NationStates Jolt Archive

How is it that the Democratic leadership in the U.S. can criticize the Bush Administration for not setting a finish date for something as complicated and fluid as a war, yet they're unwilling to set a finish date for something as simple as a supreme court confirmation hearing?

Also, at the Democratic leadership's insistance, each Senate judiciary committee will be allocated time for a 10-minute opening statement. There are 18 members of the committee, meaning that there will be three hours of opening statements by the Senators. Since the purpose of the confirmation hearing is suppose to be to determine whether the nominee has the intent and ability to interpret, uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, what the heck are opening statements for other than political posturing?

Calm thyself, sir.

A supreme court nomination is not a simple thing. It is prudent to wait for a name to be put forward for the second spot before examining whether John Robers, all of 50 years old, should be given the helm of the highest court in the land. Renquist died what, 3 days ago? Give the Dems a little slack about a timeline to confirm (or reject, don't forget that this isn't supposed to be a rubber stamp)

Times have changed and so has the tone in Washington. People comparing the past to the present need a reality check. Things change with the times, time is dynamic, not static. Never before in our life time have we seen such an incompetent government ruling the United States, these things have to be taken into account and in context.

How is it that the Democratic leadership in the U.S. can criticize the Bush Administration for not setting a finish date for something as complicated and fluid as a war, yet they're unwilling to set a finish date for something as simple as a supreme court confirmation hearing?

Also, at the Democratic leadership's insistance, each Senate judiciary committee will be allocated time for a 10-minute opening statement. There are 18 members of the committee, meaning that there will be three hours of opening statements by the Senators. Since the purpose of the confirmation hearing is suppose to be to determine whether the nominee has the intent and ability to interpret, uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, what the heck are opening statements for other than political posturing?This is a very important vote on someone who is going to possibly affect the court for 30 years. Taking another week to examine his record is not outlandish. Plus, there is something going on in the south that might warrant some senatorial attention.

Times have changed and so has the tone in Washington. People comparing the past to the present need a reality check. Things change with the times, time is dynamic, not static. Never before in our life time have we seen such an incompetent government ruling the United States, these things have to be taken into account and in context.
I think the bottom line is that a Supreme Court Judge should be confirmed or rejected on the basis of his knowledge of constitutional law, not based on his personal beliefs, or whether or not people "like" the Prsident who confirms him.
~edit~ And "icompetent governer" is a personal opinion, one of which many people held of Bill Clinton. It isn't an excuse to hold up the system. BTW I don't like Roberts, and I wish Bush would pick a moderate. But my personal opinion shouldn't stand in the way of a constitutional process.

I think the bottom line is that a Supreme Court Judge should be confirmed or rejected on the basis of his knowledge of constitutional law, not based on his personal beliefs, or whether or not people "like" the Prsident who confirms him.
~edit~ And "icompetent governer" is a personal opinion, one of which many people held of Bill Clinton. It isn't an excuse to hold up the system. BTW I don't like Roberts, and I wish Bush would pick a moderate. But my personal opinion shouldn't stand in the way of a constitutional process.

Sounds nice in theory, but who would knowingly support someone they disagree with because of what is likely to be a slightly better grasp of the law?

I think the bottom line is that a Supreme Court Judge should be confirmed or rejected on the basis of his knowledge of constitutional law, not based on his personal beliefs, or whether or not people "like" the Prsident who confirms him.

How can we determine his knowledge of constitutional law, and his willingness to uphold it, with such a scanty track record?

Meanwhile, Bush has now nominated him, not only for Supreme Court Justice, but for chief justice. Bush has just nominated someone who has not even yet served on the court to head it. Anyone can see that there must be quite a bit of scrutiny of this man before he is confirmed. Problem is, there simply isn't much material to scrutinize - and what there is, is largely hidden.

Edit:

Meanwhile, judge Roberts has said he would recuse himself from any case in which the law contradicted the Catholic Church. As chief justice, does this mean that he may block cases which contradict the Catholic Church? Do we really want someone who has publicly stated that they will fail to do their job whenever it might piss off the pope not only on the court, but the head of it?

