Click Me
Time to say Good Bye
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.
Bush's next nominee should be confirmed quickly. All she needs to do is use the word "toad," about 3 or 4 times.
No kidding????????
Yahoo!!
Really Really unhappy that he believes Griswald is settled law.
Griswald is one of the worst decisions in SCOTUS history:
"specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy."
"Penumbras formed by emanations?" Who knew that the BOR was radioactive? Douglas was a pig of a justice and that wording qualifies as one of the worst decisions ever.
That's what I took away from it; he is horrified that conservative views are going to once again rule this country.
Your sins are forgiven. (Just kidding Lord)
The news is getting better by the minute. Any word whether he will continue his NBC show which airs on Sunday?
Yaya our boy Crissy got his due.
I have started a book drive here and magazines, my house is the drop off point, to send to soldiers fighting for us.
We have to send them to an individual, but we have that one covered as we have lots of local soldiers.
My daughter is a third year AFJROTC and I am so PROUD OF HER.
That was the most irrelevant, and quite frankly, stupid line of questioning in the whole hearing thus far. "Don't you want to comment more strongly?" on Pat Robertson, etc. Ridiculous.
I'm, really pissed at him too. He railed the other night about FEMA AND Bush. And at the very end he almost whispered ,but the State has'' a little'' responsibility also.What a jerk! What happened to the guy?
Oh, sorry about that? It didn't occur to me that it was a play on hopping ! NOW I get it. Pretty cute, too. Thank you.
For the time being, I will have to set aside my remark concerning Justice Scalia. Even though Scalia opposed Romer v Evans and wrote the minority opinion in dissent, I can't locate any remarks attributed to him that would confirm his desire to not assist in the (pro bono) legal advocacy, and in support of the militant homosexual activists opposing Colorado Amendment 2, as lawyer John Roberts had engaged in at that time.
All I can say is this. At the time that Roberts was first nominated by Bush, within the first 7-10 days, there were several threads on FR discusssing the pros&cons of a Roberts nomination. Most threads supported Roberts nomination. Several didn't support Roberts nomination. I keep picturing in my mind, a statement made by Scalia that I subsequently used to argue my case, that Roberts was wrong to advocate for the plaintiff in Romer v Evans. That being, Scalia would never have assisted in such an advocacy. It went against his conservative principles and morals. Then I remembered this statement by Scalia. It was the closing paragraph of his dissenting minority opinion regarding Romer v Evans. Maybe, just maybe, this was the statement I was thinking of.
Today's opinion has no foundation in American constitutional law, and barely pretends to. The people of Colorado have adopted an entirely reasonable provision which does not even disfavor homosexuals in any substantive sense, but merely denies them preferential treatment. Amendment 2 is designed to prevent piecemeal deterioration of the sexual morality favored by a majority of Coloradans, and is not only an appropriate means to that legitimate end, but a means that Americans have employed before. Striking it down is an act, not of judicial judgment, but of political will. I dissent.
If I find anything that contradicts the above, I will find you and inform you.
And he was the "go to" guy............har!
Hear he keeps the weekend show for now and is used as an at large player within the org(re-org). I think the entire cable op could ultimately go.
I'm sorry, Senator X, I can't speak to that question because it involves unanswered issues regarding toads.
Come on, you want that bow-tie, you need that bow-tie, you love that bow-tie.
Cornyn is mentioning reading a blog last night
Thats great news. Wonder who will replace him. Rita Cosby? or Tucker?.......
I didn't explain what I meant very well.
Scarborough is HORRIBLE; his show should be next on the chopping block.
He stabbed Bush in the back.
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.