Why approve a man for Chief Justice when he refuses to answer questions?

[shance]

It should be a closed case.

If a candidate refuses to answer straight forward questions, that person is not only insulting and dismissing the committee asking the questions, the candidate doesnt in any realm or capacity deserve to become any sort of judge on ANY court.

Doesn't it seem elementary?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Whom then would you prefer Bush to nominate?

:shrug: Seriously, what are our alternatives here? It's bad enough that he's going to have to nominate another neo-nazi wannabe to the Supremes soon.

[jrthin]

7. Someone who will answer

questions. That's a place to start.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. Best of luck in that search!!

And if someone like Pat Robertson answers questions, does that mean it's okay that he'd be the new Chief Justice? Because you know he'd get confirmed, filibuster or no.

[info being]

22. No, that means we can dismiss him on the answers to those questions

A person should be expected to stand up for him or her self, or else he or she is either wrong or deceptive.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

23. And when he answers those questions, how do you propose we stop him?

And then, if you do stop him, how do you propose we stop the worse nominee that Bush will inevitably nominate?

And then how do you expect we get the rest of the American people to believe this was a good idea?

[shance]

9. I think a better question is why are we accepting such individuals

as candidates when their records show a clear ideological bias and an inability to be objective?

If a person's record reveals a pattern of bias, preferential treatment towards a certain faction and/or a consistent disregard for certain groups of people, how is that person capable of making sound judgements and/or verdicts?

If a person's actions and words reveal a "biased" pattern, it really makes no difference how bright or prolific one may seem, they simply cannot be fair.

Its as if they lack the constitutional capability (no pun intended*) because their preferences distort their decision making ability. They are incapable of being objective and their narrow viewpoints impede their ability to remove their bias from the bigger scope.

Bias or preferential decision making is the antithesis of good judgement.

We are all capable of allowing our views to color our choices, however, a capable judge is able to remove his prejudices from legal precedent. I believe the nominees the Bush Administration continue to put forth consistently lack this ability. That may be a primary factor why they are being nominated.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. I think a better question is, how do we reject such candidates?

We lack the power to.

Unfortunately, not enough Americans saw the Supreme Court as an issue in November 2004. And as such, we get almost no say in the matter. Even if we filibuster, they'd just repeal filibusters altogether.

And so, we come back to my question - which of Bush's potential nominees do you think is going to be better than Roberts?

[shance]

17. We don't lack the power imo, we lack the will.

We are all responsible for this country. We all have to work harder and put more pressure on those that are jeopardizing our future as a nation.

We will continue to be bullied and attacked until we say no.

There are other ways to resist this assault on our government. Republicans have shut down Congress, so can we.

We also need to support our good leaders more so they dont feel they are being fed to the wolves without some back up.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

18. It's not an opinion situation. It's a fact.

We do NOT have the means to defeat any nomination - period. If you think this is an opinion thing, please, cite for me the exact powers you would use to shoot down a nomination. And then you tell me if those powers would or wouldn't be complete political suicide.

[shance]

25. Let me ask you, do the Republicans let the "facts" get in their way?

We are dealing with individuals who break the rules regularly. We have to learn to deal accordingly with those who don't respect the rules or the government on a regular basis.

Sometimes waiting for permission to do the right thing is not enough.

Again, the Republicans with Newt Gingrich shut down Congress. That's a fact as well. I don't have concrete answers on how to do this, although I would hope there are progressive legal experts who are looking into ways to stop this immoral stampede on everyones rights but the top wealthiest .01 percent.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

27. Being in control, facts don't have to get in their way.

We do not have control. And Republicans controlled Congress when they shut it down.

And no, there is no way to do this without being in power. It truly is check mate.

[fooj]

2. I know. Maybe Michael Brown can stand in. I heard he needs a job!

:grr:

[AverageJoe]

3. Agreed

The whole process should be transparent, rigorous and fair. Refusing to answer straightforward questions should not be an option for the nominee.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

5. Well what "they" will answer you on that one

is that Ruth Ginsberg also refused to answer specific questions.

Not taking sides here...JUST SAYING...


I thought it was a sham then and I think so now.

[Zinfandel]

Bullshit!

[TallahasseeGrannie]

10. And then there is this issue

What does it matter HOW they answer the quesitions? Can't they just say later "I heard the evidence and changed my mind?"

I think the QA period is political grandstanding.