I think the bottom line is that a Supreme Court Judge should be confirmed or rejected on the basis of his knowledge of constitutional law, not based on his personal beliefs, or whether or not people "like" the Prsident who confirms him.
~edit~ And "icompetent governer" is a personal opinion, one of which many people held of Bill Clinton. It isn't an excuse to hold up the system. BTW I don't like Roberts, and I wish Bush would pick a moderate. But my personal opinion shouldn't stand in the way of a constitutional process.

Well said Sick Dreams. It is about knowledge of Constitutional Law. That is what they should be looking into and not their personal opinions. Even Ginsburg was allowed not to answer certain questions because it might be "prejudging a case before its brought" at the earnst of....Senator Biden. :eek:

Now Senator Biden has switched his tune. I'm sorry but hypocracy can only go so far.

My messege to the Senate Judiciary Committee:

Follow the Ginsburg model of questioning. You'll stay out of alot of trouble if you do.

Hypocrisy. It's spelled hypocrisy.

/Pet peeve.

And please let me re-iterate. I DON"T LIKE ROBERTS! I want some one who will rule against the D.E.A. on its pointless war on drugs, and someone who wasn't raised by crazy Christians.

How can we determine his knowledge of constitutional law, and his willingness to uphold it, with such a scanty track record?

Meanwhile, Bush has now nominated him, not only for Supreme Court Justice, but for chief justice. Bush has just nominated someone who has not even yet served on the court to head it. Anyone can see that there must be quite a bit of scrutiny of this man before he is confirmed. Problem is, there simply isn't much material to scrutinize - and what there is, is largely hidden.

I agree that the material he is associated with is very small in quantity, and that a sufficient examination by the Senators is called for, but we've got to remember that naming a Chief Justice from outside of the court is far more common than naming one from inside the Court.

Yes, I approve of sufficient scrutiny, but I'd like to see a chief justice on the bench before the next term starts. The supreme court lacking two of it's memebers is just generally not a good thing. Eh, just me being picky I guess.

Antre_Travarious']This is a very important vote on someone who is going to possibly affect the court for 30 years. Taking another week to examine his record is not outlandish. Plus, there is something going on in the south that might warrant some senatorial attention.


I am not suggesting otherwise. But this doesn't explain why they can't have a completion date. Why can't they just say "we want 5 days, starting September 19, except if a national emergency interferes."?

Well said Sick Dreams. It is about knowledge of Constitutional Law. That is what they should be looking into and not their personal opinions.

You have just stated a complete impossibility. The Constitution was intentionally written in such a way that it has to be interpreted. Because of this, personal opinion comes into it because different people interpret things differently. Thomas and Ginsberg both have superb "knowledge of Constitutional Law," but both interpret certain things differently. This doesn't necessarily make one or the other more technically right, as the view of an interpretation can be very subjective.

Now, Scalia would like to have us all believe that he never interprets anything, but he's full of it. The minute you start debating anything in Constitutional law, you are interpreting.

Even Ginsburg was allowed not to answer certain questions because it might be "prejudging a case before its brought" at the earnst of....Senator Biden. :eek:

There certainly are questions that should not be asked. One shouldn't ask, for instance, "If a case like Roe v. Wade came before you, what would your decision be?" However, asking something like, "What is your opinion of stare decisis?" would not really be inappropriate.

Antre_Travarious']This is a very important vote on someone who is going to possibly affect the court for 30 years. Taking another week to examine his record is not outlandish. Plus, there is something going on in the south that might warrant some senatorial attention.


Then taking time to establish a stable government free of civil strife in Iraq is not outlandish either.

Hypocrisy. It's spelled hypocrisy.

/Pet peeve.
Yeah, when I saw this thread I wanted to come in screaming about spelling. And I'm not normally a spelling Nazi.

Meanwhile, judge Roberts has said he would recuse himself from any case in which the law contradicted the Catholic Church.

Really? I'm not saying you're wrong, but could you back that up? I would be interested to see.

I agree that the material he is associated with is very small in quantity, and that a sufficient examination by the Senators is called for, but we've got to remember that naming a Chief Justice from outside of the court is far more common than naming one from inside the Court.

Is it all that common to nominate someone with little to no track record as a judge at all?

Yes, I approve of sufficient scrutiny, but I'd like to see a chief justice on the bench before the next term starts. The supreme court lacking two of it's memebers is just generally not a good thing. Eh, just me being picky I guess.

