How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 the roberts hearings
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

the roberts hearings

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 05-18-2001
Posts 29020
Gaia


0 posted 09-14-2005 06:55 PM       View Profile for Midnitesun   Email Midnitesun   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Midnitesun

from session number 14:
Senator Schumer Q's, regarding Mr Roberts seeming evasiveness when it comes to the topic of Supreme Court justice dissenting opinions:
quote:

  
SCHUMER: And every justice on the Supreme Court has dissented in many cases; meaning they disagreed with the opinion of the court, right? And nothing is wrong with that? There is nothing improper, nothing unethical?

Let's go to commentators. Non-judges are free to criticize and disagree with Supreme Court cases. Correct?

ROBERTS: Yes.

SCHUMER: In speeches, law review articles, it's a healthy process, wouldn't you say?

ROBERTS: I agree with that. Yes.

SCHUMER: And you did this occasionally when you were in private practice?

ROBERTS: Yes.

SCHUMER: OK. Nothing unseemingly about that?

ROBERTS: No.

SCHUMER: OK. And how about lawyers representing clients? Lawyers representing clients criticize cases and legal briefs all the time. That's what they do for a living.

And that's part of being a good lawyer.

And you signed your name to briefs explicitly criticizing and disagreeing with Supreme Court decisions?

ROBERTS: On occasion, yes.

SCHUMER: In Rust v. Sullivan, for example, your brief said that, quote, Roe was wrongly decided and should be overturned, unquote. Right?

ROBERTS: Yes.

SCHUMER: OK. But in this hearing room, you don't want to criticize or disagree with any decided cases? That seems strange to me. It seems strange, I think, to the American people that you can't talk about decided cases -- past cases, not future cases -- when you've been nominated to the most important job in the federal judiciary.

You could do it when you worked in the White House, you could do it when you worked in the Justice Department, you could do it when you worked in private practice, you could do it when you gave speeches and lectures; as a sitting judge, you've done it until very recently. You could probably do it before you just walked into this hearing room.

And if you're confirmed, you may be doing it for 30 years on the Supreme Court. But the only place and time that you cannot criticize any cases of the Supreme Court is in this hearing room -- when it is more important than at any other time that the American people, and we the senators, understand your views.

Why this room should be some kind of a cone of silence is beyond me. The door outside this room doesn't say, check your views at the door.

So your failure to answer questions is confounding me. You've done it in instance after instance after instance after instance.

What is the difference between giving your views here in this hearing room and what judges do every day, what professors do every day, what lawyers do every day?

In each case, they have to state their opinion. They have to do it as part of their job, if you will -- writing a brief, rendering an opinion, writing an article.

In each case, they're stating their views, which might bias them. You've done it.

Yet, only here you can't state your views. If the argument -- and, by the way, there's a very god countervailing reason that you should state your views, because, as the founding fathers so constructed, this is the one time you go before an elected body before a lifetime appointment.


Roberts is a smart cookie, obviously has great command of the English language, and is heads above most on legalese (though you wouldn't know it in the hearings by all those simple YES/NO answers ). But it's beyond bothersome that he won't give straightforward answers. Somehow, I think he'll pass the litmus test, if only because he is such a 'fox' and therefore not easy to 'pen down' on any issues. LOL.


*
from Session 16:
quote:

CORNYN: But do you know for a fact that Justice Breyer, when he was being considered about a possible nomination to the Supreme Court, sat and decided seven cases while sitting on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Are you familiar with that statistic?

ROBERTS: No, I'm not, Senator.

CORNYN: OK. Well, our research reveals that that is, in fact, what happened. And so if Justice Breyer could participate fully in the court's decision-making process while being considered by President Clinton for nomination to the Supreme Court, it strikes me that we should not have a different standard -- and I'm not asking you to comment on that, because you said you're not familiar with Justice Breyer's record.

But if that's true, and I believe it is -- that he sat on seven different cases involving the United States government and the executive branch while he was being considered for the Supreme Court -- we shouldn't hold John Roberts to a different standard.

And that's my view.

We've got about five minutes. Let me just ask you, just as a practical matter: I worry when I see that the Supreme Court's opinions are so fractured and divided as you alluded to, I believe, on the question of the Ten Commandments.

The only one that agreed with both decisions, that the Ten Commandments could be displayed in Texas but not in Kentucky, was Justice Breyer.

