Posted on 09/13/2005 5:01:31 AM PDT by OXENinFLA
Q&A with Roberts to Start
On Tuesday, the eighteen members of the Senate Judiciary Cmte. begin questioning Chief Justice nominee John Roberts. This will take all day, with the senators asking their questions, up to a half-hour for each member, in order of seniority, alternating by party.
The Schedule (media advisory)
Tentative Schedule for the Hearing: Schedule is subject to change
Tuesday, Sept. 13
9:30 am Chairman Specter begins 30 minute round of questioning (Round 1)
1:00 pm Break for lunch
2:00 pm Resume questioning
6:00 pm Break for dinner
7:00 pm Resume questioning
8:30 pm Round 1 questioning ends
The Dem playbook
The Hill newspaper gives us a peek at the Democratic playbook for the Roberts hearings. Below are the attack assignments for the Democratic members of the Committee:
Kennedy -- civil rights
Leahy -- Bybee torture memo
Biden -- privacy, personal autonomyand the 9th Amendment
Kohl -- Property rights and civil liberties
Feinstein -- "judicial activism" and Roe vs. Wade
Feingold -- limits of executive powers
Schumer and Durbin have wisely refused to show their hand.
Via FromTheBleachers
LIVE LINKS
Senate Judiciary Committee webcast.
Are you on CS1?
Of course she did; it suits her "cause."
Founding fathers are rolling in their grave........... with the toads leaping across their markers.
His answer is beautiful --- nicely lecturing her.
No DiFi, he will not answer your trick question: absolute separation.
>>>>Roberts did nothing that any normal law firm partner would not also do - conservative or otherwise.
Baloney! Not only did Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas denounce the final SC decision (see below), Scalia also said he would not have assisted in working to see Colorado Amendment 2 overturned. Many lawyers throughout the country came to the same conclusions that Scalia did.
The case with Romer V Evans is simple. It was a SC decision of historical dimensions. It overruled the will of Colorado voters. While John Roberts involvemnt was limited, he nonetheless was involved in a case that conservatives view as a matter of human morality. Roberts said just today, he didn't see his involvement in Romer v Evans as an immoral act. You agree with Judge Roberts. I agree with Justices Scalia and Thomas.
JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting.
The Court has mistaken a Kulturkampf for a fit of spite. The constitutional amendment before us here is not the manifestation of a "`bare . . . desire to harm'" homosexuals, ante, at 13, but is rather a modest attempt by seemingly tolerant Coloradans to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority to revise those mores through use of the laws. That objective, and the means chosen to achieve it, are not only unimpeachable under any constitutional doctrine hitherto pronounced (hence the opinion's heavy reliance upon principles of righteousness rather than judicial holdings); they have been specifically approved by the Congress of the United States and by this Court.
In holding that homosexuality cannot be singled out for disfavorable treatment, the Court contradicts a decision, unchallenged here, pronounced only 10 years ago, see Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), and places the prestige of this institution behind the proposition that opposition to homosexuality is as reprehensible as racial or religious bias. Whether it is or not is precisely the cultural debate that gave rise to the Colorado constitutional amendment (and to the preferential laws against which the amendment was directed). Since the Constitution of the United States says nothing about [ ROMER v. EVANS, ___ U.S. ___ (1996) , 2] this subject, it is left to be resolved by normal democratic means, including the democratic adoption of provisions in state constitutions. This Court has no business imposing upon all Americans the resolution favored by the elite class from which the Members of this institution are selected, pronouncing that "animosity" toward homosexuality, ante, at 13, is evil. I vigorously dissent.
The rest of your diatribe is nothing more then the rants of a juvenile and are duly noted.
It is impossible to trip up an honest man, but Roberts is both honest and brilliant.
I'm in awe.
No, CSPAN3. I'm switching to WMP now.
Yep
I'm seeing another SNL skit
I've been gone again...just coming back...he is brilliant and measured, with a TRULY remarkable memory.
Makes me feel like an absolute retard.
Yeah... Reading about him, I was pretty impressed.
Watching him handle these questions.... This guy is GOOD.
FNC has it LIVE too.
OMG........ Tony,Rush, Sean, and Mark are going to have a field day!
Somebody should tell her that it's September 13th; lose the pastels.
Honestly, who would want this job? He has small kids and his rulings can make or break their future. I suppose his purpose is great. But it is clean we need term limits on Senate!
The Actual Rule
[Kathryn Jean Lopez 09/13 04:05 PM]
“[A] judge or a candidate for election or appointment to judicial office shall not … with respect to cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of the office….”
— ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 5A(3)(d)(ii) (2003), (emphasis added).
This is the first time I've been able to join the thread...over 1700 posts!
Is Roberts doing well? (Frankly I expect he's doing excellently)
Can anybody give me an update, please? Thankyou!
Feinswine tried to trick him and back into an admission about abortion...
Swing and a miss.
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.