookies or changing the oil in your car??

Would you get the job??

[EnfantTerrible]

5. It's the Doug Henning playbook

Give them the "illusion" of impartial, open minded and fair, future judicial rulings.

[4dsc]

6. He's already admitted he's a rightwinger

what else do you need from Robert's. He clearly stated he would base his decisions upon the "original intent" of the founding fathers. Original intent is nothing more than code for "I'M A CONSERVATIVE RIGHTWINGER WHO'S ONLY GOAL IS TO OVERTURN EVERY LIBERAL DECISION OF THE PAST YEARS!"..

And why there's not going to be a filibuster is beyond me!!

[LuckyTheDog]

7. There should be a filibuster

And the price for ending it should be Roberts' willingness to answer yes or know to the question I posed -- followed by a list of the specific cases, if the answer is yes.

[papau]

8. Cute poem summarizes hearing to date

http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/

Must the Court bless smut and other such vices?

I can’t say much but: stare decisis!


May a President jail any and all in a crisis?

I can’t say much but: stare decisis!


Will the Court defer or will it despise us?

I can’t say much but: stare decisis!


Is privacy protected in all shapes and sizes?

I can’t say much but: stare decisis!


Are your views like Bob Bork’s or more like Brandeis’?

I can’t say much but: stare decisis!


Will you ever say anything at all to surprise us?

I can’t say much but: stare decisis!


Do you still favor term limits—a time when you’ll go??

No.