quote:How the heck should I know? There are an uncountable number of ways they could treat Roberts differently from liberal nominees. What possible use would it be for me to say "Well, they could do this or they could do that or they could do this."?
Judging by their past behavior on applying very different standards based on political considerations, I think that it's likely that they will do the same here. I don't know enough about either the history or the procedure of the confirmations to pick specific things they might do. Plus, I think it would be a total waste of time.
Come on, you knew from the first time I said "I'm talking about wider issues." that I was talking about wider issues. But you kept hammering away at the questioning issue. I'd like to see what you think on what I was actually saying, on the wider issue of whether or not it's likely that the republicans will use different standards from liberal nominees in non-trivial aspects of the Roberts' confirmation hearings. Because if they do, and Belle doesn't find that objectionable, what was the point of her condemation of the democrats?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How on earth do you expect me to answer "do you think that these aspects are non-trivial" if you (the one who thinks they will act differently) can't tell how they will act differently?
It's ridiculous.
You think they'll act differently. Propose a way in which they will, and I'll tell you if I think it's trivial and if I think it's likely.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, You're the one with the apparently extensive knowledge here. Surely in your study of judicial confirmations, you've come across many, many instances of inconsistently applied standards. I think you hardly need me to tell you what they could be.
I don't know so much, nor am I all that concerned with the particulars. I'm making a judgement based on past history and what I know of their character. You've got that and more to work with. You can't offer up even an unqualified opinion?
I mean, if you, from your knowledgible standpoint, think that there are issues where they are likely to act inconsistently on, that's a yes, isn't it? And if you don't think these issues exist, why ask me what they are? You can just say that you don't think that this is likely.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, this is the particular area I've researched, because it's the only one that actually deals with my subject of interest: legal reasoning and judicial independence.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I don't know so much, nor am I all that concerned with the particulars. I'm making a judgement based on past history and what I know of their character.
First off, that looks like an excellent description of "prejudice" to me.
quote: You can't offer up even an unqualified opinion?
A Lawyer??? offering up an opinion without qualifying statements?? Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
