Roberts Comfirmation HearingFollow

Pubbies hold the majority in Congress so it's a done deal short of another filibuster which, even then, would only delay things.

Aside from Roberts admitting to **** war crimes, it's a formality.

By the way, other than The Pelican Brief, how did Julia ever get enough experience to get nominated for this position anyhow?

Totem

You're right. Roberts was the safe pick. O'Connors replacement will be true nut-job material.

Grady

Reviewing the duties of Chief Justice, I think the immediate question we need to be asking ourselves and that the Senate needs to be pressing on Roberts is clear:

Is Roberts really the man we want to serve as chancellor of the Smithsonian Institution?

i keep waiting for roberts to take off his mask and say he hates woman, blacks, atheists, and liberals and wishes them all to burn in hell, but it hasnt happened yet. Perhaps he is waiting to do that after he is appointed. Renquist was a petty big conservative so it wont throw off the balance too bad, but making roberts Cheif Justice to me seems un-warrented and very biased.

I'm not sure why you think so. It certainly is not without precedent (assuming your problem is the "new guy" getting to be Chief).

If O'Connor weren't retiring she'd be the logical candidate for Chief Justice. As it is, though, Bush has a right to appoint, pending approval, a new Chief Justice as opposed to elevating a sitting Justice and appointing a new Justice to replace them.

First off, while this may be a technical difference, but it's very incorrect to state that the Supreme Court just "decides how our laws are enforced", as though it's just a matter of the personal preference of each individual Justice. The court determines the constitutionality of an issue brought before it (typically an appeal of a lower court ruling on constitutional grounds). That's it. They don't get to make up rulings based on how they feel. In theory, they're supposed to be deciding how something applies *only* in terms of the constitution and past rulings of the court. They most certainly must justify any decision made based on the wording of the constitution (and past rulings of similar nature). A Justice cannot just rule a paticular way because he thinks that the way the laws of the country should work. Ok. Technically he can, but judges of that level *don't*.




But is that a problem with Roberts? Or a problem with the 49% who seem to become "vehemently upset" at any appointment that is not Liberal.

You seem to be saying that no Conservative justice should ever be appointed because that would be a slap in the face to liberals. So when you say a candidate that satisfies both conservatives and liberals, you really mean a candidate that satisfies liberals, since apparently, the requirement to satisfy liberals is to appoint someone that is liberal.

Or am I wrong? What kind of a conservative justice would you not be vehemently opposed to?

I'm really not hearing anyone who's "so vehemently upset", frankly. I'm seeing a lot of pretty good questions asked, and answered pretty much as expected.

As for the experience and the nation's trust, those are both irrelevant. He doesn't even have to be a practicing lawyer, for that matter. If Dubya wanted to pull in some guy off the street, he could do that, pending approval of course.

On what do you base your opinion of Roberts' decision making?

Can you cite cases that would show this to be true? I havent seen anything so far, and I am quite sure if it were out there the Dems would be trotting it all over the news by now.

I would think the biggest concern about Roberts would be that there is a lack of a record to show how he might or might not rule on something. Most of his work has be argueing cases infront of the SCOTUS. Those cases dont necessarily show what Roberts believes or doesnt believe, since he's argueing for a client and thus argueing their beliefs.