It might not be two. O'Connor is apparently rethinking her retirement in light of recent events, having only decided to retire because she thought no one else was. At least, that's what the news says. So we might only be missing Renquist, if she does change her mind and the Senate allows her to withdraw her resignation.

And please let me re-iterate. I DON"T LIKE ROBERTS! I want some one who will rule against the D.E.A. on its pointless war on drugs, and someone who wasn't raised by crazy Christians.

Why don't you just elect your Supreme Court Justices? If they can add their own opinions to rulings, they should be elected.

Hypocrisy. It's spelled hypocrisy.

/Pet peeve.

How embarassing! Thank you!

How can we determine his knowledge of constitutional law, and his willingness to uphold it, with such a scanty track record?

Meanwhile, Bush has now nominated him, not only for Supreme Court Justice, but for chief justice. Bush has just nominated someone who has not even yet served on the court to head it. Anyone can see that there must be quite a bit of scrutiny of this man before he is confirmed. Problem is, there simply isn't much material to scrutinize - and what there is, is largely hidden.

Edit:

Meanwhile, judge Roberts has said he would recuse himself from any case in which the law contradicted the Catholic Church. As chief justice, does this mean that he may block cases which contradict the Catholic Church? Do we really want someone who has publicly stated that they will fail to do their job whenever it might piss off the pope not only on the court, but the head of it?


I haven't heard that Bush had picked a Chief Justice yet, did it just happen today? I haven't read the news yet. Anyways, I was rooting for Scalia or Thomas personally....oh well.

Yeah, when I saw this thread I wanted to come in screaming about spelling. And I'm not normally a spelling Nazi.

I don't know what it is with this word, it's like it cosmically has to end up misspelt in thread titles.

How can we determine his knowledge of constitutional law, and his willingness to uphold it, with such a scanty track record?

Meanwhile, Bush has now nominated him, not only for Supreme Court Justice, but for chief justice. Bush has just nominated someone who has not even yet served on the court to head it. Anyone can see that there must be quite a bit of scrutiny of this man before he is confirmed. Problem is, there simply isn't much material to scrutinize - and what there is, is largely hidden.

Edit:

Meanwhile, judge Roberts has said he would recuse himself from any case in which the law contradicted the Catholic Church. As chief justice, does this mean that he may block cases which contradict the Catholic Church? Do we really want someone who has publicly stated that they will fail to do their job whenever it might piss off the pope not only on the court, but the head of it?



To him, the edict of the Pope is essentially the edict of God.

Acts 5:29

Why don't you just elect your Supreme Court Justices? If they can add their own opinions to rulings, they should be elected.
We can't politicise the Judiciary. It would be the biggest mistake ever made. We would then have the same problems we have in the Presidential and Senate races. And besides, this country went from a small group of pilgrims, to the most powerful nation on the Earth in about 200 years, based on the constitution. I'm not gonna pretend I'm smart enough to do any better.

Really? I'm not saying you're wrong, but could you back that up? I would be interested to see.

Well, looking for the original article I read (which I can't find right now), it seems that there is some dispute as to whether he actually said it. (Go figure)

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/188728.htm
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050726-121131-2535r.htm

I agree with this article, however, that it should be asked again, under oath then. It is something we need to know the answer to.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2123780/

I haven't heard that Bush had picked a Chief Justice yet, did it just happen today? I haven't read the news yet. Anyways, I was rooting for Scalia or Thomas personally....oh well.

I read the news yesterday.


To him, the edict of the Pope is essentially the edict of God.

That's nice. However, as a Supreme Court Justice, his job would be to interpret the Constitution, not the edict of God.

Point 1) The "nice" thing about the law, even Constitutional Law, is that it is still open to some interpretation. It's why we need a Supreme Court and why people discuss Liberal versus Conservative Judges.

If a person's personal bias made no difference on interpretation, then there would be no room for complaint about ANY Supreme Court decision as bias would not be a factor. Noone would talk about the liberal judges on the court, or the conservative judges.

Clearly this is not the case.

So to some extent the general "lean" of a candidate is, of course, a predictor of what sort of decisions the court will hand down.

I mean really, if there were no disagreements about interpretation of Constitutional Law, then there would be no need for the court. It would all be perfectly self-evident.