Judges have a paper trail. This one doesn't have much of one, but I'd say it is more indicative of future rulings than Q/A.

Remember, Ann Coulter slammed him. That gives one hope.

[shance]

12. Can you provide evidence to back up that assertion TG?

I don't remember her refusing to answer any questions.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

15. Actually

I do remember it. Because I liked her and was disappointed when it seemed to me she was refusing to answer detailed questions. I still like her.

I'll look for a link, but I'll have to get the flame suit out.

I'm not criticizing her, just saying the process is flawed.

Back in a few.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

16. Okay, found something

My first source is -GULP- Foxnews online

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163608,00.html

Now nobody hit me! I used this source to come up with the phrase "The Ginsburg Rule" and did another hit and come up with a whole LOT of RW blogs (to be expected) but a decent number of other cites, including the one below by a Harvard Law prof. I kind of like what he had to say; pretty much my point but I'm NOT a Harvard Law prof.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/weblog/oped/archives/2005/09/asked_and_answe.html

[satya]

4. If he believes our rights are "granted" to us by the Constitution, not

that the Constitution limits the rights of the Federal govt, that's enough to settle the issue for me. He's got no business being on the Supreme Court.

Thom Hartmann said that on his show today, I don't know how he reached that conclusion.

[TomPainesBones]

6. How is it even LEGAL to refuse to answer questions???!!!!

I don't get it.

If you refuse to answer any question, that should be grounds for rejection.

[Yupster]

11. It probably should be, but it isn't

In 1993, Ruth Bader Ginsburg started her testimony off by saying that it would violate her ethics as a judge to say one word on how she felt on any issue that might come before the court. She added she would offer no hints, no forecasts, no previews of her thinking on any of those issues.And she stuck to it throughout her couple days of testimony.

You'd think the Republicans would have been ourtraged, but they weren't. They happily voted for her and she won confirmation 96-3.

I believe they wewre happy because they knew that what goes around, comes around, and their nominee would claim the same ethical lack of voice some years down the road and now here we are.

Are you outraged?

Now, or back in 1993 too?

[Dr Fate]

13. If we dont play along, Sean hannity will compare us to Micheal Moore.

n/t

[shance]

19. What a compliment that would be. Many of us don't deserve such a

comparison.

Whether you agree with him fully or not, Moore has been willing to suit up and show up and put himself on the line. THAT is one of the biggest problems with many Americans at large.

We haven't been as willing to fight for our nation, and yet we have been beneficiaries of all the luxuries being an American and we have taken for granted all that has been given to us and just expect it to be there without fighting for it. That's what will destroy this country, is the unwillingness to fight for what has been fought for through the years.

[Dr Fate]

20. But, but- if a Democrat said what you just said...

...then Sean Hannity might compare us to MoveOn.org

Give DEMs a break- I'm sure they are doing lots of wonderful things behind the scenes- just like during the last 3 elections we lost.

[shance]

26. Why is that a bad thing? Who cares what Sean Hannity thinks?

Do you give him more credibility than the truth?

[Dr Fate]

32. When the media is mean to Democrats, it hurts my feelings.

Cant we just shut up and let the DEMs handle this behind the scenes, like they they did during the last 3 elections we lost?

I'm frightened that it might turn off swing-voters if they see us fighting too hard. Bush may be at his lowest polling ever, but we still need to play it safe.

What you are suggesting sounds like radical, Micheal Moore stuff.

[shance]

33. The truth and the facts are radical?

Because that is what Michael Moore is brilliant at exposing. He lets the camera speak for itself.

Such he adds his commentary, personally I like it because he's funny, but why is that radical?

I don't see him as radical, I see him as a citizen that realizes how important it is for Americans to view what the media most often censors from its coverage.

I think if anythone is behaving "radically" today, it would be those in the Administration and in Congress who attempt to suppress the truth from being expressed and revealed.

[Dr Fate]

35. Okay- okay - I am KIDDING.

Please re-read my posts.

I thought it was obvious that I was being sarcastic.

Perhaps I sounded just like Joe Liberman or Kerry's campaign "strategists" and that is why you did not catch that.

Cheers!!!

:)

[shance]

36. Oh man, my comic radar must be on low voltage again.

The Bush Administration should pay for all the batteries Ive been through.

when I can't see the sarcasm i know its time to step.away.from.the.computer.

:)

[livefrom]

21. Let's assume for a moment that he had answered all the questions

Whichever way he answered, he would later be precluded from hearing any case involving any of the issues on which he had responded, whether on the Supreme Court or, if he is not confirmed, back on the Federal Court of Appeals.

