• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

John Roberts hearings

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Diablos

Member
Is it me or is Roberts dodging every risky question with basically "I will interpret the law based on what it is, blah blah." He's not giving democrats a good reason to vote for him. It was put best yesterday, they simply want to know if he is in the mainstream right or the far right - they are NOT expecting him to lean to the left. But he's making it hard to figure out where he stands.

At this point, he's dodged so many times he might as well just say that he does not support Roe v. Wade.
 
They wouldn't vote for him anyway. He's a nominee from a Republican president.

The point of being a judge is to interpret the law with a clear head, without any biases. He's trying to say he'll do that. Whether he really does it or not doesn't matter, since he won't get onto the court.

That said, Patrick Lehee's (sp?) "do you support internment camps like the Japanese camps in WW2" question was beyond stupid. Roberts seems visibly annoyed by that one.
 
Asking a judge about a specific case or topic in a hearing like this is off-base. The focus should be his *process*. Maybe he doesn't agree with Roe v. Wade, but maybe it's for a different reason than "abortion is wrong." Who knows.

But, for those who want to talk about topics...I think him not saying anything about it is a sign that he believes the decision to be correct, but maybe he doesn't agree with it morally. I really don't think he's trying to "sneak by" and then call the case into question.
 
I haven't seen any of the coverage, stuck at the office all day, but this is pretty par for the course. Ginsberg was similarly evasive in her answers when she was confirmed. Roberts will probably be approved like 95-5 or something of that nature.
 
Diablos said:
Specter, Kennedy and Biden did a great job IMO.
Click to expand...
Kennedy was trying to portray Roberts as being against the extension of the Voting Rights Act in 1982, which is a half-truth at best. It's more annoying to me than the schmoozing that's been coming from many on the other side of the aisle. Softball questions are obnoxious, but at least they aren't misleading.
 
Kung Fu Jedi said:
I haven't seen any of the coverage, stuck at the office all day, but this is pretty par for the course. Ginsberg was similarly evasive in her answers when she was confirmed. Roberts will probably be approved like 95-5 or something of that nature.
Click to expand...
Ginsberg, according to Biden, answered 27 questions (that she did not have to) in a very detailed nature... I don't see Roberts doing this so far. He also gave a document showing what she answered to Specter for the record.
 
Diablos said:
Ginsberg, according to Biden, answered 27 questions (that she did not have to) in a very detailed nature... I don't see Roberts doing this so far.
Click to expand...

As I said, I'm not watching, so I can't comment directly on what is being answered or isn't. It's just that this if fairly par for the course on these types of confirmation hearings.

Biden is also probably responding in this way since his face has been all over those TV commercials showing him advising Ginsberg that she doesn't have to answer any questions that she doesn't want to.
 
Yeah, Biden intentionally brought up them constantly quoting him for the sake of saying she answered 27 "unnecessary" questions regardless.

But that was a different time. She still exposed her views a lot more than Roberts did. "You don't have to say that if you don't want to" seems to carry a lot more weight today than it did 11 years ago, and Ginsberg's responses compared to what John Roberts has said is what convinces me of that.
 
Diablos said:
Yeah, Biden intentionally brought up them constantly quoting him for the sake of saying she answered 27 "unnecessary" questions regardless.

But that was a different time. She still exposed her views a lot more than Roberts did. "You don't have to say that if you don't want to" seems to carry a lot more weight today than it did 11 years ago, and Ginsberg's responses compared to what John Roberts has said is what convinces me of that.
Click to expand...

I thought those commercials were pretty bogus regardless. They show a bunch of outtakes of Ginsberg not answering questions in a very out of context manner. Not surprised Biden said something.
 
Kung Fu Jedi said:
I thought those commercials were pretty bogus regardless. They show a bunch of outtakes of Ginsberg not answering questions in a very out of context manner. Not surprised Biden said something.
Click to expand...
Yeah, all they need are a couple clips of her denying cases and everyone will take it as gospel.

