WaPo: Roberts Supported by a Majority. (But 65% Want Roe Upheld)

[bettyellen]

Roberts Supported by a Majority in Poll
But 64 Percent Want Nominee to State His Views on Key Issues Such as Abortion
By Richard Morin and Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, July 23, 2005; Page A06

A clear majority of Americans say John G. Roberts Jr. should be confirmed to serve on the Supreme Court but want him to state his views on abortion before the Senate votes on his nomination, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Nearly six in 10 Americans -- 59 percent -- said the Senate should confirm Roberts, while 23 percent said it should not. The remainder expressed no opinion.


But the public wants to know more about Roberts and his attitudes on key legal issues before he is confirmed. Nearly two in three -- 64 percent -- said he should publicly explain his views on abortion before the Senate acts."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/22/AR2005072201430.html?sub=AR

[tk2kewl]

1. good thing he doesn't get confirmed by referendum

what the fuck do those people know

[JohnKleeb]

2. Well I think it makes sense

It should be a hearing with lots of questions. I agree of course that he should give his stance on it, since it is an important case that is regularly up before the court. I believe Durbin said he planned to ask him about Griswold which is the case that legalized contraceptives.

[bettyellen]

4. lots of lots of questions.....

:hi:

[JohnKleeb]

6. Yep

They shouldnt let him just sail through, you have to ask questions. Anyhow another thing about supreme court justices is that they are often surprises, I would say of all our branches of government, the judiciary surprises us the most. Hey, how are ya? birthdays in two days.

[tk2kewl]

9. kinda like a budget with lots of numbers

a hearing has lots of questions

[DBoon]

16. Griswold is a good thing to ask about

You can't overturn Rove without touching Griswold.

I think when more Americans realize that the right to use birth control is at risk they will pay more attention.

This isn't about abortion - this is about the right of privacy protection the ability to make medical decisions about reproduction.

[54anickel]

3. Sure would like to see how that poll was worded. But this part is

promising

Sixty-one percent of the poll's respondents want Roberts to answer questions about how he would have ruled on past cases before the court, an inquiry that could open the door for senators to explore his views on other contentious issues, such as affirmative action, gun control and same-sex marriage.

Seems a lot of people from all sides want to know more about him. Good to see there are inquiring minds remaining.

[bettyellen]

7. Sixty-five percent said they want Roberts to vote to uphold Roe

v. Wade , the 1973 Supreme Court decision that established a constitutional right to abortion. Support for that ruling is widely shared, the survey found, coming from eight in 10 Democrats, two-thirds of all independents and half of all Republicans."

[54anickel]

10. Thanks, I was curious as to how the questions were posed/worded and

in what order/fashion.

I found the 61% with "inquiring minds" as a good sign that people are waking up. While Roe is important, there are so many other issues now. I've somehow gotten this thread tied to another in my head.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1647149

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/23/politics/politicsspecial1/23confirm.html?hp&ex=1122091200&en=fb39f9e37379e238&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Earlier, at a meeting with reporters, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, indicated that he intended to question Judge Roberts closely not only about "privacy rights," but also about his views on the clause of the Constitution that authorizes the government to regulate interstate commerce.

Since the New Deal, that clause has provided the basis for a host of federal regulations and social programs including welfare, the minimum-wage laws, civil-rights laws and environmental rules. Some conservative judges and scholars have argued that the clause should be more narrowly interpreted, restricting the authority of the Congress and giving states more latitude.

In a sign that he shared that view, Judge Roberts, who sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, argued in one dissenting opinion that the federal government did not have the power to block a California real estate development because it endangered the habitat of a certain toad.

Seizing on that opinion, Mr. Kennedy warned of "an enormous danger" if the Supreme Court turned away from the broad New Deal interpretation of the Commerce Clause. "Can you imagine the sort of nation we would be if each state had to pass each civil rights law separately?" he asked. "We would be a lesser nation."

[bettyellen]

12. thanks for addding that-- also really important

i retitled the thread when it occured to me they should have used an "IF" in their headline about supporting Roe v Wade.
That's a big IF.
I'm sick of hearing this roll over and accept it bullshit, this is the summer to ask Bush again and again where the hell he thinks he's taking this country.

[JI7]

5. so we just need to make the issue about Roe v Wade

since that's what it's about anyways. the public is with us on this.

[Mz Pip]

8. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Can't have Roberts and be confident that Roe will remain intact. These are two mutually exculsive desires.

Pick one.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[leesa]

11. They don't even know who the hell he is, but they support him...right.

[JI7]

13. i wonder what the numbers would be if they knew for sure his position

on Roe v Wade. specifically if they knw he opposed it.

[femrap]

14. Just when I begin to have hope that the American

public is waking up, they go and say.....'Oh yeah, this nominee looks OK....has a wife, 2 kids.....sure looks good to me. And what is this Supreme Court anyway?'

[Olympus]

15. Too soon to tell...

I am not convinced that Roberts is a rabid ideologue like Scalia/Thomas, and for that reason, I don't think Roe is in immediate danger. Of all the questions to ask Roberts during his confirmation hearing, the one I think matters most concerns the methodology he will employ when interpreting the Constitution. In other words, Scalia/Thomas claim to be "originalists" who can somehow channel the Founders' original intent and understanding of the Constitution. Of course, this is pure nonsense, as there was never any "one" original understanding of the Constitution, and there was significant (and hostile) disagreement on many provisions. As a result, Scalia/Thomas are free to pick and choose among what they imagine an 18th century mind would think about a 21st century problem. It is a perfect foil for an archconservative agenda- much like religion. Further, the originalist approach ignores the fact that the Founders were themselves radical, progressive revolutionaries. The cognitive dissonance of this approach makes my head hurt, and even Scalia/Thomas abandon it when it would lead to absurd or repugnant results, i.e. they conveniently invoke originalist methodology when it produces an outcome they agree with and.or want. I dream of the day when Scalia/Thomas attempt to reconcile their "originalist" understanding with the fact that abortion was legal at the time the Constitution was written- they could take mental gymnastics to a whole new level....

The better approach, in my view, is the "living principle" approach adopted by J. Brennan and others. This approach allows for consideration of the 18th century core intent/understanding, but is not beholden to antiquity. Instead, it takes the best essence of the Founders' intent and applies it in a way that makes sense in our time. In my humble opinion, this approach captures the power, flexibility and genius of our Constitution, and keeps our legal system (and country) on a fairly even keel.

When evaluating a justice, methodology matters because the methodology, not personal opinion, will ultimately shape the outcome of a particular case. Consequently, I don't put much stock in any position Roberts may have taken on a past case (he was a paid advocate), and I am much more interested to know how he arrives at his decisions. Shumer can chuck his long list of questions and ask Roberts to describe his Constitutional methodology. That would give us more insight into how Roberts will decide cases over years than his canned answers to made-for-TV questions. Just my two cents.

Oh.. if, by chance, Roberts does identify himself as an originalist, then we should bring down the thunder and show no mercy. :evilgrin:

:dem:

[bettyellen]

17. welcome to DU, Olympus...