Given the wide breadth of questions that were asked on both sides, that would effectively end his career as a judge, and would have done the same to Ginsberg back then.

It is appropriate for a nominee to answer questions regarding their experience and understanding of general legal concepts; it is not appropriate for them to give any indication of how they would rule on any specific legal issue. If I remember correctly, nominees were not even asked questions during confirmation prior to about 60 years ago or so.

One other point, and that is that nominees probably have in their minds how they would have ruled on past cases, but if the same legal issue is presented in the future with different facts, they may rule the other way, depending on those facts, assuming the nominee is completely unaffected by their own political views or the views of the party that appointed them.

To what extent political views impact those future decisions will never be known to any of us, though I will point out that parties have been surprised in the past by Democratic nominees who ended up ruling conservatively in most cases, and Republican nominees who ended up ruling liberally, and nominees from both sides ruling more moderately than had originally been expected.

If I had to guess, I would say that Roberts will be consistently conservative, as opposed to consistently moderate, if he gets on the bench, especially as Chief Justice. I think he was chosen because he can easily give the impression of being somewhat moderate while in reality being quite conservative, in fact, he may have been grooming himself for a seat on the Supreme Court by staying close to the middle all these years thereby "saving up" his conservativism to use only when and if he made it to the Supreme Court, when it would have the greatest impact.

[shance]

28. What is your definition of conservative?

I would not consider Roberts to be a true conservative, although he definitely uses such a label to describe himself.

Would you say that a conservative is someone who jeopardizes the rights of anyone not within the white male Christian category?

I would disagree. I believe a true conservative believes in the abilities of all Americans to achieve their potential. However many using the term conservative (and some that claim to be liberal) are anything but conservative, or liberal.

That is one reason why I am not a big supporter of labels to describe someone. We all make immediate and often inaccurate assumptions when we hear someone labelled. Its human but its creating an assumption that like I said is often one dimensional and inaccurate.

[livefrom]

31. Well I would have to say that

some people who consider themselves to be conservative, or are considered to be conservative, fall into your first definition and some fall into your ideal definition and most are probably somewhere in between. Where the bulk of them are is hard to say, I would suspect the "white Christian male category" is probably more vocal than the acheivement of potential category, in the same way that radical liberals are more vocal than people who are progressive or moderate. jmo

[GayCanuck]

24. Why

does it appear that the Democrats are laying down on the nominee?

[noiretextatique]

29. that's an excellent question

and yes, it is elementary. if i refused to answer questions in a job interview, what would i get the damn job? hell no.

[Mr. Blonde]

34. Yeah, but this is different from most jobs

A competent employer would only ask you about the concepts of law and not how you would rule on certain cases. It is hardly fair to essentially tell someone that if you promise to vote the way I want to I will approve you. Especially since the senate isn't the SC's boss.

[noiretextatique]

37. no, we are his boss, and the senate is supposed to represent us

and of course since bush nominated him, so i don't trust him. he may prove to be different than thomas, a company man if there ever was one, but i doubt it.

[Mr. Blonde]

38. So he should be denied if

he can't please the entire country? Either way you are looking at about half the country disagreeing with the majority of his decisions.

[noiretextatique]

40. he should be denied because the bush administration is incompetent

per its dismal approval ratings, so i'm not sure there are that many people clamoring for roberts' confirmation.

[Mr. Blonde]

41. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes

He should be denied or approved based on his own merits not who nominated him. And because he won't answer how he will rule is not the proper way to decide that. His knowledge of the law is.

[noiretextatique]

42. how can you tell what his knowledge of the law is

if he refuses to answer questions? and who nomimated him, the worst pResident in history, is as relevant to his homination as it should have been to the former head of FEMA's nomination, since we know NOW that 'Brownie' was totally unqualified for the position.
and if merit was relevant, thomas wouldn't be on the court now.

[Mr. Blonde]

43. From what I have seen

he will answer questions related to the concepts of law. In the same position I don't think any nominee by either party would answer questions about potential cases.

[noiretextatique]

45. perhaps that applied to 'Brownie' too

great results with that one...

[enough already]

30. Yep

We need to filibuster this nazi.

[Dr Fate]

39. That sounds like somthing a tough Republican would say...

...if this were Kerry's pick.

[ArkDem]

44. You have a keen legal mind!