Posted on 09/14/2005 7:29:57 AM PDT by cornelis
Oh, I KNOW how the "game" is played! The question in my mind is how conservative Roberts will be when confirmed. Some of his answers, thus far, haven't given me much comfort.
I have been listening very carefully. He is precise with his choice of words.
I have to laugh when liberals are happy. They are hearing what they want to hear.
Conservatives want him to be a judge and to use a lot of words to say nothing. Which he is doing brilliantly.
Privacy is like a Victorian euphemism that means abortion on demand. He used the code word, and what, they have to assume that he means it the way that they want?
Here's another perspective. Dems can't fight him. Roberts has at least 60 votes-- he may have 70. The conventional wisdom (usually wrong) says that well, he's a conservative replacing a conservative so this doesn't upset the balance.
But they are going to lose so they have to save face about it.
So the plan may be to pretend to be harsh, pretend to hear what they want to hear and then declare victory when he's confirmed.
The thing is, this guy is such a good advocate, and has this tempermant where he can and will take any side of an issue and build an argument to support it, in his role as advocate, that he is just too damn good at answering these questions. His answers re: Roe are amazing. He's walking a line and no one knows what to make of it. He's not simply saying "I can't answer that." He's approaching it, he discusses stare decisis, privacy, etc. But he leaves you guessing.
Even USA Today's tepid editorial about Roberts (today's edition) said that Biden and Kennedy came off looking bad.
I disagree with your conclusion.
Consider, if you were presenting your case before the court, wouldn't you want to face a court where you feel you have a chance to win if your case in properly presented? I think in any case Judge Roberts hears, both sides would be able to walk into court with that feeling. The same can not be said for many judges, which is why I consider this man to be a rare jewel & our court system will be enriched to see him elevated to be our Chief Justice.
Actually, I want him to use sufficient words to say something when it is time to do so. This is not that time. I think he's doing a good job of remaining ethical, fair-minded, and above the fray given the pointed and leading questions that Biden, Kennedy, Schumer, and the rest of the whacko leftists are throwing at him. He hasn't let them trap him, and he's giving extremely intelligent answers to pre-meditated scripted questions without using any notes.
It is beautiful. Most people want to have judges who will give their side a slam dunk with any case brought before the court. Roberts will make lawyers do their work.
Perhaps the conclusion is slightly overstated. However, I defy you to name a single socially-conservative thing of any importance that Bush has done in five years.
One gambit is to salute the precedent but then hem it into a tiny corner.
At any rate, this hearing has been very entertaining. I wonder how many people watched. In our house, 4 out of 5 of us watched. And we never watch CSPAN. I think this is being watched by many, many Americans.
Signed the partial birth abortion ban, for one. Signed the Fetal Protection Act (that's not the name of the bill, which I forget).
You need to keep up.
I really didn't like what I heard on CSPAN today. The questioning by Brownback exposed reasons for concern. It's a fait accompli now, though, so the hell with it.
Clarence Thomas played this topic exactly like Roberts did.
Great point.
That's the trick, shut up and look like a god.
Moreover, how can you dismiss the fact that a Democrat President would have been a disaster on your coveted social issues?
Both have had miniscule effect. I said significant. Furthermore, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think either one was his initiative. All he can take credit for is not vetoing it.
Moreover, how can you dismiss the fact that a Democrat President would have been a disaster on your coveted social issues?
I do not in the least dismiss it. All that says, though, is that Bush is a lesser problem, not a solution. Think about this: Bush has proposed his share of socialist programs. A Democrat would have met with opposition from Republicans in the legislature, but those self-same Republicans do very little to oppose Bush's programs.
Not for the babies who have been born, rather than aborted at 9 months.
You do not believe in incrementalism, apparently. This means you are doomed to be forever frustrated, as politics is usually about taking small, rather than large, steps forward.
You will learn, if you haven't already, that all-or-nothing politicians do not get elected to national office.
You have an absolute right to your beliefs. However, expect the resultant disappointments.
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.