Posted on 09/16/2005 9:54:36 AM PDT by saveliberty
A fun read
Nice summary!
Captain Ed is great!
Hardly! I doubt Robert Bork would compare what he went though with what Judge Roberts has gone through. This is unwarranted hyperbole.
Ther eis only one thought, and lesson, that Republicans MUST take to heart from the Roberts' hearing, and also from that of the next nominee...if you think the Dems were obnoxious, just imagine it had the Dems been in charge of the Senate....
good article
I can see that it's hard to compare since Judge Bork did answer their questions on what he thought of cases. And he was honest about his judicial philosophy. Sadly, Judge Bork was a victim of being punished for being a great jurist and an honest man.
But the intensity of the questioning was such that they were in search of a way to undermine him. I have no doubt that if there had been anything to hang on Roberts, they would have moved in for the full treatment.
He has the same background "concerns" (as described by liberals) as Miguel Estrada and look what happened to him? Not to mention the bigoted charicatures that Estrada had to endure as a non white conservative (the bigotry inferred that he was parroting back what his white superiors told him. I wonder if this was transferrance?)
BTW Patterico says that is a perfect reason to nominate Estrada for the O'Connor position as all of the arguments they had against Estrada are true of Roberts whom they will confirm.
In fairness it wasn't too long ago that judicial nominees were being filibustered one after the other. If Roberts didn't already have 60 votes (he may have more), I am pretty sure that the Dems would have filibustered him.
Too true
:-) Thanks!
:-) He's a good read.
Thanks for the ping!
You're welcome!
I think it was Senator Hatch who told off that NARAL chick real good. He said, (and i paraphrase, but pretty close) "you guys came in here during the Clarence Thomas hearings and claimed women would die if he were confirmed. You came in here and claimed that Roe would be overturned during the (another GOP nominee. i can't recall which) confirmation hearings. You were wrong both those times. So you come in here again and make the same accusations against Judge Roberts. You really don't know what will happen, do you?"
Woo Hoo!
Do you remember the story of the first Roberts hearings in 2003 in which Hatch said to Schumer that he should stop asking such dumb@$$ questions.
Schumer was shocked and asked him if he wanted to correct the record.
Hatch said, No I meant what I said. I know a dumb@$$ question when I hear it.
Roberts was confirmed to the appellate court, to the embarrassment of Schumer.
After the senatorial questioning, the Judiciary Committee heard from various experts. I heard just snippets of this portion (they seemed to be uniformly leftists, but maybe I just tuned in at the wrong time). One elderly black lawyer in effect accused Roberts of supporting racist positions.
HaHa. "Dumba$$ questions"! I didn't know that Hatch was such a cutup.
:-) Schumer had a prep session with a Hahvahd lawyer pretending to be Roberts. LOL! Schumer also commented yesterday how he was impressed with Roberts' responses that he made directly, with no notes and no aides whispering in his ear (Schumer was reading his notes as he said this LOL!)
As for the accusations, I thought that Peter Kirsanow (Civil Rights Commission) did a marvellous job for Roberts and also mentioned that Justice Thurgood Marshall agreed with Roberts 67% of the time (while Roberts worked in the Reagan WH)
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.