Nomination of John G. Roberts [LIVE Thread 9-13]~Day Two

Senate Judiciary ^ | 9-13-05 | Senate Judiciary Committee

[onyx]

Agreed! Jealous as all get out.

Now, Lindsay, redeem yourself!

[Jrabbit]

Oh, I do hope Lindsay doesn't make me mad.....he usually does.

[tiredoflaundry]

Nothing beats a SMART man.

I hear ya! IMHO he's good looking to boot! :-)

[jackbill]

I hate to be repetitive, but Roberts has NO NOTES!

And each senator has his own and his staff's notes and each only covers two or three cases, and in almost all instances they are wrong!

And Roberts tells them how they are wrong - from memory.

[LisaFab]

Lindsey Graham up.

Someone posted a link to the transcript from yesterday's hearings. Can someone repost it? Thanks.

[onyx]

Geeeeez, asking him to write a legacy of Rehnquist.
How stupid is THAT?

[markman46]

He did sound a little edgy.

WHY IS HE TALKING SO FAST??????

it's an upper midwest thing, you either talk really slow or really fast.

[GoLightly]

I don't think he is. He's going through his second divorce. OTOH, I think our other Senator (Kohl) is gay.

[Chuck54]

Yes, I take my hat off to the President.

Yes and the real puzzle is just how Roberts remained below the radar for the weeks prior to his being named as a candidate.

He wasn't invisible, but was really just a blip. So very many more names kept popping up. Now WOW, look what Bush gave us.

I'm very impressed.

[TomasUSMC]

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."

---

The fact that a judge has a previously held opinion on something that is brought up to him should not mean that he is incapable of rendering just proceedings. What about a murder case? Most judges will have previous opinions on murder but will hear the case anyway. Why? Because they are not going to let their opinions affect their job as judge.

I especially dislike Judge Roberts mentioning past liberal nominees and citing their refusal to answer questions as the reason he won't. Geez, we are better than the left, we shouldn't being using their excuses. Come on Judge Roberts, DEFEND LIFE!

[JackTom]

"They have been at him for 8 hours now and he has at least another 1 1/2 to go. I see they saved Schumer for near the end when he is getting tired."

Nope, senators simply ask questions in order of their seniority on the committee. Schumer has the least seniority of all Dems so he is the last one to ask questions.

[Soul Seeker]

It pays to trust in the President's judgement in instances of the Court. I have stood with him on this nomination, and feel the more time advances it proves I was right to do so.

Judge Roberts is also confirming my initial instincts that this was a very solid pick correct.

[onyx]

Yeah, what's with the touchy-feely question?
Roberts is answering... but not to Lindsay's satisfaction.

[American Quilter]

Geeeeez, asking him to write a legacy of Rehnquist. How stupid is THAT?

Really stupid. Couldn't he think of anything relevant to ask?

[WoodstockCat]

He was on the tip of Hugh Hewitt's tongue for weeks before along with Luttig, check his blog.

[onyx]

*smiling* -- yep, he's a looker too.

[ncountylee]

The gutter snipe is last?

[onyx]

Lindsay is embarrassing himself. This line of questioning is not helpful! WTH is wrong with Lindsay?

[Jrabbit]

Lindsay is failing my test of not making me mad....I'm sure he could care less. lol

[American Quilter]

Oh, wait, I get it. Lindsay's trying to get Roberts to say he'll rule like Rehnquist did.