Judge Roberts)Nominee's Pressed on End-of-Life Care(&separation of powers)

[papau]

August 10, 2005
Nominee Is Pressed on End-of-Life Care(& separation of powers)
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
WASHINGTON, Aug. 9 - <snip>"I asked whether it was constitutional for Congress to intervene in an end-of-life case with a specific remedy," Mr. Wyden said in a telephone interview after the hourlong meeting. "His answer was, 'I am concerned with judicial independence. Congress can prescribe standards, but when Congress starts to act like a court and prescribe particular remedies in particular cases, Congress has overstepped its bounds.' "

The answer, which Mr. Wyden said his aides wrote down word-for-word, would seem to put Judge Roberts at odds with leading Republicans in Congress, including the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, and the House majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay, who both led the charge for Congressional intervention in the Schiavo case this spring. Mr. DeLay said at the time that the federal judiciary had "run amok."<snip>

Also Tuesday, abortion-rights advocates and opponents traded barbs, and national television advertisements, about Judge Roberts's involvement in a 1971 Supreme Court case, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, that involved Operation Rescue, a group that staged protests at abortion clinics.

The Bray case unfolded while Judge Roberts was working for the office of the solicitor general under the first President Bush, and he filed a friend-of-the-court brief that argued, successfully, that a century-old statute designed to quell the Ku Klux Klan could not be used to quash the abortion clinic protests.<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/10/politics/10confirm.html

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. Granted, there is a lot of stink around but....

Does anyone else smell yet another recess appointment in the air?

[papau]

2. No - unless adoption facts blow up I doubt we can stop him. n/t

n/t

[TaleWgnDg]

3. Uuummm, Wyden doesn't sound very bright. Or perhaps it's the

.
Uuummm, Wyden doesn't sound very bright. Or perhaps it's the New York Times reporter (Sheryl Gay Stolberg) who's a dim bulb. And, Ms. Stolberg is certainly no lawyer! Overall, it's a lousy article, written by someone who has no clue as to what's at issue or what the parties are discussing. Sad, really. Further, it's no damn surprise that this article (last page, bottom of page) contains serious error corrections of past articles authored by Stolberg.

Shame on the New York Times!

.