Time to end this gong show for Leahy 
Posted on 09/13/2005 5:01:31 AM PDT by OXENinFLA
Kennedy and especially Schumer will not be so 'kind'.
And it is all due to the absolute folly of SCOTUS making a blatantly political decision in 1973 that was not grounded in the Constitution. That has poisoned SCOTUS and turned it into a political body, not a judicial one. After all of these years it has turned these confirmation hearings into lynchings, because the 'Rats know that legally the decision is indefensible. Therefore they have to defend it politically.
Yikes! She must be related.
He can't .. but Leaky is trying to feel him out on how the USSC might handle such a case should it come before the Court
Remember .. Roberts is up for the Chief Justice job
Scroll down to the bottom of the C-Span page for audio links: http://www.c-span.org/watch/index.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS
Roberts just answered a question, and Leahy responded with "I hope you feel that way" -- in other words, questioning whether Robert's was truthfully answering the question.
bump
Leahy by his question is implying pubs would intern all arabs or funny looking dark people.
What a crock
blah blah blah blah...environmental concerns....yawn...nobody but the Greenies give a darn about this....
Senate Judiciary Committee webcast.
I have visited Truro. I liked it; didn't know that J. Thomas attended there. If I were to move back into the area, it's certainly a church I would visit again.
Leahy sounds like a tired old great-grandpa....
yep
Now he is ranting about Roberts "narrowly construing" environmental law. Blah blah Blah
Time to end this gong show for Leahy
About Leahy's voice--you're right. There's something seriously wrong with it.
And every time Roberts answers his questions decisively, Leahy hops to an entirely different subject.
Additionally, Leahy sounds like he's drinking his mouthwash.
You suggest Luttig or Olsen?
It seem that the moment Roberts answer makes Leaky's question seem foolish, Leaky interrupts with another foolish question.
The answer strikes me as a strict Constitutional question, although an obscure one. Unfortunately for the Democrats, they agreed -- nearly unanimously -- to give the commander-in-chief the authority to wage an open-ended war on terror, which is how it should be. Please don't interpret my comments as being sympathetic to those who want to end the war. I was just curious if, in the future, if Congress wearies of the fight, they pull out entirely from Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever the fight takes us. I guess once the Iraq war is over -- and for all intents and purposes, it really is -- we'll start pulling out (keeping troops there for lighter and lighter operations as Iraq gets its own forces up to snuff). And if we need to fight in, say, Yemen, the jungles of Indonesia, Iran, Syria, or other places, the president would have to go back to Congress for authorization of such an action.
But, then again, I'm not a Constitutional lawyer, so I don't know for sure. Roberts does, and I'd liked to have heard a little more explanation.
I understand differences of advice and judgement but truth remains. What I was getting at was I did not like the way Leahy latched on to that comment asking if Roberts was trying to get a message across with a sick little chuckle.
I like Roberts quite a lot. I think he will be a great Chief Justice. I did not like how his comment was interpreted. He's a smart man, I figured he would have put it better. That's all I'm saying. In such a way as not to give Leahy something to get happy about.
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.