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.
Feingold is an ass what does a perosn's reaction to 9/11 have to do with anything?
She's a hurricane now.
9/11...talking about civil liberties...in time of war particularly...Roberts says the Bill of Rights doesn't change in time of war, nor the responsibility of judges to uphold the law...Feingold is trying to get him to say he'd be willing to suspend civil rights. Won't happen, Russell!
I love her calm and intelligent look......... and the great love she has for her husband. It shines on her face.
It's laughable that Russ (McCain-Feingold) Feingold is talking about civil liberties when he is responsible for such limits on free speech.
ROFL
Excellent point! Democrat double standard strikes again.
Feingold asking about sending detainees to other countries which permit torture.
I'm guessing Chucky 9.
I just hope Judge Roberts can work in some reference to cell phones or trains in his response to Chuckie. LOL! Would love to see the look on Cheesie's face.
Matthews is already reassuring his listeners that Roberts has indicated in his responses that he will honor Roe Wade.
Looks like this nomination is in the bag and he is trying to ease the fear of the lefties.
BINGO! You're right!
2003 Judiciary Committee Vote
When the U.S. Senate was considering Judge John Roberts’ confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the Senate Judiciary Committee actually recommended his confirmation in two separate votes.
Later, the Senate confirmed Roberts to his seat on the D.C. Circuit by unanimous consent. Here's a breakdown of the Committee members' votes. (Note especially the Democrats backing Roberts' confirmation.)
Judiciary Committee Vote on February 27, 2003:
Democrats Voting For Roberts:
Biden
Kohl
Feinstein
Edwards
Democrats Voting Against Roberts:
Kennedy
Schumer
Durbin
Democrats Abstaining:
Leahy
Feingold
Republicans Voting for Roberts:
Hatch
Grassley
Specter
Kyl
DeWine
Sessions
Graham
Craig
Chambliss
Cornyn
Judiciary Committee Vote on May 8, 2003:
Democrats Voting For Roberts:
Leahy
Biden
Kohl
Feinstein
Feingold
Edwards
Democrats Voting Against Roberts:
Kennedy
Durbin
Democrats Not Voting:
Schumer
Republicans Voting for Roberts:
Hatch
Grassley
Specter
Kyl
DeWine
Sessions
Graham
Craig
Chambliss
Cornyn
Whoa! Bitch slap. Feingold really thought he had him baited. HA!
There is another senator that would also make an excellent SCOTUS nominee....Jon Kyl from Arizona! Listen to him for awhile and you'll come to see how smart, how constitutionally sound, how unruffled he is when facing down those democrats. But, we need him to represent us as we certainly don't have proper representation with our other senator!
I simply think that it's wrong for judges to announce in advance their political opinions and what would be their legal opinions, on cases that will come before them in the future. For example, if a judge said "I will always think that it's unconstitutional for a public display of religion to occur on any public grounds" I would think that judge should be disqualified, not because their legal analysis is wrong (which it would be) but because they would have shown that they were not willing to view each case on its merits, that they didn't have what it takes to be a "judge."
You obviously disagree. I guess we'll see what the future holds.
Feingold asking IF, when, Roberts saw smoke rising out of the Pentagon he recognized in that moment that he would be called upon to protect our civil liberties. Roberts states he doesn't recall thinking that thought at the time, though in times of war that is always a consideration.
Umm, feingold? At the time the terrorists were killing our citizens and declaring war on the Pentagon while heros fought to derail the target of another plane...NO AMERICAN WAS THINKING ABOUT how he or she would be the protector of our civil liberties! Pure blooded Americans were either in shock, tears, worry or calling down vengenace.
That is some interesting fact-finding. Thanks.
Subject: Roberts
To: russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov
Senator,
You do realize that you are a total dumb ass? Please tell me you know that. A brick wall is smarter then you.
My name
My Address
Agreed. It's just that I can't stand the thought of losing people like him and Sessions in the Senate.
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.