Roberts stays mum, gets the nod

**Don Corleone** · 09-23-2005, 16:36

In a vote of 13-5, the US Senate Judiciary panel voted to send the Justice Roberts nomination to the full Senate for a vote. Three Democrats, including the ranking member Daniel Leahy of Vermont, broke ranks to vote with the 10 Republicans on the committee. While there was no overt criticism, those who voted against cited a lack of knowledge about how the candidate would specifically vote on several key issues. Republicans responded by invoking Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who set the bar on keeping mum during a nomination hearing.

I'm not trying to be partisan with this. "I" would like to know more about Justice Roberts' views than I do right now. But I don't know that I think the Judiciary committe has the right to withhold the vote over it. Does a Supreme Court justice have a requirement to list how they would vote on specific key issues? Is it okay to bar a judge over ideology? Should it go both ways, and should Democratic leaning nominees be put to an equal test?

Please add your comments to your vote. Your votes will be made public.

**Don Corleone** · 09-23-2005, 16:42

Oops, I forgot to put the 'view how you voted' option in. I voted that grilling them on their judicial views is okay, but I believe without actual cases showing where they allowed their personal ideology to determine their rulings, it's nobody's business, regardless of political stripe. I agreed with Justice Bader-Ginsburg then, and I agree with soon-to-be Chief Justice Roberts, now. I do think it's okay to grill them on their personal philosophy of law, as that WILL (and SHOULD) determine how they will rule on cases.

**Kanamori** · 09-23-2005, 16:47

Fiengold did the best job questioning him

**Kanamori** · 09-23-2005, 16:50

As long as they aren't total idiots, there is no reason they should not be affirmed by the Senate.

**Goofball** · 09-23-2005, 16:52

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Oops, I forgot to put the 'view how you voted' option in. I voted that grilling them on their judicial views is okay, but I believe without actual cases showing where they allowed their personal ideology to determine their rulings, it's nobody's business, regardless of political stripe. I agreed with Justice Bader-Ginsburg then, and I agree with soon-to-be Chief Justice Roberts, now. I do think it's okay to grill them on their personal philosophy of law, as that WILL (and SHOULD) determine how they will rule on cases.

I voted the same as you Don.

I think trying to pin candidates down on how they will vote on specific issues in the future is just stupid. I wouldn't want judges on my country's Supreme Court who felt bound by previous comments. I want them to consider each case on its merits, apply constitutional standards, and make the best decision they can at the time.

As far as Roberts goes, I actually think he'll make a pretty good SC Justice. Hard to say why. I watched about an hour of his confirmation hearing and was impressed with his demeanor, which seemed calm and rational. However, I could very easily be wrong. I can't believe I'm admitting this in here, but I actually liked Bush for about the first two or three months of his Presidency.

**Adrian II** · 09-23-2005, 16:54

Originally Posted by Goofball

As far as Roberts goes, I actually think he'll make a pretty good SC Justice.

For what it is worth from a foreigner (I have not even seen most of the hearings) I agree. I feel candidates should be questioned about their judicial records though.

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 09-23-2005, 17:07

Basic ideological views regarding the role of the judge in the judicial process, basic views on the constitution and the degree of interpretation, and specific questions on the reasoning behind any published decisions (if any) are appropriate. Commentary on existing or likely cases, even when characterized as "hypotheticals" are not (ABA Ethics standards).

I believe Roberts was right to recuse himself from the questions he did, but it is fully within the priviledge of the voting Senators to vote as they did. A Senator may decline to confirm a nominee for any reason or no reason, the fitness of that vote is between them and their constituency.

Seamus

**Don Corleone** · 09-23-2005, 17:10

I totally agree Seamus. Antonin Scalia got a 98-0 approval back in 1986. Now while I think the guy is great, unanimous verdicts like that show nobody was doing their homework.

**Don Corleone** · 09-23-2005, 17:23

Originally Posted by Kanamori

Fiengold did the best job questioning him

And Feingold voted in favor of him.

In terms of who did the worst job up there.... I say Charles Schumer. Talk about showing your cards to the others at the table. He began his comments (during his No vote) saying he knew that judicial ethics forbade Roberts from answering a lot of the questions, but then went on to say that didn't matter, he wanted answers (in other words Shumer wasn't going to vote yes until Roberts performed an abortion himself, right there in the Senate chamber). And that bit about movies was sad. I'm glad Roberts took the piss out of him over it.

Or would it be that jackass from Deleware, Joe Biden. The fool made the mistake of telling Roberts in front of a (unknown at the time) live microphone "You're the best guy we've ever had in here", then turned around and Borked him, saying essentially that he had no ideas at all about Roberts. Well dipstick, how did you feel empowered to declare him to be the best candidate you've ever seen before the Judiciary committee then? What a moron.