Now Roberts has argued nearly 40 cases before the court. He has won about 25 of them (sorry, I forget the exact stats). If one assumes that a lawyer argues a case according to a firm beliefe of its merits, should you take this to mean that he is qualified expert on the law? Or is it that he is wrong on his interpretation of Constitutional law over 40% of the time?


This is why we have hearings, and this is why personal bias matters.


Point 2) Yes, SOME Dems have asked for a firm timetable for leaving IRaq. So have some Repubs for that matter. However trying to equivalence the two as firm party positions is silly.

Not to mention that at least in Iraq the issue has been ongoing for 3. years now. Asking if the Administration has figured out a damn thing about it or has some notion on how it is heading is not unreasonable.

The debate on Roberts, however, is only about to start. So you are asking them for an ending date for something not even begun yet.

Not the same thing at all.

You have just stated a complete impossibility. The Constitution was intentionally written in such a way that it has to be interpreted.

I respectfully correct you on this point. The authors of the Constitution were aware that there would be disagreements over what they meant when they wrote it, but they weren't trying to create a deliberately ambiguous document so people could interpret it however they wanted. For example, under the second amendment, the authors felt and the law established that Americans have the right to bear arms. But I seriously doubt that they meant for people to be able to carry bazookas around. Although the legislature has a responsibility to adhere to the Constitution when creating new laws, the judiciary's role is to step in when, on it's face, it is questionable whether the law disallows something.

and someone who wasn't raised by crazy Christians.
It is garbage like this that is tearing America apart. Nasty, bigoted rhetoric like this. Why do you have to insult? Why can't you just repectfully disagree and not insults his parents?

Antre_Travarious']It is garbage like this that is tearing America apart. Nasty, bigoted rhetoric like this. Why do you have to insult? Why can't you just repectfully disagree and not insults his parents?

Maybe he meant "crazy" in a good way. Like: "that guy is crazy nice!" :)

Maybe he meant "crazy" in a good way. Like: "that guy is crazy nice!" :)
Or as super cool, like "that jump was Wicked Crazy".

To him, the edict of the Pope is essentially the edict of God.

Acts 5:29

That's all fine and good, for his personal life, however it doesn't belong in government. Not in a country that governs itself based on secular laws.

The hypocrisy doesn't end there. Democrats seem adamant the Roberts answer qusetions regarding his views on abortion, Affirmative Action, gay rights and other issues. Ginsberg refused to answer any such question, on grounds that she didn't ant to pre-judge any future case, and was confirmed with no resistance

Then taking time to establish a stable government free of civil strife in Iraq is not outlandish either.
You can start bitching about a lack of a time line two years from now then.

Is it all that common to nominate someone with little to no track record as a judge at all?
You'd be surprised, for example, Lincoln appointed Salmon P. Chase to the Chief Justice spot right off, and he was once a Senator, Governor and Treasury Secretary, but never before a judge.

Morrison R. White, appointed by Grant as chief justice had no Judicial experience.

Melville W. Fuller, appointed by Cleveland as Chief Justice had no Judicial experience.

Edward D. White was Taft's choice for Chief Justice did have judicial experience as an associate Justice and on the Louisiana Supreme Court.

William Howard Taft was President first, of course, he also served on 6th circuit court of appeals, as well as a judge on the Ohio Superior court.

Charles E. Hughes was originally an associate nominated by Taft, and later made Chief by Hoover.

Harlan Stone was an associate Justice nominated by Coolidge in 1925, he was elevated by Roosevelt in 1941.

Fred M. Vinson was Truman's pick for Chief, and he had prior service on the D.C. Court of Appeals.

Earl Warren was Eisenhower's pick and he had no prior judicial experience. He was previously the governor of California.

Warren Burger was Nixon's choice and he had experience on the DC Court of Appeals.

So it's a mix. Nothing shocking about nominating a chief without prior judicial experience though, which Roberts does have, albeit not a large amount thereof.

I think the bottom line is that a Supreme Court Judge should be confirmed or rejected on the basis of his knowledge of constitutional law, not based on his personal beliefs, or whether or not people "like" the Prsident who confirms him.

Ironically, I think the most knowledgable and intellectually capable justices are the most likely to rule according to their ideological preference, if only because they have the knowledge and ability to construct a convincing legal argument for virtually any ruling.

