NYT: Court Nominee Says Early Career Is No Guide

[DeepModem Mom]

Court Nominee Says Early Career Is No Guide
By DAVID STOUT
Published: September 14, 2005


WASHINGTON, Sept. 14 - Judge John G. Roberts Jr. told senators today that the views he expressed as a young lawyer in the administration of President Ronald Reagan are not necessarily a gauge of how he would rule today on issues like voting rights and affirmative action.

Judge Roberts told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who are considering his nomination to be chief justice of the United States, that he does not doubt the constitutionality of once-controversial sections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, that he sees the value of affirmative action and that he is committed to women's rights.

The nominee also pledged, in the face of sometimes pointed questions, that he would not be condescending to lawmakers when reviewing their handiwork.

"We don't like being treated like schoolchildren," Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who heads the 18-member panel, told the judge as he alluded to decisions in which the Supreme Court had, in Mr. Specter's view, seemed to question the very reasoning powers of members of Congress.

"I don't think the court should be the Congress's taskmaster," Judge Roberts said, declaring that the Constitution is the true taskmaster....


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/14/politics/politicsspecial1/14cnd-confirm.html?hp&ex=1126756800&en=9a5fd711633b9744&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[PATRICK]

1. Can we cut through this?

Will those skilled in facial signs of lying simply analyze whether roberts is simply telling a bunch of convenient lies? Someone preferably familiar with lawyers as well as liars?

According to the rules, no proof except what he will do in the FUTURE and no instinctive predictions based on character and actions in the past, means anything in the now truncated and charade-like game that passes for committee review. When you have the power you can be daunting and impressive. If you are not allowed the real pathetic nature of politicians comes out. Candidates who promise things and then go back on them when in office are so common that they themselves evade the issue of punishing untruth.

Again, do facial readings suggest Roberts is seriously prevaricating? And when answers are crafted to avoid telling a direct lie can't that be a negative instead of a sporting point proving his admirable cunning? There are two certainties that belie the stupid hope for a rare miracle of "independence" happening after anointing. One that Bush is extremely aware of that(Souter) and NEEDS a crony. Second is the shroud of ignorance that is cast over this pitiful selling point. The RW will only be disappointed, I believe, if Roberts turns out to be more Bush crony than a champion of their social terror. What in blazes anyone else expects is beyond me.

As for the Independence of judges once on the bench, they were not so tailored and vetted even by Nixon. Sure they ranted about the harm the "turncoats" did, but Bush Inc. NEEDS to own a crony in this spot. An ideologue or a stooge will not do. This has not been the focus of democratic examination or judgment. Again they have disastrously slid away from the juggernaut coming at them plainly, all banners flying.
And excused once more their own impotence by the rules of a vandalized game. A lousy short national history with some examples does not make an exception a rule, especially if a ruthless bunch is very aware of it and has something very concrete in mind- and can get away with it. We seem to think now our hopes are written on stone. Our Constitution is written on combustible paper.

When other countries opposition members would have walked out ours can't imagine it, except for the Texas legislature which tried to be more clever than defiant. Why should ANY Bush appointee especially judges similar to those who appointed him over democracy by charitably, weakly processed like a block of cheese?