actually we do know just what Roberts thinks about issues

[donsu]

on every subject he refuses to answer or answers by dancing all around the question and not really answering it we then KNOW what his answer would be if he was truthful.

by what he is silent on we know his true answer.

[LSK]

1. yes, Ive never seen a better BULLSHIT artist

Every answer is a load of crap and garbage. :shrug:

[JDPriestly]

2. Absolutely right.

He is showing that he needs more experience as a judge before ascending to the Supreme Court. He is still thinking like a lawyer, as if his clever little evasions and equivocations won't come back to haunt him, as if it were just a matter of winning this one more for the client. A judge is not seasoned until he or she has had a few decisions overturned by an appellate court. That puts the fear of the law into them.

Lawyers always blame the courts for not getting it, for deciding issues wrong or for being unfair when the lawyers lose. Judges get overturned and usually the decisions overturning them are well enough written and reasoned that the judges actually have to admit either that they erred or that there is another legitimate view on the issues they decided. I don't think Roberts has ever experienced having his judgment, reasoning or decisions being resoundingly rejected by a higher court. He needs to have that happen to him a number of times, not just a couple of times, before he will be ready to make the ultimate decisions that Supreme Court justices make.

Roberts is still very green. What bothers me is not so much that he is refusing to answer questions, but that he is talking out of both sides of his mouth. That's clever lawyering and great politicking, but it is not consistent with a judicial temperament. I guess that is what I am driving at. Roberts is a great lawyer, but he doesn't have a judicial temperament. Maybe he would develop it after some years on a lower court, but he does not appear to have it now.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. "...until he or she has had a few decisions overturned..."

Absolutely true, but of course he's going into the highest appellate court in the land and nothing he rules will be overturned in his life time. We're fucked.

[napi21]

3. I disagree with that analagy. Both sides are unsure of what Roberts

will actually do if made CJ. If you listen closely, the Pubs are saying things like they think, or they feel he will vote along with Scalia and Thomas, and the Dems are saying they're AFRAID he will do so.

It's the nominees job in hearings to not tip his hand either way, and Roberts seems to be doing that well.

I listened carefully to all of his answers yesterday and today, and you really can't tell for sure.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. If both sides think he's going to vote with Scalia and Thomas

where is the uncertainty?

I think the OP is correct -- we all know which way he is going by the very nature of his evasions. He is clearly not worried about not being confirmed by the repukes.

[napi21]

6. The uncertainty is that neither side is sure!

I think the Dems think he'll probably side with Scalia because Shrub nominated him, and they don't trust Shrub. The Pubs think the he will JUST BECAUSE Shrub nominated him, and they totally TRUST Shrub.

I've heard quite a few Pub supporters say that they are going to be watching his every move after he is on the bench, because the last thing in the World they want is another Souter!

Believe me, neither side is sure!

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. Souter was not a corprate shill before his appointment.

And he had considerably more experience.

We can always hope for a Souter, but IMO it's a pretty thin hope. If there was ANY chance that he would turn out that way he'd have never been nominated.

[Thrill]

11. This guy is no Souter

This is a guy Bush has probably been wanting since he first became president in 00. No Souter happens again. This guy is a young Renqu

[Nederland]

7. Unfortunately

Roberts is doing exactly what Ruth Bader Ginsberg did in her confirmation hearings. She refused to elaborate her views on gay rights, gun control, and school vouchers--all the issues that Republicans are obsessed about. Roberts is merely doing what has become necessary for an appointee of either party to do to be confirmed--dodge.

[napi21]

9. That's absolutely true. The hearings are really for the Senators

to show off to their constituents. It's pretty conspicuous. Listen to them! They have 30 mins. and they spend 25 of them making a speach and then complain that their time is up! Both sides do it!

I suppose some naive Dem might think there will be a (what Jeff Tubin called) Perry Mason moment when the nominee will trip up and say "OK, I'm a real RW extremist and I probably shouldn't be put on the court!" But they really all know that's not going to happen!

I really is all show for the constituents!

[July]

12. Someone here posted earlier that Ginsberg did not address

issues that were on the SC docket at that time. If that's true, it's quite different from giving non-answers on a variety of subjects.

[Nederland]

13. I didn't think so

...but you can judge for yourself. Here is the transcript:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/31aug20051022/www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh103-482/sh103-482.pdf

Its long, but you might skip to page 369 for an example.

[papau]

10. Cute poem that summarizes the hearings to date

http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/

Must the Court bless smut and other such vices?

I can’t say much but: stare decisis!


May a President jail any and all in a crisis?

I can’t say much but: stare decisis!


Will the Court defer or will it despise us?

I can’t say much but: stare decisis!


Is privacy protected in all shapes and sizes?

I can’t say much but: stare decisis!


Are your views like Bob Bork’s or more like Brandeis’?

I can’t say much but: stare decisis!


Will you ever say anything at all to surprise us?

I can’t say much but: stare decisis!


Do you still favor term limits—a time when you’ll go??

No.