NationStates Jolt Archive

"If (Senate Judiciary Committee members) want to vote against (Judge Roberts), you know darn well they're captives of these ... very liberal outside groups … and they're demanding they vote against him even though they don't have one good reason to. I really don't believe that's the case but if that happens, then you can see why we're in such a partisan gridlock here in Washington, because the Democrats can't even support someone this good." -Orrin Hatch

This pretty clearly articulated my impression of the Roberts nomination. What are your thoughts?

"If (Senate Judiciary Committee members) want to vote against (Judge Roberts), you know darn well they're captives of these ... very liberal outside groups … and they're demanding they vote against him even though they don't have one good reason to. I really don't believe that's the case but if that happens, then you can see why we're in such a partisan gridlock here in Washington, because the Democrats can't even support someone this good." -Orrin Hatch

This pretty clearly articulated my impression of the Roberts nomination. What are your thoughts?

My thought is that Orrin Hatch makes a very good case for senetorial term limits on the grounds of senility. I'm not entirely sure how he can blame partisan gridlock on a party with no power in the House, Senate, Conference Committees, Executive, or Judiciary, but I'm wierd like that.

Seriously though. It's like saying the reason Europe hates us so much is because Portugal doesn't like us. Portugal is gumming everything up. If it weren't for Portugal, everything would be fine. Europe and the rest of the world would love America, there would be no more terrorism, everyone would worship Jesus, and there'd be a big ass car in every garage. But we can't do that. Know why? Portugal. The Godless, Commie Portugesse and their "Phliosophy of the Roadblock." (Governor Bush.)

fok if i know.. is this Robets a republican arse?

What's the problem? With the other possibilities that Bush could have chosen, Roberts is pretty moderate.

fok if i know.. is this Robets a republican arse?

He's very likely going to be the next Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and because he's only 50 years old, will likely be so for the 6-10 terms of the presidency. Put that way, it doesn't sound all that dumb for the Democrats to want to pin his judicial philosophy down.

Orin Hatch? Wasn't he the one who said Anita Hill was quoting from The Omen during the Thomas stuff?

It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. As if Orin never acts for his supporters.

Would Orin have said this if Roberts was a liberal judge?

"If (Senate Judiciary Committee members) want to vote against (Judge Roberts), you know darn well they're captives of these ... very conservative outside groups … and they're demanding they vote against him even though they don't have one good reason to. I really don't believe that's the case but if that happens, then you can see why we're in such a partisan gridlock here in Washington, because the Republicans can't even support someone this good."

What's the problem? With the other possibilities that Bush could have chosen, Roberts is pretty moderate.

Well we don't know that. He has dodged questions that would label him.


Hmmm? Did Regan or poppy Bush have moderates on their staff?

He's very likely going to be the next Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and because he's only 50 years old, will likely be so for the 6-10 terms of the presidency. Put that way, it doesn't sound all that dumb for the Democrats to want to pin his judicial philosophy down.

But the question is, are they trying to "pin his judicial philosophy down" or just fishing for any excuse to demonize him and vote against him? If you take statements from individuals like Schumer and Kennedy, the latter seem more likely.

"If (Senate Judiciary Committee members) want to vote against (Judge Roberts), you know darn well they're captives of these ... very liberal outside groups … and they're demanding they vote against him even though they don't have one good reason to. I really don't believe that's the case but if that happens, then you can see why we're in such a partisan gridlock here in Washington, because the Democrats can't even support someone this good." -Orrin Hatch

This pretty clearly articulated my impression of the Roberts nomination. What are your thoughts?

Orrin Hatch would say the same thing if the nominee was Robert Bork or Foghorn T. Leghorn (so long as he was a Bush nominee and a Republican).

He and Tom Coburn love to be partisan while weeping about partisanship.

Why aren't the conservatives that support Roberts -- some even before he was nominated -- just as partisan?

What's the problem? With the other possibilities that Bush could have chosen, Roberts is pretty moderate.

