Roberts Goes Mum
Tweet
How many times did John Roberts duck questions? A whole heck of a lot.
13 Responses to “Roberts Goes Mum”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
I totally want the ability to go into a job interview and when they ask specific questions say things like, “I don’t answer hypotheticals.” and “I won’t speak to specific instances.” and still get the job. That would be awesome.
It isn’t like someone is asking about his religious beliefs or sexual preference [which by law they aren't allowed] but whether he disagrees with certain decisions. Isn’t that what he is supposed to do, isn’t it reasonable that he offer up some insight into how he would rule on a few specific cases?
It is beyond disingenuous to act as though Roberts is doing
anything that any other SCOTUS nominee hasn’t done, which of course is a-ok when it is a democratic nominee.
No one, including Biden, had a problem when Ginsburg was not answering questions. he even encouraged her not to answer:
You not only have a right to choose what you will answer and not answer, but in my view you should not answer a question of what your view will be on an issue that clearly is going to come before the Court in 50 different forms … over your tenure on the Court
She was confirmed 98-0. Who wants to bet Roberts doesn’t even come close to that ratio?
robot : No, that is not reasonable. And I am sure that you had the exact same position when now Justice Ginsberg was doing the same thing, right?
Actually, another minor error, we are both wrong.
How the Senate voted on the nominations of the nine justices on the Supreme Court:
William H. Rehnquist: Confirmed 68-26 for associate justice, 65-33 for chief justice.
John Paul Stevens: 98-0
Sandra Day O’Connor: 99-0
Antonin Scalia: 98-0
Anthony Kennedy: 97-0
David Souter: 90-9
Clarence Thomas: 52-48
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 96-3
Stephen G. Breyer: 87-9 here.
Actually, Ginsburg was confirmed 93-3. A minor error.
Fact is, she refused to answer over 30 questions related to abortion, school vouchers, gun control etc.
The ABA’s canons of ethics specifically states that a judicial nominee should not answer questions about issues pending before the court or answer questions about issues that could come before the court. Having a half a dozen Democratic senators all asking the same questions amounts to a lot of questions “not being answered.” Thing is, they’re questions the nominee should not be answering.
And please, asking Roberts whether or not he agrees with a particular decision is just a back door way of asking him how he would rule on such an issue!
Does anyone else find it unsettling that, if Judge Roberts is confirmed, he may very well be the last chief justice any of us see in our lifetime considering he is, what, only in his 40′s?
This isn’t a knock at Roberts, persay, rather an observation that we really need term limits for Supreme Court justices (say 15-20 years) so that they don’t become out of touch with reality or part of the status-quo.
I think it would also solve the problem with Presidents nominating ultra-liberal or ultra-conservative judges to the bench, since they will only serve through about four presidential terms.
Still, watching these hearings is a riot – you have the nominees trying to dodge any and every question and the Senators trying to bring up hypothetical theories in order to please their bases. It’s like a three-ring circus.
Why can’t we every just have a purely independent nominee that, gasp, rules based on the merits of the case rather then political ideology?
Oliver is pretending he didn’t know about Ginsburg’s nomination hearings. He was just a child back then.
has anybody asked him about his role in the Iran/Contra scandal, or the legal assistance he provided to the GOP’s judicial coup in 2000?
I see the Energizer Bunny “! of prevarication is going nad going again:
Fact is, she refused to answer over 30 questions related to abortion, school vouchers, gun control etc.
Poor Jay doesn’t even pretend to disguise the fact he merely regurgitates GOP (Novak, NRO) talking points.
Let’s review how Ginsburg refused to answer a pointed question about abortion. Let’s go to the videotape; here’s Ginsburg replying to then-Sen. Brown’s question about the constitutionality of a right to choose:
[Y]ou asked me about my thinking about equal protection versus individual autonomy, and my answer to you is it is both. This is something central to a woman s life, to her dignity. It is a decision that she must make for herself. And when government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices.
Wow, she really dodged that question, huh?
Later, when Sen. Leahy asked her about the right to privacy WRT abortion, she said:
There is a constitutional right to privacy which consists I think of at least two distinguishable parts. One is the privacy expressed most vividly in the Fourth Amendment, that is the government shall not break into my home or my office, without a warrant, based on probable cause, the government shall leave me alone. The other is the notion of personal autonomy, the government shall not make my decisions for me, I shall make, as an individual, uninhibited, uncontrolled by my government, the decisions that affect my life s course.
Of course, the Judiciary Committee had this to say about Ginsburg and her position on abortion:
the committee knows far more about Judge Ginsburg s views on reproductive rights than it has known about any previous nominee s. Judge Ginsburg s record and testimony suggest both a broad commitment to reproductive freedoms and a deep appreciation of the equality and autonomy values underlying them.
On Ginsberg – yes, she should have answered the questions. They all should. Just because some got away with it in the past does not mean that we should keep letting them get away with it. Especially when the right is so upfront about their goals to pack the courts with idealogues.
These people are trained in law school to be able to argue any angle of a case, and can literally argue the legs off a chair. Yet they clam up the minute they are pressed as to their actual beliefs. That’s wrong, no matter who does it.
Oh I love it when you call people Repugs, Flanagan.
Of course, as usual, if you you’re not flat out telling lies, you’re telling half truths. Ginsburg’s personal views on abortion were already widely known. However, when asked about specific cases, she refused to answer:
Senator Hatch: Irrespective of your views on the policy of abortion funding, do you agree that Maher and Harris, those two cases, were decided correctly?
Judge Ginsburg: I agree that those cases are the Supreme Court s precedent. I have no agenda to displace them, and that is about all I can say. I did express my views on the policy at stake, but the people have not elected me to vote on that policy.
and
Sen. Specter: Do you agree with the Supreme Court s judgment in Rust v. Sullivan that the government may prohibit clinics from using federal funds toward counseling concerning, referrals for, and activities advocating abortion.
Judge Ginsburg: I am uncomfortable about inquires concerning how I would cast my vote in a particular case. I will address and expand to the extent I am able, any vote I have cast& I don t want to sit here before this committee, however, and write the opinion I would have written in the Rust v Sullivan case.
Cripes, you’re such hack.
Additionally, those mouth-breathing Repugs who complain Ginsburg didn’t answer questions are, well, lying.
The fact is Ginsburg had over 13 years on the Federal bench; she wrote hundreds of opinions. So, it’s not as if her views weren’t there for anybody who can use Westlaw or Findlaw.
OTOH, Roberts has 18 months on the Federal bench; he has written no opinions. That’s why most questions are directed at his significant career as a political hack and bagman.
The EnergizerBunny”! of Prevarication keeps on going.
What Jay neglects to mention is that Hatch boasts–in his own autobiography–of suggesting Ginsburg be nominated to the SC to President Clinton.
Again, Jay cannot refute the fact the Judiciary Committee asserted they knew more about Ginsburg’s views on reproductive rights than any previous nominee.
If we contrast that to the Bagman Roberts–we know nothing of Roberts views save for those the extreme right have bought and paid for.