<p>I don’t know the important things, I know what the right and left had said, all with spin, I admit. And if you think the Right hasn’t spun things, well, think again.</p>
<p>We have the right and responsiblity to ask questions and get answers.</p>
<p>Or what is the point of 3 branches of government, the very foundation of this country.</p>
<p>I already know what I need to know about his thoughts and writings, and that he has the full confidence of the President of the United States and the votes of the majority of the Senate, and the minority has already agreed not to block the nomination, so why exactly do I need to know more? If the Republican senators feel they need to know more, that’s up to them. But will knowing more make me a better citizen? Will it expand my power as an actively engaged citizen? A better person?</p>
<p>The powers to nominate are invested in the President, my elected representative, and to confirm in the Senate, my elected representatives. There’s nothing in the Constitution about this being MY responsibility, and it isn’t something I’ve chosen to take on…</p>
<p>I want him to say outloud what he believes…what is the harm, for the record books, see what he says, and what he does</p>
<p>See how he handles himself. Its not like we can fire him if he does a bad job.</p>
<p>And, I for one, want to hear what he has to say. Rubber stamping is not a good idea for someone who has the power to form the next twenty years of our laws, no matter who has faith in him</p>
<p>I would think if he was as good as they claim he is, they would want to show that.</p>
<p>But if they want to rush it through, which I don’t understand, its almost like trying to not give people the chance to hear what he has to say</p>
<p>Like a kid saying, sign my homework, but don’t look at it</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/06/opinion/06tribe.html?pagewanted=print[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/06/opinion/06tribe.html?pagewanted=print</a></p>
<p>
Just like Ginsburg did…</p>
<p>After seeing some of Bush’s choices for other offices, I would like to see at least him avoiding questions</p>
<p>I wish Ginsberg had as well</p>
<p>CGM,</p>
<p>Bandit’s reference was to Ginsberg not answering direct questions on topics that may come before the court. Ginsberg did not answer the questions and was overwhelmingly approved by the senate, republicans and democrats. I believe that what Bandit is saying is that Roberts should be given the same courtesy as Ginsberg.</p>
<p>I know that and I wish she had been more forth right, and didn’t Roberts coach her? Wasn’t it his job to tell her how to answer questions, so she was a very good student
And this job is a little different, so I would think it would require some more depth</p>
<p>BTW, I think Chocoholic has it right as to why Bush nominated Roberts to replace Rehnquist. O’Connor has said she will serve until a replacement is confirmed. By changing Roberts to take the place of Rehnquist there will still be 9 votes on the court.</p>
<p>Regarding the powers of the Chief Justice, they are considered “first among equals”. This gives them the power to assign who writes the majority opinion if they are in the majority and the minority opinion if they are in the minority. Assigning the writing of the opposing opinion for the other side falls to the most senior justice. It is more of a courtesy than anything else because the individual justices can and often do write their own separate opinions.</p>
<p>Regarding whether the CJ determines what will come before the court, I do not think that is true. The CJ has just one vote and it requires more than just their vote in order to accept a case.</p>
<p>CGM,</p>
<p>Since the job is different I would suspect that there should be more questions about his administrative capabilities. That is separate and distinct from his judicial capabilities. I would suspect that the amount of time spent on his judicial capabilities should remain about the same, replacing O’Connor was a lifetime appointment also.</p>
<p>Regarding whether certain more in depth questions about issues that may come before the court I suspect that the republican senators disagree. I suspect that they would view it as changing the rules of engagement from when Clinton was president and nominated Ginsberg.</p>
<p>Overall, I think that the American public does not want the type of circus that surrounded the nominations of Bork and Thomas. I suspect that there are enough senators in the middle of both the democratic and republican parties to want the same thing. I expect that Roberts will be appointed for this reason with perhaps Kennedy, Schumer and a few others dissenting.</p>
<p>
Nominating supreme court justices is one the prizes of winning the oval office … many would argue the biggest prize in the long-term. Bush was elected and gets to send folks much more conservative than I would like to the bench … it’s his right. </p>
<p>What is the harm? Personally I want the supreme court members to be incredibly intelligent, well-read, thoughful, and articulate about the law … and for there to be tremendous discussions/arguments in the backrooms of the court … that yield well thought-out decisions. The more the process becomes a test on the specific positions of well-qualified nominees the more nominees with no paper trails will be nominated … and a nominee with no paper trail probably is not the intellectual leader I would like to see on the supreme court. I want an intellectual leader even if I disagree with almost all her/his decisions.</p>
<p>nicely said.</p>
<p>How is it that a man with less than two years of judgeships can suddenly find himself holding the most powerful judicial position in the land? Granted, he has had 14 years of law practice, and some chief justices had little or no law experiences, but it still frightens me a little. Perhaps I subscribe to the view that things need to be worked for.</p>
<p>Anyone else a little scared by this?</p>
<p>I count considerably more than 14 years in the practice of law…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>3togo,</p>
<p>Unfortunately I think we reap what we sow. With the rejection of the eminently qualified Robert Bork the nation headed down a different path. Questions on judicial philosophy became questions about how a judge would decide a specific case. Since both political parties have a stake in the outcome stealth candidates with no paper trail are nominated. Further, the desire not to release the work product that belongs to the american citizens is protected under the attorney client privilege of the president they served for. This is true even after the preseident for which they served is out of office.</p>
<p>For those of you questioning Roberts qualifications, replace the Roberts with Ginsberg or Breyer and ask the same question. Both were more democratic ‘stealth’ candidates. They really had no more experience than Roberts and were approved by the senate.</p>
<p>
Agreed …</p>
<p>Bush is putting feelers out on Gonzales</p>
<p>Now UnabletoMoveOn.org is using footage of hurricane victims in an anti-Roberts ad.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-09-07-roberts-civil-rights_x.htm[/url]”>http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-09-07-roberts-civil-rights_x.htm</a></p>
<p>Interesting article . . . what does this statement mean about O’Connor?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have a lot of trouble with the labeling as if each one of them is a knee-jerk liberal or conservative, whatever that means.</p>
<p>3togo,</p>
<p>Further on your earlier comment:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unfortunately ffter the rejection of Bork that won’t happen. It is one of the reasons that Clinton did not nominate Larry Tribe.</p>
<p>Pat Robertson says John Roberts can “be thankful that a tragedy (Katrina) has brought him some good.” Is this guy for real (Pat, I mean). How insensitive can someone be.</p>