For a staunch conservative Republican. :rolleyes:

fok if i know.. is this Robets a republican arse?
he is conservative for sure. but anyone nominated by george bush is going to be conservative.

he impresses me as a very smart, very knowledgeable, very thoughtful man who will be a great supreme court justice.

that he is conservative is our punishment for not electing a democrat as president.

he is conservative for sure. but anyone nominated by george bush is going to be conservative.

he impresses me as a very smart, very knowledgeable, very thoughtful man who will be a great supreme court justice.

that he is conservative is our punishment for not electing a democrat as president.

I mostly agree. I'm not sure we know he will be a good justice, but he probably will be better than some we have now.

If people are worried that he is going to be too 'conservative', based on past record, then that is a good sign he isn't good for the job as a top judge...a judge should be impartial, and judge things on the validity of the case, not on their personal feelings.

Just my feelings on a matter I, admittedly, know little about.

he is conservative for sure. but anyone nominated by george bush is going to be conservative.

he impresses me as a very smart, very knowledgeable, very thoughtful man who will be a great supreme court justice.

that he is conservative is our punishment for not electing a democrat as president.

Ahh but he could be a wolf in sheeps clothing. We get the impression that his is a sorta moderate conservative and yet past comments could suggest otherwise.

We toss him in the CJ spot and he turns out to be a smart version of Scalia :eek:

They learned from Bork......

He is smart. Sure. But there are things that make me wonder about his thoughts. The other day he was being questioned over a title-9 case were a teenager was raped several times by a coach. Roberts went on about how back pay was inoppriate in this matter. The Senator shut him up when asked about what back pay; this was a teenager....

I am not sure at this point. But I have not heard enough to really make a yea/nea vote yet.....

he is conservative for sure. but anyone nominated by george bush is going to be conservative.

he impresses me as a very smart, very knowledgeable, very thoughtful man who will be a great supreme court justice.


. . .Based on what?

The problem I have with him is that I don't know all that much about him; in point of fact, I don't know anything about him. He just sits there quietly and looks like a slightly overgrown, but still handsome schoolboy, and I worry that people are looking at that quality and simply inferring from it the fact that he's smart, knowledgable, and thoughtful. You know, sort of like how they inferred that Laura Bush was a really sweet, warm woman because she sat in the background, looked demure, and didn't say anything except the occasional "I love this man."

This isn't to say that either Roberts or L. Bush don't have those qualities, but I don't see why it is that just because they look like the type of people to have those qualities that we shouldn't try and dig deeper.

For a staunch conservative Republican. :rolleyes:

I simply had the understanding that some of Bush's other candadite would have tried to set our country back 30 years. Roberts would just move things toward the Republican political ideals.

But the question is, are they trying to "pin his judicial philosophy down" or just fishing for any excuse to demonize him and vote against him? If you take statements from individuals like Schumer and Kennedy, the latter seem more likely.
Actually, if you look at the stuff said by Kennedy, you wonder if he's in a condition even approaching sober.

My thought is that Orrin Hatch makes a very good case for senetorial term limits on the grounds of senility. I'm not entirely sure how he can blame partisan gridlock on a party with no power in the House, Senate, Conference Committees, Executive, or Judiciary, but I'm wierd like that.

It's because the Senate has the 60-40 filibuster rule. Under the Senate's self-adopted rule, you can block a nomination or vote from going to the floor if you only have 40 votes. Thus, under the current rules, the Democratic minority could keep Robert's nomination from ever being voted on, even though they hold only 45 seats.

Does that answer the question for'ya? Do you see the problem now, m'lad? :)

"If (Senate Judiciary Committee members) want to vote against (Judge Roberts), you know darn well they're captives of these ... very liberal outside groups … and they're demanding they vote against him even though they don't have one good reason to. I really don't believe that's the case but if that happens, then you can see why we're in such a partisan gridlock here in Washington, because the Democrats can't even support someone this good." -Orrin Hatch

This pretty clearly articulated my impression of the Roberts nomination. What are your thoughts?


Has Hatch been drinking again? Why not just base not putting Roberts on the bench because he CANNOT ANSWER A SINGLE QUESTION!

Orin Hatch? Wasn't he the one who said Anita Hill was quoting from The Omen during the Thomas stuff?

It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. As if Orin never acts for his supporters.

Would Orin have said this if Roberts was a liberal judge?