With the way Roberts is answering, you could probably make a 5 minute commerical with him saying he does not feel like commenting on a specific subject. Ginsberg said a lot more than he did. If today is any indication, Roberts does not have 27 pages of anything NEW that is revealing.
 
I support his confirmation. And am I the only person that thinks if Roberts were to run for any state, local, of federal office he'd win in a landslide? The guy is good. His closing speech yesterday was phenomenal, and it wasn't pre-drafted or anything.
 
He's going to get confirmed in a walk. Many people, on both sides of the asile, say he is one of the most brilliant legal minds in the country. It really is hard to find anything bad to say about the guy. Well, except that he doesn't want to answer questions posed to him. ;)
 
Have been listening to this for a bit. The guy is not answering how he feels on any controversial issues. It's simply troubling having someone confirmed without a clear vision of his stance of key legal issues.
 
teiresias said:
Why do his wife and kid always look like they stepped out a 1950's sitcom?
Click to expand...


If there's anything that ticks me off about him, its that. Its fucking pretentious. Harkening back to a 'good ol' days' that wasn't really all that good just pisses me off to no end.
 
IJoel said:
Have been listening to this for a bit. The guy is not answering how he feels on any controversial issues. It's simply troubling having someone confirmed without a clear vision of his stance of key legal issues.
Click to expand...
Because, of course, it couldn't be that how he feels takes a back burner to the legal issues before him.
 
Squirrel Killer said:
Because, of course, it couldn't be that how he feels takes a back burner to the legal issues before him.
Click to expand...

No, I don't mean personally. I meant his stance or how he interprets the law, as a Judge, on such issues.
 
There's no way he's not getting confirmed unless he stands up and jerks off on the table during these hearings....
 
IJoel said:
No, I don't mean personally. I meant his stance on how he interprets the law, as a Judge, on such issues.
Click to expand...
I'm not even following the hearings closely, and I know he said that he believes in stare decisis. Which, as long as he's telling the truth, would mean he would lean towards upholding previous decisions.
 
I am so tired about the way hearings are conducted these days. Nobody answers a damn thing directly, all they due is reference things that are already out there as if it's their stance, response, or opinion... When what they are really doing is just retelling policy, reading back history or a news item.

Condi Rice's 9/11 testimony comes to mind.
 
Squirrel Killer said:
I'm not even following the hearings closely, and I know he said that he believes in stare decisis. Which, as long as he's telling the truth, would mean he would lean towards upholding previous decisions.
Click to expand...

Yep, Read on CNN that he respects settled precedent. That says a lot right there. Basically, you have a lot of dems that want him to say something like "I'm opposed to Roe v. Wade" just so they can shout "See! We told you!" and make a big stink. That's not going to happen, and it wouldn't happen on the other side either.
 
Kung Fu Jedi said:
Yep, Read on CNN that he respects settled precedent. That says a lot right there. Basically, you have a lot of dems that want him to say something like "I'm opposed to Roe v. Wade" just so they can shout "See! We told you!" and make a big stink. That's not going to happen, and it wouldn't happen on the other side either.
Click to expand...

haha... interesting point of view.

What I think they're trying to do is assess whether he'd overturn Roe vs. Wade in order to determine whether to vote for him or not. This is obviously fair, as a majority of the constituents they represent, support abortion rights and IT IS settled law that another significant portion of people is against and is constantly debating.

It's more that dems want him to say "I support the current state of abortion law..." in order for them to say "Great, now we know!"
 
DarienA said:
There's no way he's not getting confirmed unless he stands up and jerks off on the table during these hearings....
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. Who the shit thinks the situation is honestly anything different?
 
IJoel said:
haha... interesting point of view.

What I think they're trying to do is assess whether he'd overturn Roe vs. Wade in order to determine whether to vote for him or not. This is obviously fair, as a majority of the constituents they represent, support abortion rights and IT IS settled law that another significant portion of people is against and is constantly debating.

It's more that dems want him to say "I support the current state of abortion law..." in order for them to say "Great, now we know!"
Click to expand...