And there were 10 opinions in those two cases, which led the former Chief Justice Rehnquist to quip: Well, that's more opinions than we have justices -- 10 opinions for nine justices in that case, which decided the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments.

Well, it strikes me that one of the goals of the court ought to be -- of any court ought to be -- to write decisions that can be read and understood by a person of reasonable intelligence and, frankly, Judge, I have to tell you that lawyers struggle -- no doubt circuit court judges, trial court judges, such as in the court you serve on now, struggle to try to figure out just what in the world the law actually is.

And it breeds additional litigation, a lot of money, a lot of time spend just litigating issues that the court could, if it had the will, clearly decide.CORNYN: And in some ways I think it leads some observers to wonder whether the Supreme Court is firmly grounded in the reality of how their decisions will actually be read and understood and implemented, either by lower courts or by litigants who are trying to figure out what is the law, so how can I conform my behavior and how can I make plans in a way that I can rely upon is legal.

I'd be interested in your observations.

ROBERTS: Well, Senator, I hope we haven't gotten to the point where Supreme Court opinions are so abstruse that the educated lay person can't pick them up and read them and understand them.

You shouldn't have to be a lawyer to understand what the Supreme Court opinions mean.

One of the reasons I've given previously for admiring Justice Jackson is he was one of the best writers the court has ever had. And I think you didn't have to be a lawyer to pick up one of his opinions and understand exactly what his reasoning is and why he's saying that. And if he's citing and relying on precedents, he can cite them and explains them. They're not written in jargon or legalese.

But an educated person whose life, after all, is being affected by these decisions can pick them up and read them, and you don't have to hire a lawyer to tell you what it means.

I hope we haven't gotten to a point where that's an unattainable ideal.

Now I'm not suggesting that I've always lived up to that. And I'd hate to have somebody go back and look at my opinions and critique them under that exacting standard.

But I do think that's something that it's worth shooting for, at least in most cases, that opinions should be accessible to educated people without regard to whether they're lawyers or not.


This is one reason I actually like Roberts more than most judges How can you NOT like him when he speaks out for the average American citizen? OK, the Devil made me do it...I am a die-hard liberal, but I still like this man, think he should be on the court even though I'll probably disagree with him  more often than not.
Go figure.

[This message has been edited by Midnitesun (09-14-2005 08:01 PM).]

Larry C
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 09-10-2001
Posts 10765
United States


1 posted 09-14-2005 09:14 PM       View Profile for Larry C   Email Larry C   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Larry C's Home Page   View IP for Larry C

Were you wearing your camel hair bikini when you wrote this? Or was it something you drank? Or both.
Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 05-18-2001
Posts 29020
Gaia


2 posted 09-14-2005 09:44 PM       View Profile for Midnitesun   Email Midnitesun   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Midnitesun

Yes and No. Or was that No and Yes? LOL. Does he or doesn't he? SIGH, whatever he says...it'll be right and it'll be wrong.
I give up (for the time being) on having a judge appointed to the top judicial bench who thinks/believes the way I do.
  (HEY!!! Stop laughing!)
It's hard to know what to think except
1. according to the left
2. he apparently leans to the right
3. is a stand up guy
4. but knows how to sit down and shut up
5. and knows how to fight

now sing along, class
Larry C
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 09-10-2001
Posts 10765
United States


3 posted 09-14-2005 09:57 PM       View Profile for Larry C   Email Larry C   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Larry C's Home Page   View IP for Larry C

Hey! I'll have some of what you're having.

If tears could build a stairway and memories a lane, I'd walk right up to heaven and bring you home again.

Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 05-18-2001
Posts 29020
Gaia


4 posted 09-14-2005 11:33 PM       View Profile for Midnitesun   Email Midnitesun   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Midnitesun

hehehe, it's called two glasses of SPYGLASS Merlot, and being
synaptically short-circuited from multiple menacing media monsters mentally maneuvering mountains of muck in my mischievous mind
JM would love this rant   
maybe I should stick this rant in open, just for grins, reap the rewards of resulting replies  
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


5 posted 09-15-2005 12:23 AM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

I can't wait more rabid liberals in the media and PAC's to decry his evasiveness, or flat out refusing to answer questions.  You know, like Justice Ginsberg did during her hearings, following the advice given to her by Democratic Senators on the Selection Committee.  I have a feeling there will be massive attacks of temporary amnesia.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


6 posted 09-15-2005 12:40 AM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

Though I can understand the strategy and benefits to nominating Roberts as Chief Justice, to have him influence the court for decades and with his strong credentials, I still am somewhat surprised he was chosen over Scalia to fill the Chief Justice position.

