NationStates Jolt Archive

With the impending review hearings of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, the Senate's judiciary committee is going through all the typical committee rule setting--nothing out of the ordinary. But there's something recently decided about the format of the hearings that I'm suspicious about. There are 17 committee members, plus the chairman for a total of 18. It has been negotiated by the committee's Democrats that each member will be allowed a 10 minute opening statement before the questioning and review gets underway--coming to approximately 3 hours.

I'm having a difficult time seeing why this is even remotely necessary or appropriate. The purpose of the review hearings is suppose to be to determine the nominee's ability to faithfully and competently fulfill the duties of the office for which he is nominated. How do 18-ten minute monologues by the Senators in any way advance this interest?

The only thing I can think is that it's political posturing--the Democrats seem to know that Roberts is as solid a choice they could hope to get from a Republican White House (which doesn't change the fact that any self-respecting Democratic President wouldn't even nominate him for garbage duty). There's not a lot they can critisize him about, but they still have to appease their liberal constituents and money makers, so the opening statements, though completely irrelelvant to the process, are just a way for them to get on their soap boxes, give them each a ten minute speech on how Bush divides the country and the virtues of Roe v. Wade that'll give face time on the evening news, and appease their more radical support groups so they can go back and say "see, we tried! so keep donating money!"

Since each Senator will have time to confer with Roberts prior to the committee hearings, and since thousands of Congressional staff and special-interest groups are pouring over every minute detail of Robert's life since before conception with a fine-toothed comb (incidentally, nobody's record is so perfect that you can't find SOMETHING wrong with it to complain about), I really think that the honorable and appropriate thing for the Senators to do would be to keep the committee hearing what it is suppose to be--a public evaluation of Judge Robert's ability to competently and faithfully fulfill the duties of the position for which he is nominated--and not turn it into a politicized, self-serving spectacle designed to appease and manipulate a few vocal interest groups.

Just give the man a fair shake.

So did that little issue with the Federal think/influence tank ever get resolved? Or is that yet ANOTHER issue where somebody "forgets" or "can't recall" or "doesn't remember" something and it's no big deal?

Just wondering. Maybe there's a link on it.

With the impending review hearings of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, the Senate's judiciary committee is going through all the typical committee rule setting--nothing out of the ordinary. But there's something recently decided about the format of the hearings that I'm suspicious about. There are 17 committee members, plus the chairman for a total of 18. It has been negotiated by the committee's Democrats that each member will be allowed a 10 minute opening statement before the questioning and review gets underway--coming to approximately 3 hours.

I'm having a difficult time seeing why this is even remotely necessary or appropriate. The purpose of the review hearings is suppose to be to determine the nominee's ability to faithfully and competently fulfill the duties of the office for which he is nominated. How do 18-ten minute monologues by the Senators in any way advance this interest?

The only thing I can think is that it's political posturing--the Democrats seem to know that Roberts is as solid a choice they could hope to get from a Republican White House (which doesn't change the fact that any self-respecting Democratic President wouldn't even nominate him for garbage duty). There's not a lot they can critisize him about, but they still have to appease their liberal constituents and money makers, so the opening statements, though completely irrelelvant to the process, are just a way for them to get on their soap boxes, give them each a ten minute speech on how Bush divides the country and the virtues of Roe v. Wade that'll give face time on the evening news, and appease their more radical support groups so they can go back and say "see, we tried! so keep donating money!"

Since each Senator will have time to confer with Roberts prior to the committee hearings, and since thousands of Congressional staff and special-interest groups are pouring over every minute detail of Robert's life since before conception with a fine-toothed comb (incidentally, nobody's record is so perfect that you can't find SOMETHING wrong with it to complain about), I really think that the honorable and appropriate thing for the Senators to do would be to keep the committee hearing what it is suppose to be--a public evaluation of Judge Robert's ability to competently and faithfully fulfill the duties of the position for which he is nominated--and not turn it into a politicized, self-serving spectacle designed to appease and manipulate a few vocal interest groups.

Just give the man a fair shake.

I agree with you. The time may come when confirming a justice takes a full year and no person can be found who can pass the screen. This makes Diogenes with his lantern look like a joke.

They have forgotten what the purpose is - to find an acceptable (not perfect) candidate for the bench. The mesh of the screen is too fine, none can pass.

Obstructionism, just for the sake of it, doesn't serve the country well. That can be applied to whichever party is in the minority. But the Dem's are taking it too far this time.

Just remember, the Republicans agreed to this, so they must want that 10 minutes for something too.

Just remember, the Republicans agreed to this, so they must want that 10 minutes for something too.
No kidding--and since the Republicans have the majority, it's not like they couldn't have told the Democrats to shove it with the opening statements.

Here are some things you have to realize, Brians Test. One--Senators, regardless of political affiliation, are media whores, and most of the time, individual Senators don't get on tv enough to suit their egos. Add in that this is the first Supreme Court nomination in 11 years, and that the hearings will be in the media spotlight, which means gavel to gavel, Natalee Holloway style coverage, and it's a surprise that they actually managed to limit themselves to ten minutes each.

Secondly--it's not all that smart to act as though the Democrats are the ones behind this move when it's the Republicans who control both the Senate and the committee. Your partisanship can lead you to some ridiculous conclusions at times, and this is one of those cases.

Third--and this is your politics coming into play again--the more we learn about Roberts, the more we discover that he doesn't believe in civil rights, voting rights, privacy rights and equal rights. He is not a good choice for this court, although he'll probably get confirmed.