The less talented judge may feel compelled to adhere to law which he/she is not able to "bend."

:cool:

I respectfully correct you on this point. The authors of the Constitution were aware that there would be disagreements over what they meant when they wrote it, but they weren't trying to create a deliberately ambiguous document so people could interpret it however they wanted.

I didn't say that they created it ambiguous so that people could "interpret it however they wanted." However, they did leave quite a bit up to interpretation - deliberately - as they knew that times would change and they wanted a document that would still apply.

For example, under the second amendment, the authors felt and the law established that Americans have the right to bear arms. But I seriously doubt that they meant for people to be able to carry bazookas around.

Of course not. They didn't even know that bazookas would ever be invented. But they left it up to interpretation exactly what arms Americans had the right to bear, and under what circumstances. They did point out why they thought we should be able to have guns, but then left the rest up to the government.

The 5th Amendment talks about Due Process, but doesn't specifically state what Due Process is. Eventually, we developed the Miranda warning, which falls under Due Process. That was an interpretation that was allowed for in the original wording.

And so on....

I didn't say that they created it ambiguous so that people could "interpret it however they wanted." However, they did leave quite a bit up to interpretation - deliberately - as they knew that times would change and they wanted a document that would still apply.

That's fair.

The 5th Amendment talks about Due Process, but doesn't specifically state what Due Process is. Eventually, we developed the Miranda warning, which falls under Due Process. That was an interpretation that was allowed for in the original wording.

Yeah... a crappy interpretation. :) I really doubt that Miranda warnings are Constitutionally required to effectuate an arrest... regardless of what the Supreme Court opined. :)

That's all fine and good, for his personal life, however it doesn't belong in government. Not in a country that governs itself based on secular laws.

As long as the law alone is not based on purely religious reasons, it is permissible.

You can start bitching about a lack of a time line two years from now then.


I won't because confining it to a schedule would limit the potential and allow insurgents to think that they only need hold out until we withdraw.

Yeah... a crappy interpretation. :) I really doubt that Miranda warnings are Constitutionally required to effectuate an arrest... regardless of what the Supreme Court opined. :)

I don't think it is all that far a leap to say that a person being arrested should be made aware of their rights.

I do think that, should that be impossible, and the lack of a Miranda warning does not seem to change much about the case, it should not be held to completely negate the case against the accused.

As long as the law alone is not based on purely religious reasons, it is permissible.

True, but if the quote is accurate, Roberts has stated that he would fail to do his job - based on purely religious reasons. That he would, in fact, instead of making the decision that the law led him to, fail to make a decision at all if it contradicted the teachings of his religion.

It would be like me saying, "Yes, I want the job of cleaning houses on Saturdays and Sundays. But my religion doesn't let me work on Sundays, so I'm going to take the pay for both and only do Saturdays."

If your religion keeps you from doing a job, you shouldn't try to get that job.

As long as the law alone is not based on purely religious reasons, it is permissible.

Yes, but Roberts won't make law. He will interpret it. His job is to interpret according to the Constitution and not according to the Pope. The Pope should have no bearing on how or whether he does his job.

Calm thyself, sir.

A supreme court nomination is not a simple thing. It is prudent to wait for a name to be put forward for the second spot before examining whether John Robers, all of 50 years old, should be given the helm of the highest court in the land. Renquist died what, 3 days ago? Give the Dems a little slack about a timeline to confirm (or reject, don't forget that this isn't supposed to be a rubber stamp)
Well, the Congress is really only supposed to give its "consent" so i would consider that to be a rubber stamp. I think the Senate part was just put in their to make sure the President could never pick an absolute nutcase. I believe it was intended to be a Presidential power, but i think that the past couple decades the Senate has gotten to have more and more influence over who gets to be on the Supreme Court.

I don't think it is all that far a leap to say that a person being arrested should be made aware of their rights.

I do think that, should that be impossible, and the lack of a Miranda warning does not seem to change much about the case, it should not be held to completely negate the case against the accused.

Well, that's fair enough, but I'm talking about what is, not what should be. I can't see that Miranda warnings are actually Constitutionally required as a part of a valid arrest under due process. The Supreme Court legislated from the bench on that one, for better or for worse, and overstepped their powers in doing so. I disagree with the court's majority on that one.

But yeah, it's not a bad idea to have.