Yeah, I can see that point, but than it raises a red flag for Republicans, who have consituents who are opposed to the current abortion rights laws, and could possibly pull their support for the nominee. That's why these hearings can get so silly. No one wants to say too much as it will obviously piss off someone.
 
For some reason these "hearings" remind me more of what a Middle Ages witch hunt trial would be like.

ie where people's minds are already made up and the whole objective is to get a "confession".
 
Kung Fu Jedi said:
Yeah, I can see that point, but than it raises a red flag for Republicans, who have consituents who are opposed to the current abortion rights laws, and could possibly pull their support for the nominee. That's why these hearings can get so silly. No one wants to say too much as it will obviously piss off someone.
Click to expand...
It's a little more than just not wanting to piss anyone off. As bullshit as it sounds, there are reasons for a judge to not express a personal opinion on an issue that is likely to come before him/her as a judge.

If a judge were to say "I think that drug laws were racially motivated to keep African Americans in poverty" what does that do to that judge's authority when he/she presides over a drug possession appeal? If the prosecution somehow doesn't get the case into another court, they'll have good reason to complain, and if the judge eventually does uphold the conviction, the defendant will have good reason to complain. A judge is supposed to be neutral, because if they're not, the whole concept of a "fair trial" is tossed out the window. Will Roberts be neutral despite his own opinions? Who knows, that's what the hearings are about, how will the nominee decide in general, not how will they decide on this convoluted hypothetical case Senator X has devised in order to pigeonhole the nominee.

I haven't read those 27 questions that Ginsburg didn't need to respond to, but IMHO, she was quite right to decline to comment on specific hypotheticals.
 
Squirrel Killer said:
It's a little more than just not wanting to piss anyone off. As bullshit as it sounds, there are reasons for a judge to not express a personal opinion on an issue that is likely to come before him/her as a judge.

If a judge were to say "I think that drug laws were racially motivated to keep African Americans in poverty" what does that do to that judge's authority when he/she presides over a drug possession appeal? If the prosecution somehow doesn't get the case into another court, they'll have good reason to complain, and if the judge eventually does uphold the conviction, the defendant will have good reason to complain. A judge is supposed to be neutral, because if they're not, the whole concept of a "fair trial" is tossed out the window. Will Roberts be neutral despite his own opinions? Who knows, that's what the hearings are about, how will the nominee decide in general, not how will they decide on this convoluted hypothetical case Senator X has devised in order to pigeonhole the nominee.
Click to expand...

Oh, I completely understand this, and respect it. However, these comfirmation hearings are politically motivated in many ways. The Witchhunt analogy above is very accurate. It's a chance for a Senator, Dem or Repub, to get on TV, get in a soundbite or two, and take jabs at the opposing parties nominee. Or, lob softball questions their way if it's their parties nominee. Then, when it's all said and done, they vote him or her in regardless.

The appoinment to the Supreme Court is lifetime for a reason. It takes the political element out of Judge's job by having him not worry about getting re-elected, and allows him or her to focus on the cases that come their way. We want our judges to be dispassionate interpreters of the law.
 
Incognito said:
I support his confirmation. And am I the only person that thinks if Roberts were to run for any state, local, of federal office he'd win in a landslide? The guy is good. His closing speech yesterday was phenomenal, and it wasn't pre-drafted or anything.
Click to expand...

I'm with ya on that one. The superficiality of the media's portrayal of him aside, he seems sound to me and I really have no qualms with his nomination.
 
What an asshole Biden is. Let the fucking man speak, instead of constantly yelling at him. Then when Roberts says he'll answer, Biden says something about "you don't have the right to answer." Jesus Christ.
 
Borrring. Just some third-rate grandstanding. They should show reruns of the Thomas hearings. Now those were some hearings.
 
Guileless said:
Borrring. Just some third-rate grandstanding. They should show reruns of the Thomas hearings. Now those were some hearings.
Click to expand...

Were you at my dinner table tonight? :lol My parents said the same exact thing. "This stuff is boring, bring back Clarence Thomas. I still rememeber what day they took place and the room I watched them in -- ahh, good stuff."

