Posted on 07/17/2005 1:20:31 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
...HUME:Question to you, sir: Should this next nominee be required to answer questions in the areas where Ruth Bader Ginsburg (search) did not?
SPECTER: Without getting into the details as to what Justice Ginsburg answered, I think it inappropriate for a nominee to give an answer specifically as to how he or she would decide a specific case.
When someone uses a word like "insist," that's a pretty strong word, and no senator has the power to insist that anything happen. A senator can ask any question that the senator wants to ask, but then it's up to the nominee to respond.
HUME: ...Let me put the question to you a somewhat different way.
Would you believe, then, that a nominee who declined to answer questions of the kind that now Justice Ginsburg declined to answer should then be that that could then fairly be a grounds for voting against that nominee or perhaps even filibustering that nominee?
SPECTER: ...Brit, there are too many questions which she didn't answer. But if you move over into the context of saying, "How are you going to decide Roe v. Wade if it comes up?", or "How are you going to decide a specific on the religious issues?", I do not think that a nominee would be in jeopardy of being defeated if the nominee said, "I'm not going to answer that kind of a question."
HUME: Well, of course, Senator, the questions would more be likely to ask that judge's opinion on abortion or on the broader question of the right to privacy, from which the court has found that the right to an abortion stems. So, the questions would probably be more general than that.
What about that? Justice Ginsburg declined to answer a lot of questions like that as well...
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Why did I know opening up this thread was going to make me gag?
RALPH...EARL...BUICK
Don't even get me started on Arlen "mealy-mouth" Specter. But I will say this, I absolutely love Brit Hume's interviewing and questioning skills. The guy is persistent and goes right to the point without losing his cool.
The only promising thing is that Specter was a supporter of Thomas. Maybe he'll be on the right side of history this time, too, but I won't hold my breath.
Read the entire interview, 300 words does it very little justice.
Specter's idea of balance is a social liberal who forces perversion on the country, the constitution be damned.
This is Specter's last dance and he likes the lights, what do you think will motivate him?
Well he sure beat the bush to death. What a wasted interviewee.
When I hear a Brit interview, I'm usually more in awe of him than his guest. The guy sure knows how to get the answers without alot of badgering and bullying (unlike Russert)
Why did he shave his head????
Cancer and chemo treatments....he looked really bad today. He may not be with us next year.
And the tradition and history of the filibuster has been very important. It preserved presidential power when Andrew Johnson was impeached, and it preserved judicial power when Justice Chase was impeached back in 1805.
___________________________________________________________
Maybe it is the chemo, but the above really struck me. Of course the CONSTITUTION sets super majorities to convict an official who has been impeached. It has nothing to do with the filibuster which is merely a rule of the senate and not a constitution mandate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.