Maybe because it’s been 11 years since the last time the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings for a Supreme Court opening, the crushing monotony of this week’s proceeding has come as a surprise. Neither party’s senators have distinguished themselves (except maybe as brownnosers, bullies and windbags). After many hours of what Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., called “this Kabuki dance,” little is still known about what a John Roberts court would be like. But Roberts certainly deserves a prize for his stamina and patience, as well as his ability to say “no comment” in so many elegantly varied ways.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
16 Comments
Hey Folks,Before we sandbag Roberts, maybe we ought to see who’s next on Bush’s short list. Could be much, much worse! Might be that jackass from Ala. with his tombstone ten commandments.
Jed,
No way Specter would allow Ray Moore through. He’s no ideological stealth candidate. He also isn’t smart enough not to answer questions.
It’s obvious that Roberts is in–sigh–but I want to see the Dems’ endgame. I think they should push as hard as they can, and perhaps fillibuster on the principle of non-compliance by the nominee. The goal would be to send the strongest possible message about who the next nominee ought to be.
And I, for one, hope President Rove nominates Gonzales. How glorious to see that crooked bastard have to testify under oath. It would be the fishing expedition of my dreams.
This has less to do with Roberts, then it does for the Senators to get air time for their own selves.
Silly me, I thought the Constitution said that Supreme Court appointments were made “with the advice and consent” of the Senate, not an all out partisan brawl.
This appears to be less about trying to see if the man is qualified than it is to play political games and vote not on qualification but on ideology.
I would imagine the initial framers of the Constitution would be appalled at how this entire process has been hijacked for nothing more than political gain.
Isn’t “saying nothing” the idea in American politics? Since each party wants to be a “big tent”, each must walk on eggshells so as not to oggend any one constituency. In a parliamentary system, however, you get to join whatever little fringe party that yo believe in. And the leader of ther fringe party gets to say whatever he/she likes because even as a small minority, this fringe party might be needed to form a coalition government. The small size of the party can hide its real power.
oops, offend, not oggend
Why would he tip his hand if he’s got a chance at bluffing his way to winning the pot?
“Silly me, I thought the Constitution said that Supreme Court appointments were made “with the advice and consent” of the Senate, not an all out partisan brawl.”
Well, silly you, indeed. Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton dead over ideology, so let’s not get all teary eyed about how far our glorious republic has fallen from the framer’s “intentions” whatever they were.
The reality is that the “non-partisan” supreme court picked our last president, the guy who DIDN’T HAVE THE MOST VOTES, remember?
We have a two-party system and that means partisanship. I had to suck up five years of the WORST. PRESIDENT. EVER. so I don’t feel too bad about you having to endure three days of questioning.
Here’s what Ray has to say about liberals:
What you earn, even the property that you have paid for with the fruits of your work, literally the “sweat of your brow,” does not belong to you, but to any lazy moocher that demands a “share.” That is a “collectivist” theme. Socialism, Communism, Nazism, and many other such “isms” that demand a “share” of the earnings of the producers of this nation are all “collectivist” themes.
*****
Uh, Ray, when the F5 tornado hits your house, remind me to tell FEMA that you don’t need any special help, that you’re totally self-reliant.
Or let’s say you want to send your kid to school. Oops, too bad, Ray. That’s “collectivism” like “Nazism” to you, so you’re kid doesn’t get to go.
Do you drive on roads? Because if you do, they are paid for with my tax dollars and I don’t want YOU driving on them, so stay off of them. Make your own damn road, you rugged individualist, you.
Get the picture? No, sadly, you probably don’t . . .
Galahad–why are you making up things and attributing them to me? I never said a word about collectivism, Socialism or anything of the sort.
Tell me, do they have electricity on your planet?
Ray–
This isn’t you?
http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/may/21/raythomas.htm
If it’s not, I apologize.
No. That is not me. I have no website other than one for my motorcycle group. I have never seen that before, I am not accustomed to calling people Nazi’s or Communists, and I certainly do not agree with his website.Correction, there are people I have called Communists, the ones that were shooting at me in 1971 in SE Asia when I was with the First US Marines.
Okay, Ray, I stand corrected.
Sorry, dude.
And thanks for your service.
This and most of the other time consuming ploys of the Democrats is to block all Republican plans possible. If they slow down things enough there will never be any Social Security fixes or any of their other favorite subjects. Just politics as usual.The Clinton impeachment was the same thing. The Right didn’t want Gore in there.
I don’t think Roberts is qualified to serve as the chief judiciary. He will have an important and long lasting effect on the system of justice. I just can’t trust that to someone so determined to hide his own agenda and record.
JUSTICE should not be in the trust of IDEALOGUES of any stripe. This man is obviously troubling to a great many Americans. A position of such importance should only be trusted to someone who can find the support of the ENTIRE Senate.
“This man is obviously troubling to a great many Americans.”
He is? Any proof on this assumption?