:lol
 
The only question I want to hear Roberts answer at this point is how the hell did he hit 50 and come out looking like he's 35?
 
Diablos said:
Is it me or is Roberts dodging every risky question
Click to expand...


Pretty much like the Ginsburg hearings.

And the republicans were pretty cordial during those hearing. Not the Biden gang bang like this one.
 
I've been out of the loop for a while. I do recall many fretting prior to 2k4's election, over the possibilities of vacant spots in the supreme. Basically the possibility of them getting some wackos into the court. So is this guy clean or no?(from what I hear he sounds a bit suspicious.) Last thing we'd want is to get a covert pro-theocracy religious nut in there.
 
Divus Masterei said:
I've been out of the loop for a while. I do recall many fretting prior to 2k4's election, over the possibilities of vacant spots in the supreme. Basically the possibility of them getting some wackos into the court. So is this guy clean or no?(from what I hear he sounds a bit suspicious.) Last thing we'd want is to get a covert pro-theocracy religious nut in there.
Click to expand...

He's certainly not as bad as Luttig or Owens, but he's definitely a conservative. Although listening to Kennedy, Biden, and Schumer rambling on you'd think he's lucifer in training ready to "roll back the clock of time!"
 
"Your failure to answer questions is confounding me," the New York Democrat fumed at the nominee for chief justice. "It's as if I asked you: 'What kind of movies do you like? Tell me two or three good movies.' And you say, 'I like movies with good acting.' Then I ask you if you like 'Casablanca,' and you respond by saying, 'Lots of people like "Casablanca." ' You tell me, 'It's widely settled that "Casablanca" is one of the great movies.' "

As the laughter at his expense subsided, the judge's smile shifted toward a smirk. Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) moved to call a recess, but Roberts asked if he could reply to Schumer.

" 'Dr. Zhivago' and 'North by Northwest,' " the nominee deadpanned. The crowd scored it another point for Roberts. Jane Roberts gave her husband a kiss. Schumer went outside to the cameras, where he observed, a bit wistfully, that Roberts "is a very, very smart man."
Click to expand...

:lol

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/14/AR2005091402477.html
 
Asking Roberts what his personal feelings on an issue are is irrelevant. Judges deliver decisions every day that they do not agree with on a personal level, because they are interpreting the law -- NOT making it -- which is the scope of their jurisdiction. Roberts may very well be against abortion for all we know, but that does not necessarily mean that he will go against Roe v. Wade by default. There is more at issue in Roe v. Wade than abortion and I am sure that Roberts more than understands this concept, considering that he has spearheaded cases concerning privacy issues in the past.

What is at issue here is whether Roberts will not allow the social issue to supersede the legal issue when it comes to how he reaches his decisions. IMO his responses on the issue of child pornography outlined this concept perfectly. I wish that I could find the transcript...
 
Waychel said:
What is at issue here is whether Roberts will not allow the social issue to supersede the legal issue when it comes to how he reaches his decisions. IMO his responses on the issue of child pornography outlined this concept perfectly. I wish that I could find the transcript...
Click to expand...
What does this mean exactly?
 
Incognito said:
He's certainly not as bad as Luttig or Owens, but he's definitely a conservative. Although listening to Kennedy, Biden, and Schumer rambling on you'd think he's lucifer in training ready to "roll back the clock of time!"
Click to expand...

True, and what he's shown on his record is a more true conservatism, too; I'm not seeing much if any "only when it's profitable" Neocon with him at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Robert Duvall, 1931-2026
2
82
503
GeekyDad replied
Nicolas Cage and John Woo reuniting for gangster film 'Gambino'
12
361
Donald mac Ronald replied
John Woo nearly blew up Chow Yun Fat with dynamite during the production of Hard Boiled
15
206
nush replied
John Candy: I Like Me | Documentary | Amazon | October 10
37
1K
Krathoon replied
NORMAL | Official Teaser Trailer | Bob Odenkirk's New Action Thriller from the John Wick Writer | In Theaters April 17, 2026
23
373
HRK69 replied
Top Bottom