home

Questions for Roberts

By TChris, Section John Roberts
Posted on Sun Jul 24, 2005 at 08:32:45 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Sen. Arlen Specter provides a not-very-helpful user's guide to judicial confirmation hearings in today's NY Times. Senators can ask any question they like, Specter reminds us, and the nominee can evade the question as he sees fit. Any controversial question will be met with "I don't want to give the impression that I've prejudged any issue that might come before the Court," a shorthand way of saying "If I answer that, half the country will think I'm unfit for this job."

Specter suggests that process based questions are more appropriate, but coaxing a nominee to assure the Senators that he respects precedent isn't likely to provide much insight into the kind of Supreme Court Justice John Roberts might be. More useful questions the Senators should consider asking: Did anyone in the White House ask you about Roe v. Wade? If the word abortion came up during any conversation with a member of the White House, please repeat that conversation for us. Was Guantanamo mentioned during your job interview? If given the chance, would you go duck hunting with Dick Cheney? Who should decide elections: voters or the Supreme Court?

< Washington and Anonymous Sources | Cheney Lobbies Against Pentagon Abuse Reform >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Questions for Roberts | 7 comments (7 topical)
    Re: Questions for Roberts (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:35 PM EST
    It seems like Mr. Roberts has some trouble recollecting his membership in the Federalist Society not to mention his being on its steering committee: SCOTUS Watch: Our Forgetful Nominee

    Re: Questions for Roberts (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:35 PM EST
    Did anyone in the White House ask you about Roe v. Wade? If the word abortion come up during any conversation with a member of the White House, please repeat that conversation for us. Was Guantanamo mentioned during your job interview? It would be too easy to obfuscate the answers to these questions if persons other than White House staff were involved. Most likely some very unofficial political operatives screened the potential nominees before any official contact with the White House. A better framing of the questions might be: “Has anyone asked you either formally or informally . . . and if so, who asked the questions and under what circumstances were the questions asked.“ aa

    Re: Questions for Roberts (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:35 PM EST
    And here's a link to the story in the WP. Apparently it all depends on what the meaning of "membership" is. Sheesh. Roberts listed in Federalist Society '97-'98 Directory

    Re: Questions for Roberts (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:35 PM EST
    The situation is hopeless and Roberts is a shoe-in. The wingnuts will consider his membership in The Federalist Society a plus, kind of a newer version of Skull & Bones. And since when has lying been contrary to Washington practice? Another plus! So here we are. We're supposed to be awed by his credentials. Well excuse me, but on what important issue has this man ever spoken out? Has he ever done anything? No. We're supposed to be thankful because it could have been SO MUCH WORSE. Well, call me ungrateful.

    Re: Questions for Roberts (none / 0) (#5)
    by Beck on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:35 PM EST
    Santorum says they can't ask him about his wife's free legal work for an anti-abortion group. Santorum Says Mrs. Roberts' Anti-Abortion Work is Irrelevant

    Re: Questions for Roberts (none / 0) (#6)
    by The Heretik on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:35 PM EST
    If Roberts is indeed a "shoe in," then people should get used to having their rights stomped on quite shortly. The idea of a House of Wax figure like Roberts getting a pass through to the Court with his vast two years on the Federal bench probably concerns the fiftyone percent of the population worried about a right to choose more than it does white men who think Bush can choose whoever he wants and it's hopeless to oppose him. The reality is this battle is enormous. And don't forget what waits in the pipeline. If the "moderate" Roberts goes to the high court, his seat on the influential DC circuit will need to get filled. The last person to go to the DC circuit was Janice Rogers Brown. Not so moderate. What Brown and Roberts both share is a similar approach to the Commerce Clause. If there interpretation of the role of the Commerce clause gains more "moderate" adherents, we can expect a return to a happy time of serfing for the man.

    Re: Questions for Roberts (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:37 PM EST
    If people in congress are willing to vote up or down based on his stance of Roe v Wade, than isn't it fair to say that congress determines whether or not abortion is legal? It seems to me that a vote in favor of or against based on one issue is tantamount to congress determining the legality of abortion.

    Questions for Roberts | 7 comments (7 topical)