posted
NO, but it MAY (not will, but may) give an indication aboyut his beliefs on things that he is not talking baout himself...
It isn't so much about being a Catholic, but about his beliefs.
I was raised RC, and I have no problem with them asking about his beliefs...the RC Church has VERY recently attempted to coerce poloticians into following the Popes decrees on abortion...take a look at what several Bishops said about Kerry during the last election...
To be honest, the RC church brought these types of questions upon themselves by acting the way they did in the days leading up to the last Presidential election. If they dabble overtly in politics, they can't expect their condidates for public office to be uneffected by the backlash.
I like Roberts so far, although I would like him more if he was "just" up for a seat rather than for Chief Justice.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: To be honest, the RC church brought these types of questions upon themselves by acting the way they did in the days leading up to the last Presidential election. If they dabble overtly in politics, they can't expect their condidates for public office to be uneffected by the backlash.
posted
Too bad I didn't spell candidates right, huh?
BTW, I have been listening on the radio to the hearings. I get what you are saying, Jim-Me...I just don't come to the same conclusion, I guess. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What annoys the heck out of me is the senators not letting Roberts finish a sentence. If I had a dollar for every time I heard "Senator Kennedy, let him finish his answer" I could certainly go out for dinner and a movie. Both Kennedy and Biden did that, they wouldn't allow the man two seconds to actually respond to what they said.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, after having listened to far more of the hearings than I intended, I do have to say he was rather rudely interrupted any number of times, which of course prevents getting any sort of coherency out of the man.
Posts: 20 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You really have to hear that little exchange about filibustering in full to appreciate it. My favorite part was the last bit.
quote: Biden: He's filibustering, Senator. But OK, go ahead. Roberts: That's a bad word, Senator. Biden: That's if we do it to you. Go ahead. Go ahead and continue not to answer.
posted
No, actually I heard Roberts several times try to answer a question. He said more than once "Senator, if you'll let me clarify...." and then get cut off. Once he said Kennedy was mischaracterizing him, and tried to explain why but Kennedy kept interrupting and never let him say why he was being mischaracterized. I don't care what political leaning a nominee is, it's only proper to allow them to speak for more than two seconds.
And, yes, he refused to answer some questions, just like O'Connor and Ginsburg refused to answer some, but I'm fine with it because I don't think they should be speculating about what they'll rule without having a case before them. I'd rather they not decide ahead of time, and rule on them when they actually come up.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just found it ironic and humorous... I'm not really angry, especially since this is all a formality, really.
As to the RC thing... the senate has said this is Roberts' Job interview. Every HR person I know would summarily execute anyone who asked about religious beliefs on a job interview. I understand exactly what's going on and this *does* piss me off. Not because of the religious questioning (I think Roberts is a big enough boy to deal with that and he shouldn't be a SC Justice if he isn't) but because people keep hypocritically going on and on about the Republicans having a litmus test on Roe v. Wade when it is so blatantly obvious that it is, in fact, the democrats who do.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim, they both do. It's just that because of a Republican president, they can apply it in private, when deciding who to nominate. The minority Democrats are forced to air it in the public square.
I don't see where the hypocrisy is, unless your claiming that the Democrats are saying they don't have a litmus test?
posted
To be fair, I have a litmus test on Roe v. Wade.
Any questions about Robert's religious beliefs should be made in terms of his ability to make decisions contrary to his personal beliefs when required to do so by law. And they should be asked of any judicial candidate, because after legal reasoning ability it is the most important qualification a judge can have.
Robert's religious beliefs should not change this questioning at all.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Biden counseled Ginsberg not to answer certain questions when she was up for appointment, but he is now demanding that Roberts answer the same type of question that he told Ginsberg not too
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but as long as he just pushes for the camera a bit I'm fine with it. The Republicans pushed Ginsburg a little in order to try to get more out of her.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My beef is that it is brought up, in congress, in the press, and on this board, as an attack on republicans, but almost never mentioned WRT democrats... and this goes back to the Clinton presidency as well.
To clarify, I'm not really having a problem with the hearings per se... just chuckling at the ironies of Senators complaining about being filibustered and etc. I *do* have a problem when people start complaining about republican litmus tests and ignoring the fact that the democrats do as well, but no one is doing that at the moment... I only brought it up to mention what *does* get my goat, as opposed to what I merely find funny.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can understand not wanting to comment on general hypothetical cases, but I don't have a problem with Roberts coming clean on his position in specific past cases. We know how every other justice on the court stands on those cases, after all, and their opinions being widely known doesn't stop each of them from making fair decisions with every new case.
Posts: 4292 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just find it odd to have Biden and Kennedy questioning someone on their ethics.
Biden had that whole plagiarism thing that caused him to drop out of the presidential race years ago.
And Sen. Kennedy has a little problem with forgetting his passengers in a drunken car wreck.
These are the people we put up as people to judge the worthiness of a Supreme Court judge? Next up will be Snoop Dogg as a judge at the National Spelling Bee.
Shizznit... S...h...i...z.. Umm, could you use it in a sentence?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aw come on, Kwea. Are you denying that it was suspicious as hell, and convenient, and underinvestigated?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