"If (Senate Judiciary Committee members) want to vote against (Judge Roberts), you know darn well they're captives of these ... very conservative outside groups … and they're demanding they vote against him even though they don't have one good reason to. I really don't believe that's the case but if that happens, then you can see why we're in such a partisan gridlock here in Washington, because the Republicans can't even support someone this good."

Still, it sounds like you're agreeing with Senator Hatch's assessment.

It's because the Senate has the 60-40 filibuster rule. Under the Senate's self-adopted rule, you can block a nomination or vote from going to the floor if you only have 40 votes. Thus, under the current rules, the Democratic minority could keep Robert's nomination from ever being voted on, even though they hold only 45 seats.

Does that answer the question for'ya? Do you see the problem now, m'lad? :)

That assumes that every Senator that would vote against Roberts would also support a filibuster.

Rather jumps the gun to whine about a partisan filibuster before there even is one.

Well we don't know that. He has dodged questions that would label him.


Hmmm? Did Regan or poppy Bush have moderates on their staff?

Well, O'Connor is a Regan appointee.

Well, O'Connor is a Regan appointee.

And she was quite conservative.

Orrin Hatch would say the same thing if the nominee was Robert Bork or Foghorn T. Leghorn (so long as he was a Bush nominee and a Republican).

He and Tom Coburn love to be partisan while weeping about partisanship.

Why aren't the conservatives that support Roberts -- some even before he was nominated -- just as partisan?

It sounds like you're in agreement with Hatch's statement, then.

Actually, if you look at the stuff said by Kennedy, you wonder if he's in a condition even approaching sober.

Actually, I've never wondered about Kennedy's lack of sobriety. It's been pretty consistant.

It sounds like you're in agreement with Hatch's statement, then.

No. You need to read more carefully.

Actually, if you look at the stuff said by Kennedy, you wonder if he's in a condition even approaching sober.

He should have cried crocodile tears about "hate" like Tom Coburn.

There is someone that should be in psychiatric care.

That assumes that every Senator that would vote against Roberts would also support a filibuster.

Rather jumps the gun to whine about a partisan filibuster before there even is one.

I'm not assuming anything. He asked a question, and I answered it.

It's because the Senate has the 60-40 filibuster rule. Under the Senate's self-adopted rule, you can block a nomination or vote from going to the floor if you only have 40 votes. Thus, under the current rules, the Democratic minority could keep Robert's nomination from ever being voted on, even though they hold only 45 seats.

Does that answer the question for'ya? Do you see the problem now, m'lad? :)

Not really, because the Senate compromise that went into effect earlier this year over judicial appointments covers only "extreme circumstances", and I don't think even the Dems from the compromise consider this case extreme. If they can't, then there will be no filibuster, because the Democrats don't have the votes to stop Frist from carrying out the nuclear option. Ergo, if this is what Hatch is talking about, then he's arguing about a non-issue. . . which brings me right back to my original point about senility.

And she was quite conservative.


LOL

he is conservative for sure. but anyone nominated by george bush is going to be conservative.

he impresses me as a very smart, very knowledgeable, very thoughtful man who will be a great supreme court justice.

that he is conservative is our punishment for not electing a democrat as president.Pity that the people that deserve the "punishment" won't take it as such... :p

Not really, because the Senate compromise that went into effect earlier this year over judicial appointments covers only "extreme circumstances", and I don't think even the Dems from the compromise consider this case extreme. If they can't, then there will be no filibuster, because the Democrats don't have the votes to stop Frist from carrying out the nuclear option. Ergo, if this is what Hatch is talking about, then he's arguing about a non-issue. . . which brings me right back to my original point about senility.

ok, i do see your point.

I love how this plays out ...

Rep. Senator: Here's our boy! He rocks! We love him and you'll love him too!
Dem. Senator: Ok ... bring him in.
<flash of lights, trumpets sound>
<a man enters>
Rep. Senator: See? He's great! Vote him in!
Dem. Senator: Ummm ... we just found a video of him having sex with a 10 year old prostitute in Taiwan.
...
Rep. Senator: GOD DAMN DEMOCRATS!!! YOU ALL HATE AMERICA!! YOU'RE HOLDING UP THE PROCESS!! DIE!! DIE!! DIE!!!

