Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Roberts most experienced advocate before supreme court
Roberts found 'deep regard' for court arguing cases: Notes that Roberts has more experience as an advocate before the Supreme Court than any of the current justices. Of Course, Senator 'put a hammer in my skull'* Schumer continues to demonstrate his partisan obstructionism and loyalty to those who seek no restraint on sucking the brains from the mostly born. He also lacks an understanding of the Senate's role in the process:
"Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., a member of the Judiciary Committee that will hold a confirmation hearing, said, 'It is vital that Judge Roberts answer a wide range of questions openly, honestly, and fully in the coming months. His views will affect a generation of Americans and it is his obligation during the nomination process to let the American people know those views.' He added, 'The burden is on a nominee to the Supreme Court to prove that he is worthy, not on the Senate to prove he is unworthy. "
The Senate is not a judicial body before whom a nominee must prove his credentials. The Senate approval is to guard against favoritism (nepotism and corruption (see past and future posts on Federalist No. 76) -- Schumer places a burden where it does not belong. I can see the hearings now:
Senator Schumer: Would you vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, which protects a womans sacred right.......
Judge Roberts: Of course I cannot comment upon specific situations, I can only say that I would uphold the Constitution.
Senator Schumer: You will answer this question! How would you rule?
Judge Roberts: Well, I can see the competing interests as..... However, I cannot rule without knowing the particular facts, and I cannot comment on any particular set of facts as that would then call into question the integrity of the judicial process and create the appearance that I have already revealed how I would rule on given facts which may or may never come before the court, but which would raise issues of prejudice to the parties... But I would be bound by the Constitution with appropriate deference for the principle of stare decisis.
Repeat the process with Senator Durbin and other democratic senators who in the end will vote "no" because of the special interest group litmus test. However, barring the discovery of some scandal or the defection of Republican Senators like the despicable 7, Roberts should be confirmed.
*I do not advocate any such conduct. Whenever I see the esteemed mealy-mouthed senator for New York I am reminded of a comment that a construction worker friend of mine made to the effect that whenever he sees that guy, he just wants to put his claw hammer in the guy's forehead. He would never actually do that, nor would he advocate that others do that.
"Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., a member of the Judiciary Committee that will hold a confirmation hearing, said, 'It is vital that Judge Roberts answer a wide range of questions openly, honestly, and fully in the coming months. His views will affect a generation of Americans and it is his obligation during the nomination process to let the American people know those views.' He added, 'The burden is on a nominee to the Supreme Court to prove that he is worthy, not on the Senate to prove he is unworthy. "
The Senate is not a judicial body before whom a nominee must prove his credentials. The Senate approval is to guard against favoritism (nepotism and corruption (see past and future posts on Federalist No. 76) -- Schumer places a burden where it does not belong. I can see the hearings now:
Senator Schumer: Would you vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, which protects a womans sacred right.......
Judge Roberts: Of course I cannot comment upon specific situations, I can only say that I would uphold the Constitution.
Senator Schumer: You will answer this question! How would you rule?
Judge Roberts: Well, I can see the competing interests as..... However, I cannot rule without knowing the particular facts, and I cannot comment on any particular set of facts as that would then call into question the integrity of the judicial process and create the appearance that I have already revealed how I would rule on given facts which may or may never come before the court, but which would raise issues of prejudice to the parties... But I would be bound by the Constitution with appropriate deference for the principle of stare decisis.
Repeat the process with Senator Durbin and other democratic senators who in the end will vote "no" because of the special interest group litmus test. However, barring the discovery of some scandal or the defection of Republican Senators like the despicable 7, Roberts should be confirmed.
*I do not advocate any such conduct. Whenever I see the esteemed mealy-mouthed senator for New York I am reminded of a comment that a construction worker friend of mine made to the effect that whenever he sees that guy, he just wants to put his claw hammer in the guy's forehead. He would never actually do that, nor would he advocate that others do that.
// posted by Zerin Hood @ 10:13 AM 
