Next Show: ...loading...

Confirmation Hearings for Judge Roberts, Part I

September 14, 2005

(broadcast stream) (.mp3 download Right-click,”Save Target as”,”Save”)
Miss the hearings on CNN? Catch the synopsis and Mark’s commentary…
Today, the opening statements of Roberts and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York and the use and misuse of the “Ginsburg principle.”
Republicans claim that Roberts need not discuss his views on any Supreme Court cases because Democratic Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg refused to do in her nomination process.
That claim is a misleading attempt to trick the public: it is true that Ginsburg did not say how she would rule on future cases. But she did give extensive commentary as to her views on past cases — which gave Senators an indication on how she would rule in the future.
Roberts is keeping a tight lip and refusing to do this, except on the obvious cases that we all — except racists like Rehnquist — now agree on, such as Brown v. Board of Education.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

  • God September 16, 2005 9:00 am

    OK–Rehnquist–break’s over–back to hell–it’s your turn in the cesspool shit-skimmer

  • Rehnquist Spirit September 15, 2005 11:46 pm

    Today, I channeled a column through MANUEL MIRANDA that appeared in the Wall Street Journal.
    Renhquist’s Spirit
    p.s. Heaven is wonderful
    “Article VI of the Constitution prohibits a
    religious test from being imposed on
    nominees to public office. The clause
    was motivated by the experience of
    Catholics in the Maryland colony and
    Baptists in Virginia who had been the
    targets of Great Britain’s two Test Acts.
    These infamous laws of intolerance
    sought to prevent anyone who did not
    belong to the Church of England from
    holding public office. The Test Acts did
    not say that Catholics could not hold
    office; the bigotry was more subtle.
    Officials questioned would-be public
    servants to determine whether they
    believed in particular tenets of the
    Catholic faith.
    While questioning John Roberts on
    Tuesday, Judiciary Committee chairman
    Arlen Specter asked: “Would you say
    that your views are the same as those
    expressed by John Kennedy when he was
    a candidate, and he spoke to the Greater
    Houston Ministerial Association in
    September of 1960: ‘I do not speak for
    my church on public matters, and the
    church does not speak for me.’ ”
    Hours later, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of
    California made it worse:’In 1960,
    there was much debate about President John F.
    Kennedy’s faith and what role Catholicism
    would play in his administration. At
    that time, he pledged to address the issues of
    conscience out of a focus on the national
    interests, not out of adherence to the
    dictates of one’s religion. . . . My
    question is: Do you?’ ”
    That “single bullet theory” buzzard and that old hag have some nerve stepping on MY Constitution. Luckily, I sit close to the right hand of God. They’ll get theirs!

  • Igor September 15, 2005 8:41 am

    I see it as a flaw in the system to have an FNG have the ability to be confirmed as the Chief Supreme Court Justice–somehow shouldn’t seniority be the contingent factor?
    What are all the bennies and powers of the Chief Justice?

  • Mark Levine September 14, 2005 11:54 pm

    It’s too bad that your mind is too closed to listen to the show or, if you disagree and can do so logically, to call in and challenge me. Apparently, your mind is too closed even to listen to the nomination hearings, since you have based your opinion solely on talking points and not on the several Roberts-Biden exchanges that actually occurred (much of which I will play tomorrow on air). Nor have you based your opinion on what the Democratic Senators actually said at the hearing. Or even, for that matter, did you fully quote Biden in the Ginsburg hearings when he told her if she did not respond sufficiently, he would not vote for her.
    This is why I doubt your impartiality if you are a judge. You have prejudged the Democrats. And neither the Democrats nor I have prejudged Roberts.
    And that’s the difference between you and me. No Democrat decided in advance to vote against Roberts, but you seem determined to smear them nonetheless.
    If Roberts wants Democratic votes, you and I both know that — if he has nothing to hide — he can get a unanimous confirmation if he just discloses just the 16 requested documents from his many years in the solicitor general’s office.
    So apparently he doesn’t want Democratic votes or he has something to hide. Which do you think it is? (And don’t pretend that documents like these weren’t given in the past…if you know the precedents, as you claim, than you know this already.)
    P.S. It’s Justice GinsbUrg.
    Just so you know how to spell the name of your boss…

  • Judge Crier September 14, 2005 9:37 pm

    No, I do not listen to your show. I have in the past but drew conclusions that it had nothing to provide for me. Sorry.
    I fear that it impossible to have a discussion with you when you read my message and took from it that I called the democrats “communists”. I stated that the hearing – with the conduct of a Joe Biden with his hypocricy – is like having a hearing before the Communist Party where your fate is already determined. That is significantly different than what you have claimed I stated. You know and understand that, I’m sure. So I don’t intend to spend any further time explaining away your wontonly mistaken interpretation of the written word as you try to posture yourself for a debate. That’s a child’s game you play and you should cease to engage in it.
    Now I’m sure you were in “spin doctor” mode telling your audience what Sen. Biden “really” meant with his duplicity. And those who wish to believe a particular mantra might well believe the spin. Those who can view things impartially can see directly what Sen. Biden said at the Ginsberg hearing and at the Robert’s hearing and see his hypocricy. It’s not like Sen. Biden himself sits in his chair without a closet of skeletons and without an agenda to stop his appointment.
    It is going to be reporteed that Sen. Joe Biden said to Judge Roberts in a private conversation on the hearing room floor: “You’re the best I’ve ever seen before the committee”. This will not be the first time Sen. Biden has had problems with the spoken word.
    Thanks for your jurisprudential view regarding my impeachment. Should I now voice that due to your inability to comprehend the written word, that you should be disbarred?
    The democrats will provide no votes from the committee for Roberts. But he will be confirmed.
    C Crier