I am critical of him on a number of particular issues, but the more I've learned about him, even if he may not really be a voice of consensus, he does obviously have excellent credentials and a personality fitting for the court.

I believe it be wise for the Democrats to conserve their energy on the O'Connor vacation and let him be confirmed.

I will add also that though I would like to see nominees disclose more of their views, just so it can help relax the entire nation in general of what someone believes and where someone stands, I really didn't agree with the behavior of some Democrats to Roberts, particularly Joseph Biden, who I felt interrupted too much, and should ahve let him finish before responding.

It is obvious there will be no filibuster. Some Democrats will oppose him, but he'll easily be confirmed and if I were them, I'd let the confirmation process go smoothly, and what the Democrats should be focusing on are patiently portraying their views of the Constitution on some issues after Roberts responds to key points, so that way the American public understands where they follow on the Constitution and hope to be won over by a more moderate nominee to fill O'Connor's seat.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 05-18-2001
Posts 29020
Gaia


7 posted 09-15-2005 12:44 AM       View Profile for Midnitesun   Email Midnitesun   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Midnitesun

Well, Alicatman, maybe mass amnesia would be a good thing, then we could wipe the slates clean and start all over again without any crappola clouding the issues.
I just want to be reassured he will truly accept/judge each case on its merits and not by some predetermined socio-political yardstick. That would indeed make him an asset to our judicial system, whether I agree with his decisions or not.
Hey Noah, they need to ask questions, and he needs to give some answers. But yes, to spend an inordinate amount of time on it will not benefit anyone. We need to move forward on this quickly. I did like one thing Roberts said...that there is room for MORE on the dockets, not less. I've always felt more cases should go to the supreme court, that more, not less people, should have access to the highest court in the land.
Juju
Member Elite
since 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


8 posted 09-15-2005 12:56 AM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju

Noah, everyone leans to one direction there is no middle, just as close as possable.  Noah, Iknow there are some justices that lean to the right.  It is life. There are some that lean to the left.  iT IS REALLY BAD WHEN THEY ELECT SOME ONE WHO IS A RADICAL.  I don't think this guy is.  


-Juju

Juju - 1.) a magic charm or fetish 2.)Magic 3.)A taboo connected woth the use of magic

The dictionary never lies.... I am magical (;

Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


9 posted 09-15-2005 10:22 AM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Thanks Noah for the memory jog.  It was Senator Biden who told Ginsberg not to answer questions that would pre-judge cases, or would be inappropriate.  And she followed that advice completely.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


10 posted 09-15-2005 12:57 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

Absolutely correct, Alicat!

I do wish that these nominees, no matter which direction your views lean in, could take the heart in answering questions and disclosing more about themselves just for the good and relief of the American public, but I do believe it's only fair if others have refused to answer questions in the past, then you just can't force any nominee now to have to answer them.

I felt Biden was being a bit disrespectful, not to mention is being hypocritical for insisting one nominee didn't have to ask questions but this nominee has to. In fact, I can personally say I have a generally disapproving view of Biden beyond just this inconsistency.

In my heart, I wish there could be future nominees who have the courage to just declare where they stand. But it has been otherwise for quite some time, and I believe Roberts deserves the same tolerance as many previous nominees have gotten.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


11 posted 09-15-2005 04:07 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

There have been those who spoke their minds and were completely open, though there's been a long standing 'policy' about non-disclosure about possible/past/current/future Supreme Court cases.  One such person was Robert Bork, nominated by President Reagan in 1987, who was brutally blackballed by the Democratic Majority in the Senate.  The damage they did to his reputation lasted for decades and destroyed much of his life's work.  The Democratic Majority felt no shame, no remorse, and felt justified.  Most people watching at the time, irrespective of leaning, were shocked at how malicious their Senators were behaving, even to the point of acquiring his video rental history.  And some of the Senators who engaged in that shameful behavior are still in the Senate.

Extra material on Bork
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> the roberts hearings Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors