Posted on 09/13/2005 10:32:36 AM PDT by mikemikemikecubed
While at a computer I have been listening to Rush as I always do on Tuesdays 11 am - 2:00pm. Now I don't have an exact quote. Rush just said and tried to justify that Roberts is saying what he must on the issue of abortion to make it through the process and if and when his rulings on abortion contridict his testimony, there's nothing anyone could do about it so fear not. Rush is correct in that the high court has supreme authority on deciding the constitutionality of of cases. My question, however, is how curious is it of Rush to suggest Roberts may be misleading in his testiomony and even hoping that's the case? Why has Rush who has served as a central leader of the right's moralistic campaign suggested and try to justify any misinformation Roberts may have shared before the committee? Before you respond by saying how filthy you believe the left to be, let me remind you that under Clinton, conservatives time and time again expressed their dismay with moral relativism. Maybe the charismatic right is not genuinely holier than thou....
Politics is politics. Neither party leaves unscathed.
Maybe that's your problem.
LOL! Kennedy, Biden and Leaky Leahy are pathetic. Roberts big problem is not layghing in their faces.
Are you a troll?
In before the ZOT!
layghing = laughing. Spell check is my friend.
This is, of course, a twisted misrepresentation of what Rush said. He actually said that Judge Roberts is brilliantly avoiding the many traps his amaturish opponents on the committee are trying to set for him. He further said that this hearing is not the place for Roberts to demonstrate his intellectual and legal brilliance. The hearing is for Roberts to get through, not to be trapped into commenting on issues on which he may later have to rule.
No, I'm no troll. Rather, I am a person who asks serious questions and enjoying exchanging ideas.
When your enemy makes up the rules as they go, you improvise, adapt, and overcome.
Let me give you some advice that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas gave to Charles Barclay: don't give them the hammer to hit you with.
The Dems have no interest in having an honest hearing. Therefore, IMO, Roberts has no moral requirement to give them honest answers.
Do you like cheese?
I don't subscribe to Constituional Review. That was a power grab by the courts, and we've suffered for it ever since.
Excellent point.
The so-called hearings are of course a farce and a joke. The Democrat senators aren't interested in the truth, aren't interested in Roberts telling the truth, aren't even interested in telling the truth themselves. That being the case, Rush is correct in wanting to treat the "hearings" as the farce they are.
I don't consider Rush a member of the "charismatic" right.
What IS the "charismatic" right, anyway?
That's a good point. Stare decisis, in addition to carrying on the common law tradition of an obligation to follow prescedence, goes on to say that a prescedent should not be respected if the prescedent or ruling was inappropiate, outdated due to technological or social changes or a change in ethics or legal philosophy.
I suspect that Roberts could justly state that he has no clue right now how he'd vote if a new abortion case came before the Court. You can't analyze these cases in the abstract. You've got to have actual facts and an actual case before you can say for certain how you're voting. And even then, you don't decide until after you've heard the argument from both sides.
On the other hand, Roberts is no David Souter.
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.