My Eyes Will Be In Your Womb ... Er, Uh ... I Mean Bedroom ... Er... Oh What the Hell, It's Both
BTW - I agree with Kevin Drum's assessment that this Roberts confirmation hearing is just one big kabuki dance. Robert's is giving just enough of a confusing song-and-dance to provide ass coverage for the socially liberal conservatives and conservative democrats who'll vote for him. All the while, every single person in the room really knows the guy will push an agenda of greater corporate freedom and less individual freedom.
Boooooootttt!!!!
posted by Macswain at
7:34 PM
4 Comments:
I'm still not convinced that Roberts won't be more like Kennedy/O'Connor than Scalia/Thomas.
From what I've seen of Roberts (although this morning I didn't see anthing as the dolts at C-SPAN put the Roberts nomination on C-SPAN 3, which Comcast doesn't feel it has to give me), I don't detect arrogance, which is the hallmark of an ideologue.
I'm with Mr. Sowers. Forr a GW Bush appointment, Roberts ain't bad. I frankly was expecting someone along the lines of Phyllis Schlafly.
By
Anonymous, at 1:03 PM
James & Webhub,
I appreciate your posts but disagree as to the deferential standard you seem to apply. The Senate shouldn't simply rubber stamp lifetime appointees to one of the most powerful position in the country because that appointee doesn't appear to be a whacko.
The Senators must determine if the candidate is a wise, fair and independent thinker or just a party shill. The Senators must determine if the candidate holds extreme views based more on politics than any consistent phiosophy. This is the Senate's and, in effect, the American people's only opportunity to judge this candidate and a less than candid appointee should not be rewarded with a lifetime tenure to make great decisions affecting us all.
BTW - I believe Roberts is Bork with just a more polished approach and, more importantly, with friends throughout the beltway judicial media (e.g. Nina Tottenberg).
By
Macswain, at 11:44 PM
Schumer yesterday was excellent in his examination of Roberts' refusal to comment on past decisions.
He first set him up with 5 minutes grilling on whether he agreed with Thomas' Bowers dissent, where Thomas said there's no general right of privacy. Taking Roberts' earlier comments that there was a right to privacy in the constitution, he pushed him mercilessly to disagree with Thomas. Roberts went all the way out on the limb explaining why he couldn't comment on other decisions.
Schumer then sawed off the limb cleanly by pounding Roberts on how refusing to comment on past decisions couldn't possibly adversely affect his ability to sit as a justice. After all, that's what justices do everytime they author an opinion.
Ending the inquiry, Schumer said it's like asking, "what movies do you like?" and getting "I like movies with good actors",
"what movies do you like?
"movies with good directors?"
"did you like Casablanca?"
"Casablanca is widely regarded as a leading movie" etc.
By
Anonymous, at 9:47 AM
Song and dance, huh. You are pissing me off again Tigard boy. Rolly
By
Anonymous, at 6:30 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home