The Workermonkey

Thursday, September 15, 2005

the john, roberts, society band 

# posted by josh @ 9/15/2005 11:50:00 AM

obscure buffett reference? no? ok. well, i was asked to weigh in on what i thought about the roberts questioning so far, and i also think it'd be cool to get some conversation going about it.

after watching a decent amount of the proceedings, i have very mixed feelings right now. on one side, i would like to know more about how he would decide certain cases. BUT, i actually agree with most republicans in that i can't really fault roberts for not answering some of the questions. naturally for policy reasons both sides (particularly the non-nominating democrats) want to know how he would decide things. but theoretically, judges are impartial deciders. should he give certain stances now, he would have to recuse himself from certain cases in the future, and this would defeat the purpose of having a full supreme court. however, it's also the reality that it often seems that some judgments are policy based, and then judges look for support among the constitution, precedent, and statute. this is clearly backwards, as they are supposed to examine those documents first, then come out with their decision from those. and it is true that this does happen, as from time to time you'll hear justices saying how they were really against the ruling they made but they were bound to it.

so i think the real question is 'will roberts impartially apply precedent or will he use precedent to justify his own policy preferences?' so, i cannot totally fault him for not answering some questions (answering all or most of the questions often leads to your own demise...see robert bork). blunt questions such as "would you overturn roe v. wade?" may be innappropriate, but i htink the reason for asking the question is quite appropriate. so how do we find out if he will apply precedent or overturn it based on policy? i suppose when we answer this question we'll be able to decide if he's a good candidate or not.

speaking to his personal characteristics, i think roberts is an exceptionally smart man. he knows far more constitutional law than do all the senators combined, by far. but i'm not convinced that this alone qualifies him for the job. if there's no indication he will impartially apply the law and precedent ,then i do not think he should be voted in. but if it looks like he can separate his personal beliefs from his position as a judge (for which it might be useful for the senate to look at some of his appellate court decisions), then i think he's qualified for the job.

one final thing that should be noted: many of the beliefs he expressed in the early 80s were actually those of hte reagan administration, of which he was an employee. they were not necessarily his own. however, i find it extremely troubling that the bush administration will not release certain documents from after 1982. if he's really qualified and there's nothign to hide, why not let the senate see them?


as a side note, i saw a funny shirt today. this girl in my tax class was wearing a t-shirt that said "objects in this shirt are larger than they appear." whether that's true or not i dont know, but it makes one think: damn, i love boobs.

5 comments

nice barns, about the shirt that is.....boobs are the demise of man for sure.

no seriously this is a huge appointment. I've been hearing stuff about his stance on personal privacy. that worries me a bit.

my vote: judge dred

By  ron, at Thursday, September 15, 2005 12:38:00 PM  

man i love boobs too.

roberts is an interesting case because there are a few documents that he himself created that piss off both sides. When pushed for answers to these questions he's said things like it wasn't his opinion but simply the policy of his superiors. this is troubling because, well, he's always worked for republicans and if he didn't agree with any of the policy they gave him, why was he working for them in the first place?

Also, many of the records people have been asking for pertain to Roe v. wade. the fact we even have to ask his opinion on a case like that is obsence. i know they can bring up old cases but this is just stupid. why don't we just go back to counting blacks as 3/5's a person and get it over with.

Roberts has been seen as a canidate that will over turn RvW and it seems to be the only real reason Bush would appoint a person that A) isn't all that qualified, B) is obviously trying to hide things, C) is so young he'll hang around longer then renhquist and D) he's one of bushs' "guys".

i was listening to Al franken today at lunch and he played a clip from the hearings where some crazy southern senator asked roberts if he thought looking at rulings from other countries was a major mistake when forming an opinion about a case. Roberts agreed with the senator but it was phrased in a way that made it sound like he was restraining himself from yelling at the senator for bringing it up since they are both republicans. i didn't do justice to the clip here but believe me, it wasn't good for roberts. and he basically said other countries are stupid and our judges are stupid for looking at how other countries handle things.

By  Supreme Monkey Overlord, at Thursday, September 15, 2005 2:27:00 PM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By  DJ Booze Piñata, at Thursday, September 15, 2005 3:52:00 PM  

Spent over an hour today on boobs. Big fan of Felicity Fey.

Senator Biden was taking a lead in asking pointed questions. Look for power moves from this guy in the next few years. He's been Delaware's powerhouse for awhile now.

Josh is right though about his lack of candidness - he's already a shoe-in, so he wouldn't want to Bork his way out of a nomination. Fuck, I'd talk Legaleese all day and just slide in.

Then Bork us all.

Partisan dual-issue joke of the day:
Q: What's George Bush's postion on Roe v. Wade?
A: He doesn't care how people get out of New Orleans.

By  DJ Booze Piñata, at Thursday, September 15, 2005 3:53:00 PM  

ouch!

Biden will be a powerful person soon, i'd almost be surprised if he wasn't the dem's next canidate. besides hilary, he seems to be the only one stepping up to the plate.

on a side note about hilary clinton, i saw a commercial for some new show where gina davis is the president and couldn't help but think this was some stupid kind of public poll to see what it would be like to have a woman in the white house. it sounds nuts, but it also sounds like something i'd do if i had that kind of crazy money and connections.

By  Supreme Monkey Overlord, at Thursday, September 15, 2005 4:37:00 PM  

Post a Comment