Roberts Not First Subject of Woeful Warnings

Foxnews.com ^ | 16 September 2005

[Aussie Dasher]

WASHINGTON — As Supreme Court nominee John Roberts left his Senate confirmation hearings Thursday, Act Two of a ritualistic process began — witnesses from special interest groups began their analyses of the chief justice candidate.

"All evidence indicates that Judge Roberts would use his undeniable impressive legal skills to bring us back to a country that most of us wouldn't recognize, where states' rights trump civil rights, where the federal courts or Congress can see discrimination, but are powerless to remedy it," said Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

Complaints about Roberts' civil rights record related to his work for the Reagan administration, and they echoed opposition to previous Republican high court nominees.

When Justice Lewis Powell, now regarded as a court moderate, was nominated in 1971, a prominent civil rights attorney denounced "his record of continued hostility to the law, his continued war on the Constitution."

When the recently deceased Chief Justice William Rehnquist was nominated to the high court that same year, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights warned that "the foot of racism is placed in the door of the temple of justice."

[Aussie Dasher]

Talk about the BS Parade of 2005!

[indianrightwinger]

Sorry, this is the first time I have been able to closely follow a SCOTUS nomination (Came to the US in 1992).

I am completely puzzled as to why they even go through this ridiculous ritual of Special Interests' parade on this last day of hearings.

How long ago did this charade start? Any education is appreciated.

[hsalaw]

I believe it originally was intended to allow witnesses to the character, as opposed to the legal credentials, of the nominee to be heard. I don't know how it degenerated into this "ridiculous ritual of special interests' parade," as you so aptly phrase it.

[Peace will be here soon]

They have to maintain their relevance. Their supporters insist on it.

[Rca2000]

This "old, worn-out song of the DUmmies has been played SO many times, that the needle is starting to show through the grooves" so to speak

[indianrightwinger]

Thank you.

Character wintnesses make sense. For example, my new prospective employer requires references. One can see the logic.

But, what I am seeing on this day of hearings (like the Georgia Congressman Lewis and others) is totally stupid.

[hsalaw]

"But, what I am seeing on this day of hearings (like the Georgia Congressman Lewis and others) is totally stupid."

Yes. Welcome to democracy. Even the totally stupid are able to go out in public and make fools of themselves. On television. In front of God and everyone. Don't let it make you crazy; it's just one of the periodic madnesses which seizes our politicians who weren't taught any better by their mothers.

[konaice]

Character wintnesses make sense. For example, my new prospective employer requires references. One can see the logic.

And does your employer accept hit pieces from just any passer by, even people who have never met you?

I thought not.

So why start with that apologetic stance for the process taking place in Washington? Who is your prospective employer? I'd like to demand an appearance to testify about your inability to make a rational analogy. /smirk

The Precedent and the FBI and the ABA has already vetted and approved this guy, so why does anyone else get to voice an opinion. The Constitution calls for the advice and consent of the senate, not NARAL and every fellow traveler in every special interest group in the country.

[indianrightwinger]

After reading your reply, I feel like we agree.

Character witnesses must be considered, and in fact in confidence.

[sourcery]

What you see is all an act designed to attract political contributions and votes. It's all about getting the faithful to believe that if they can just send in enough money, the disaster du jour (often either exagerated imaginary) may be averted. Both sides play this game, by the way.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

What you are watching now is the delusion of the Democrats/Liberals that they think they are still in power and in charge in Washington.
They still have not realized that they lost the election and the Republicans have control of Congress and the Presidency.
The sad part is ? that the Republicans don't realize that they are in fact in control and in power in Washington.

[Jaysun]

I believe it originally was intended to allow witnesses to the character, as opposed to the legal credentials, of the nominee to be heard. I don't know how it degenerated into this "ridiculous ritual of special interests' parade," as you so aptly phrase it.

It wasn't always like this. Not until the SC pulled abortion and similar "rights" out of their asses. Robert Bork was really the first one to get shafted. Now they'll try to protect abortion and other BS rulings at any cost. They pour a lot of money into elections so now we have to hear their nonsensical opinions more than we'd like. It's okay, they're losing. Liberals are always more shrill when they're losing.

[libertylover]

But, what I am seeing on this day of hearings (like the Georgia Congressman Lewis and others) is totally stupid.

I think you're starting to understand the Democrat party.

[PogySailor]

This particular sort of spectacle didn't start until the Bork hearings in the 1980's. For most of our countries history SCJ nominees didn't even appear before congress.

[Boston Blackie]

[VRWCmember]

An even more telling analysis of the hyperbole and irrational blathering the same NARAL/ACLU/PFAW/NAMBLA/NAACP idiots spewed about David Souter. Where are the back-alley coat hanger abortions that were going to be the result of the rush to overturn Roe if the Senate were to ever confirm such an extremist as Souter? In fact, the hysterics they screamed about Souter should be thrown back in there faces with a rhetorical question: If you said these same things about Souter when he was going through this process, why in the world would anyone with a brain take anything you have to say on the matter seriously?

[msnimje]

Each side is allowed to present witnesses. These special interest groups are a very large part of the modern day Democratic Party. In fact, the may rule the party.