THIS IS INSANE!

[peaches2003]

Does anyone really think that the Founding Fathers meant 'advise and consent' to be what is going on with John Roberts???? Biden asks him if anyone has a 'right' to say he doesn't want a feeding tube, etc. JR says he CAN'T answer as it might come up before the court!!

THIS IS NUTS! Why even have hearings? Don't you think 'advise and consent' means that the public should have SOME idea what the hell the candidate believes? This guy has been a judge for 2 years and has no track record, but is allowed to sit there and refuse to answer everything????

[leftofthedial]

1. Judge Roberts, what is your name?

"As that question might come up in court, I feel that I must respectfully decline to answer."

[LSK]

8. LOL

Jon Stewart, we are writing your material here on DU now!

:rofl:

[Boomer]

2. Can we really gripe about this?

I've heard that Ruth Ginsberg used the same tactic during her confirmation hearings. If it worked for her without howls of protests from Democrats, then there's certainly precedent for Roberts to do the same.

[Orrex]

5. Similarly

If Republicans griped about Ginsberg at the time (and the so-called "Ginsberg Precedent," then they should gripe equally when Roberts pulls the same evasions.

[rockymountaindem]

6. Care to back that up with a link?

The righties have been doing a lot of lying re: the so-called "Ginsberg precedent". Don't fall for it.

[Boomer]

12. Based on NPR interviews heard while driving to work...

So I can't cite a specific source, but I remember assorted commentators mentioning that Ginsberg was advised that she could refuse to answer questions and that she did indeed do so repeatedly.

I'm not on a soapbox about this, but it did make me wonder if this is one of those political hollers that we all make -- regardless of party -- when the shoe is on the other foot.

[glitch]

14. Ginsberg had a long judicial record to judge her from. And she answered

most of the questions, just not ones on the docket at that point in time.
Big difference, surprised no one at NPR pointed it out.(NOT):eyes:

[Boomer]

15. Thanks

I appreciate your insights into that difference between the two situations.

[bloom]

16. A lot of those NPR "interviews" are crap

esp. when it's David Brooks (or a similar person) sitting around spouting off his "opinions" (really the current talking points).

[still_one]

7. who are we kidding

in 2000 and 2004 people knew the stakes with the supreme court, and didn't even think it was worth their while to vote

[leftofthedial]

10. apples and oranges

this is not the same Senate, not the same president, not the same nominee, not the same issues on the table. This is a profoundly political proecess, not some sort of court in which nominee "A" is allowed to set a procedural precedent for all nominees who follow.

Why should WE bend over backwards to conduct ourselves according to some abstract notion of fair play?

This unwillingness to play political hardball is why the left gets its ass whipped routinely.

[hunter]

11. That's utter bullshit.

Ginsberg's opinions were everywhere, and everybody knew what they were. She hadn't spent her entire career slithering around like a snake in the dark waiting to seize its prize.

[Boomer]

13. Okay

I was asking, not telling. I'm not that versed on SCOTUS history.

[hunter]

19. Sorry. It wasn't you.

Roberts creeps me out. My political activism began with Reagan's dirty defeat of Jimmy Carter, and Roberts was a member of Reagan's scumbag crew.

Turns out the Reagan administration theme,"It's Morning in America," looks a lot like New Orleans after Katrina.

I think deep in his hard little heart, the Good Little Boy Roberts feels the Sins of Ommision eating away at his soul; that's all you really need to explain his weird affect.

[stillcool]

3. ..can't watch anymore...

the only conclusion i can draw from this little Q & A, is that Roberts is gifted at playing softball.

[izzie]

4. They seem to have taken humans off the court. Cold man Roberts

I would love to see men who have worked with real people not another man from the so called 'club' I have bad feeling about this cold fish they are going to put on. Just to many insiders running the whole place and none to much in line with every day people or truth. My way of thinking any how.

[politick]

18. I meet a lot of people my age

(late 20s) who are sensible and liberal minded, who are willing to give Roberts a chance. Who say, "I hve a feeling he won't turn out too bad."

Unfortunately and sadly, "giving people a chance" when they're borne out of the BushCo Neocon hell-oven, is not something we can afford to do. Roberts looks relatively clean and harmless, and, because he has no history (besides the documents the WH won't release under bullshit client-lawyer privilege) that's the impression people may get. But why would they nominate this guy, and why would Focus on the Family et al, be so excited about him, if they didn't know exactly what they were going to get? This is a lifetime appointment for a hand-picked, 50 year-old conservative. While I'd like to be open minded, America has given these monsters too many chances.

That said Earl Warren and David Souter did not exactly follow in their apparent mold, and John Paul Stevens was aconsidered a conservative, too.

[gratuitous]

9. You are correct

Would YOU hire someone for a lifetime job who can't be fired without a thorough check of his background and record, and who wouldn't answer half the questions during his interview? Nobody in their right mind would, yet that's what the Senate is being asked to sign off for with Roberts. The administration hasn't provided the committee with Roberts' full record, the nominee is ducking questions that might fill in some of those holes, and the Republicans are actively aiding and abetting the charade.

Republicans like to say that they want to run government more like a business, somehow implying some kind of equivalency (which doesn't exist) between the functions of government and industry. But it's a crock, because not one of them would hire someone for life under the circumstances that they're accepting for a Supreme Court nominee.

[in_cog_ni_to]

17. F-I-L-I-B-U-S-T-E-R. As a RW talking head said yesterday,

"The republicans have pulled the wool over the Democrat's eyes." Yes indeed. The repukes are just loving this. They know there's not a DAMN thing the Dems can do except FILIBUSTER. Hatch says the Democrats are just wasting their time questioning Roberts, which means he will never answer their questions. Period.

If the Dems don't filibuster after this BULLSHIT, SOMETHING IS WRONG!:grr: I've never seen anything like this. These people are so damn corrupt. Our Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves.

THE DEMOCRATS SHOULD FILIBUSTER BOTH JUDGES. WE ALREADY KNOW THE REPLACEMENT FOR O'CONNOR WILL BE JUST AS BAD AS ROBERTS.

SHUT THE DAMN GOVERNMENT DOWN! IF THIS ISN'T IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO DO THAT, WHAT THE HELL IS???