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.
Chucky out to limit free speech.
What is this, Chuckie's not in favor of free speech?
Lindsay has redeemed himself.
Quoting Pat Roberts who spoke truth about the activist Judges. Chuckie trying to get him to denounce statements but it's called free speech and people have the right to be critical.
Why is Schmucker asking this question??
WHOA!! Did Chuck just say.."You WILL be the CJ?"
Ding! Ding!
Fine to disagree, but note the only area in which I disagree revolves around the certain knowledge Lindsey is using these hearings and the "drama" to instill returned support to himself. Which he is.
The argument and his intention with the argument to annihilate Dem tactics I did not deny. I even stated before his target was not Roberts. :-)
Exactly! Clever.
God knows Mo....its Chuckie.
to make him look bad with Conservatives...
"What about a murder case? Most judges will have previous opinions on murder but will hear the case anyway."
A judge who hears a murder case is a trial judge, not an appellate judge. There is a difference. A trial judge (in a murder trial) is supposed to rule on the individual facts of the case, not on the law in question. An appellate judge does something different, looks at laws, and determines whether the laws violate the Constitution. It's a different task, and your example does not hold water.
Also, it was pointed out by LisaFab that Justice Scalia actually had to recuse himself from participating in a public religion case because he had made comments that gave the appearance that he would pre-judge in that type of case.
What your asking for would result in the same for Roberts.
Unless Schumer gasses up -- he's being mild right now.
For now but I have a long memory and am not quick to forget.
He is being ridiculous!!
Chucky, Chucky, Chucky......do you really want to go there? I've heard senators and reps. from your party say much worse about President Bush and our soldiers.
Chuck Schumer will act so superior
As he guts an opponent's interior.
He pretends he's so wise,
But it's only a guise,
And his motives are always ulterior.
Well, I don't think he is; and the reason why is that, even though we don't agree with what he did, he's comfortable with it.
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.