Making Roberts Talk

NY Times ^ | September 13, 2005 | JOHN TIERNEY

[neverdem]

He came, he charmed, he shut up. During the opening statements, the senators blathered away their time and more; Judge John Roberts used less than half of his to utter a few graceful generalities. He has made a career out of not saying the wrong thing. Why start now?

A lawyer who has been cross-examined dozens of times by the Supreme Court will not be caught off guard by senators posing as legal scholars. There has never been a nominee better prepared to dodge constitutional questions.

The only hope for Democrats is to try the tactics used by interrogation pros like Israeli airport screeners and U.S. customs agents. These experts know that a smart criminal will have rehearsed a cover story for, say, what he was doing in London and why he's going to New York.

But if he's asked something unexpected - how he liked the London weather, whether he's planning to visit Times Square - he has to change mental gears. He's apt to exhibit telltale signs of a liar under stress, like gazing upward and to his right as he answers.

I'm not suggesting that Mr. Roberts is a liar, or that anything the Democrats ask today could stop him from being confirmed. But they might at least keep TV viewers awake by trying questions like these:

If Roe v. Wade were a tree, what kind of tree would it be?

Is there any chance that you could speed up Justice Stevens's retirement by addressing him as "Gramps"?

After seeing a judge's robes in a Gilbert and Sullivan production, Chief Justice Rehnquist added gold stripes to his robe. If confirmed, will you keep the stripes, or do you have a whole new look in mind?

In your best judgment, did Brad and Jen really just grow apart...

[Fenris6]

"These experts know that a smart criminal will have rehearsed a cover story for, say, what he was doing in London and why he's going to New York."

LOL. Roberts equated to a criminal. No bias there, nope.

[Mount Athos]

Wow NYT comparing Robert's to a "smart criminal".

I guess that is expected behavior from this leftist pamphlet

[HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath]

He's apt to exhibit telltale signs of a liar under stress

Don't forget, he is a liar too.

[kingu]

The birds in the neighborhood won't even accept the NY Times in their cages, much to the annoyance of the lone liberal who tries virtually every day to pawn her newspaper on one of us neighbors.

[SideoutFred]

"I'm not suggesting Judge Roberts is a liar"...uhm yeah, you just did and then did the convenient "I'm not suggesting" B.S.

[Theresawithanh]

"If Roe v. Wade were a tree, what kind of tree would it be?

Now THAT'S funny!

[Billthedrill]

A pretty funny article, actually. I'm thinking Tierney isn't taking Roberts' interrogators entirely seriously.

How would you edit this sentence to make it grammatically correct?: "I swear I ain't never gonna overturn Roe v. Wade."

Don't answer it, John...it's a trap...

[neverdem]

Finally, some FReepers with a sense of humor!

[kylaka]

Prepare for lots of photographs of senators being outfoxed and outclassed. Don't look for those photographs on the leftstream news media though.

[sinkspur]

Hey, folks! Tierney's poking fun at the Senators. The only chance they have is to ask silly questions that make no sense. (There will likely be some of those in any case.)

This writer is a reliable conservative, probably the only one who writes regularly for the NYTimes.

[TChad]

I read most of it. The piece is supposed to be funny.

[Nateman]

Rather than pick some unknown who's going to play games to remain unknown (until he's got the job for LIFE) I rather we had someone who makes up every morning with the thought of how he's going to stick it to the RATS today and even brags about it!

[RWR8189]

A lawyer who has been cross-examined dozens of times by the Supreme Court will not be caught off guard by senators posing as legal scholars

Kennedy and Schumer to a T.

[clintonh8r]

Pretty funny stuff.

[Unam Sanctam]

a few graceful generalities

I read Roberts' statement and, while short, was hardly about "graceful generalities", but struck an important keynote concerning his judicial philosophy, i.e., judges should be humble referees and follow the law, not make it. That is an important if not central point, not a tea party bromide.

[RobbyS]

Don't forget Biden. Schumer is at least intelligent. He probably could have made it as a criminal lawyer.

[FreeLiability]

I like the self serving nonsense from guys like Chuckie Schumer directed to Judge Roberts, and I paraphrase, 'It is my obligation to ask these questions. It is your obligation to answer them.'

Except, of course, it isn't.

Sure, the liberal Democratic Parody Senators can ASK anything they want. But it is not only NOT an obligation of Judge Roberts to answer some of them, it is instead his obligation NOT to.

Wouldn't it be kind of entertaining to hear the Judge actually TELL the gaseous ones exactly that?

[FlingWingFlyer]

I'm glad they are televising the Inquisition of John Roberts. Americans will get another dose of DemocRAT hatred toward good people.

[Jeff Chandler]

Rehnquist added gold stripes to his robe. If confirmed, will you keep the stripes

I vote dump the stripes. This isn't a banana republic.