"I shouldn't answer any questions that might come up as a SC justice"

[Solly Mack]

So if you have any questions about my views on the Constitutionality of laws, don't ask. Even if I'm currently involved in a confirmation hearing on whether or not I am qualified to be a SC justice, much less Chief Justice. I can't speak to the Constitutionality of any issue because it might come up as a question of Constitutionality by the court.

I can speak on precedent, rather, I can use the word precedent and the term, stari decisis, because it's fun to obfuscate just what I think of precedent. While I do respect precedent, and I have mentioned that many times, applying stari decisis to any precedent is a precedent of the precedent, which is a new precedent, altering the framing of the former precedent, though a precedent that survives challenges could be a super precedent, it's still a precedent I can't answer because it might come up as a Constitutional issue for the court.

I think that about covers the hearings so far.

[eallen]

1. They ought to ask the questions in essay form.

"Judge Roberts, tomorrow we'd like you to come and give a two-hour lecture on the way in which the Constitution protects privacy and a sphere of liberty in personal life."

[Solly Mack]

2. LOL! That might work

but I shudder at the thought

[Jersey Devil]

3. I hate to say this, but we made this bed & now we have to sleep in it

These are the rules the Democrats used when their nominees were to be grilled by the Republicans and were last employed on the nomination of Justice Ginsberg. No justice appointee has to answer questions about how they would rule on a particular issue.

The advice and consent functions of the Senate have been nullified and it is our own fault for establishing such a horrible precedent of our own.

[tx_dem41]

4. Shame on you, JD!

For pointing out our collective hypocrisy. ;)

[Solly Mack]

5. "playing politics" does have a way of coming back around to bite the ass

only it's the people that suffer...not the ones playing politics

:(

[Xithras]

6. Sometimes I think we should go back to the old way of doing it.

Prior the the 1960's Supreme Court nominees weren't questioned at all...they didn't even have to TALK to Congress. At that time, justices were nominated solely on their qualifications...their resume and history was passed out to everyone, and then a simple yes or no vote would be taken.

The system has fundamentally changed. 100 years ago, the President might have nominated, and the Senate might have rejected 10-15 candidates before finding one they liked...a process that took maybe a week. Nowadays the President nominates ONE person, and we have this huge, showy confirmation that rarely rejects anybody.

IMO, the old system was better. Let their record speak for itself.

[Solly Mack]

7. the hearings do have the feel of a horse and pony show

[spuddonna]

8. Yeah, now we have to deal with the spin on the record...

Although, have we really gotten the whole record yet? I apologize if this is old news, I've been so busy following the NO news...

Did they ever get the missing info they were looking for on Roberts?