Posted on 09/18/2005 9:56:22 PM PDT by gpapa
WASHINGTON -- Democratic Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and Dianne Feinstein of California had tried to hide their frustration while questioning Judge John G. Roberts Jr. for the second time last week. But once the confirmation hearing ended, they betrayed their emotions in the confines of a Russell Senate Office Building elevator, oblivious to who was overhearing them. The two senators bitterly complained Roberts simply was not answering their questions.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
More like Roberts was not giving them the answers they wanted from him...
Yeah, Biden was ranting and raving to the Judge that he wasn't telling them anything really about what kind of a Justice he would be. According to Plagarist Joe, that was something horrible. LOL Duh. Can anybody say "three separate but equal branches of government?"
"Mistah Robets -- whould you be kahnd enough to take this here noose and put yowah head in it?"
BUMP!
There, that's corrected.
Best part is Roberts has flummoxed these devious Donks thus laying the groundwork for GW's next nominee to do the same. GW will nominate a solid conservative (more conservative than Roberts) if he has the gumption and Roberts will have already smoothed the way
Correct.
"Yeah, Biden was ranting and raving to the Judge that he wasn't telling them anything really about what kind of a Justice he would be. According to Plagarist Joe, that was something horrible. LOL Duh. Can anybody say "three separate but equal branches of government?"
On top of that, I saw a commercial ran by a conservative group, that played a clip of Biden saying that RBG? shouldn't answer any questions about how she would vote on a case. Typical double standard.
Taylor cited the position by Laurence Silberman, a senior judge on the District of Columbia Circuit Court, that every case must be tried on its merits and weighed against the Constitution rather than decided on broad considerations of social philosophy. -Robert Novak
It would be damned tempting (for either side) if you could make them pledge their votes.
No, that would be Arlen Specter, hands down.
I don't like Specter personally or politically, but Schumer the best lawyer??? That one had me rolling on the floor laughing...
I'll go with Sessions.
I think there have been a few that had chose not to answer q's on some issues. Roberts isnt the first.
What really makes me sick is that the Republicans folded like a cheap suit in the confirmation hearings for that nightmare Ginsburg even AFTER the scumbag Democrats had invented and applied their disgraceful smear tactic (now know colloquially as "Borking") against Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. The Republicans also let Breyer off easy.
Of course, those confirmation hearings took place in the olden days when the dying, socialist, "mainstream" newsrooms still had clout. Never again.
I get the feeling that Roberts will be confirmed in a near-unanimous vote. He has no paper trail that identifies him as a true conservative and has out-foxed all the liberals. They really can't vote against him and be seen as reasonable after the hearings.
I believe that they will contest the next nominee while saying that the newbie is "no Roberts," what do you think?
WhaaaAAAT???
This, from the esteemed Senaturd for whom the verb "to schume" was coined by its colleagues - meaning, "to waffle publicly in an attempt to appear to be on both sides of an issue"?
Why, I am absolutely dumbfounded...
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.