Ok ... extreme example ... but that's how it seems to me. If the Dems even ask one simple question, suddenly they're just out to demonize the appointee. Do you people seriously just want Bush to be able to do whatever he pleases without any form of opposition whatsoever?

Not in my America, pal.

I love how this plays out ...

Rep. Senator: Here's our boy! He rocks! We love him and you'll love him too!
Dem. Senator: Ok ... bring him in.
<flash of lights, trumpets sound>
<a man enters>
Rep. Senator: See? He's great! Vote him in!
Dem. Senator: Ummm ... we just found a video of him having sex with a 10 year old prostitute in Taiwan.
...
Rep. Senator: GOD DAMN DEMOCRATS!!! YOU ALL HATE AMERICA!! YOU'RE HOLDING UP THE PROCESS!! DIE!! DIE!! DIE!!!

Ok ... extreme example ... but that's how it seems to me. If the Dems even ask one simple question, suddenly they're just out to demonize the appointee. Do you people seriously just want Bush to be able to do whatever he pleases without any form of opposition whatsoever?

Not in my America, pal.

That's pretty much what happened with Clinton got caught with Monica.

I'm not assuming anything. He asked a question, and I answered it.

Your answer makes an assumption. Sorry if you can't see that.

That's pretty much what happened with Clinton got caught with Monica.And how many people had to suffer because of that?

LOL

She says so herself. She was a lifelong moderate conservative.

By what possible standard is she not?

That's pretty much what happened with Clinton got caught with Monica.

Except having consensual sex with someone over 21 is no crime and a non-issue.

I love how this plays out ...

Rep. Senator: Here's our boy! He rocks! We love him and you'll love him too!
Dem. Senator: Ok ... bring him in.
<flash of lights, trumpets sound>
<a man enters>
Rep. Senator: See? He's great! Vote him in!
Dem. Senator: Ummm ... we just found a video of him having sex with a 10 year old prostitute in Taiwan.
...
Rep. Senator: GOD DAMN DEMOCRATS!!! YOU ALL HATE AMERICA!! YOU'RE HOLDING UP THE PROCESS!! DIE!! DIE!! DIE!!!

Ok ... extreme example ... but that's how it seems to me. If the Dems even ask one simple question, suddenly they're just out to demonize the appointee. Do you people seriously just want Bush to be able to do whatever he pleases without any form of opposition whatsoever?

Not in my America, pal.

Amen.

As I understand it, this is part of the United States of America's political (read: democratic) process. It is the responsibility of the committee to ensure that a person nominated for such a crucial position in the nation's government fairly and faithfully represent ALL American values, not simply the group of American values held by Republicans/Conservatives (who do not, by the way, have a monopoly on American values).

I've been dismayed for a long time at the lack of opposition in US politics, because I believe that a viable opposition is an integral and indespensible part of a functioning free and democratic society. Like it or not, the Democrats and 'liberals' are that opposition, and their responsibility is to ensure consensus and compromise are the methods of government, not arbitration.

Whether we say Mr. Roberts is a moderate or a fanatic is irrelevant. The purpose of the committee, and especially the Democratic members (since the interest of the Republican members logically lies in having their man appointed), is to determine that. I do not see the Democrats acting as opposition as being 'partisan', I see it as being fully in the tradition and spirit of healthy democracy. It's in your best interest.

As I understand it, this is part of the United States of America's political (read: democratic) process. It is the responsibility of the committee to ensure that a person nominated for such a crucial position in the nation's government fairly and faithfully represent ALL American values, not simply the group of American values held by Republicans/Conservatives (who do not, by the way, have a monopoly on American values).

I've been dismayed for a long time at the lack of opposition in US politics, because I believe that a viable opposition is an integral and indespensible part of a functioning free and democratic society. Like it or not, the Democrats and 'liberals' are that opposition, and their responsibility is to ensure consensus and compromise are the methods of government, not arbitration.

Whether we say Mr. Roberts is a moderate or a fanatic is irrelevant. The purpose of the committee, and especially the Democratic members (since the interest of the Republican members logically lies in having their man appointed), is to determine that. I do not see the Democrats acting as opposition as being 'partisan', I see it as being fully in the tradition and spirit of healthy democracy. It's in your best interest.

Thank you. You are so right.