Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's hearing responses were extolled by both sides of the panel.
Posted on 09/13/2005 12:37:38 PM PDT by SmithL
The clash that surfaced at John Roberts' Supreme Court confirmation hearing Monday over whether he should reveal his views on court cases or issues is not merely a conflict between judicial neutrality and the public's right to know.
It's also a partisan battle over a past confirmation hearing and who gets to interpret it.
Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee urged Roberts, a federal appeals court judge nominated by President Bush to succeed the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, to follow Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's example at her confirmation hearing and keep his opinions to himself. Democrats urged him to follow Ginsburg's lead and speak up.
Ginsburg answered some questions about legal issues and court cases at her 1993 confirmation hearing, but refused to answer others on the grounds that she might be committing herself on future Supreme Court decisions. Both sides in Monday's debate claimed her responses were precedents for their position.
At issue is whether Roberts, in questioning that begins today, should discuss his views on recurring legal issues, like privacy and executive power, and controversial Supreme Court rulings, like Roe vs. Wade and Bush vs. Gore.
The point isn't merely philosophical.
The committee's minority Democrats, mindful of Bush's stated admiration for arch-conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, suspect that the president has found their stealth equivalent in Roberts. But they lack conclusive evidence.
His most strongly conservative writings, memos as a government lawyer on issues like affirmative action and abortion, date from two decades ago. Some of his rulings in two years on the appeals court suggest a Rehnquist-style conservatism on questions of executive power and states' rights, but he has yet to issue a ruling that would reveal his current stance on any hot-button social issue.
Democrats are also well aware that Bush has other
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's hearing responses were extolled by both sides of the panel.
She is butt ugly.
She reminds me of Ruth Buzzi on "Laugh-In"
Harumpff!! My butt takes exception to that remark!
Rush made a good point about this today.
He pointed out Ginsburg gave detailed answers to those issues/cases in which she had already gone on record, either through writing about the case in question or commenting on it in public.
So she was offering no new information during her confirmation hearings by regurgitating her already-published positions.
And on the flip side, she offered no opinion on cases/issues on which she had no track record of already having done so, hence the "Ginsburg Rule".
She's a MAN, baby.
...but not as funny.
This is what you get when the court becomes just another political branch, only worse because it does not answer directly to the people. This is just what you get: evasiveness and deceptiveness. Roberts is just one in a line of these types. In a judge, the character trait of evasiveness is most prized, that is until you start making the society altering decisions that everyone else must live by.
Dead ringer for the father. Get her a pitchfork. ;)
The committee's minority Democrats, mindful of Bush's stated admiration for arch-conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, suspect that the president has found their stealth equivalent in Roberts. But they lack conclusive evidence.
Objective reporting?
You should've seen her in the day.
She was smokin' hot and all the most eligible guys were trying to get under that doily.
Ouch that hurt!
Ginsburg should not have been confirmed. If the Democrats can play games with a distinguished lawyer and Contstitutional expert like Judge Roberts, I see no reason why the Republicans should have confirmed Ginsburg. She should have been kept out on ideological grounds.
Most of us don't go back to the Paleozoic era.
I got rid of all my old polaroids when I got married.
; )
Did she answer any abortion questions? I do not think the 'bold'(ahem!) republicans even asked her a question along that line.
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.