As you all know, the Senate has been questioning John Roberts about his judicial views and philosophy this week. How do you think that these hearings are going? Do you, personally, think that Roberts should be confirmed?
Although I consider myself a liberal, I don't have any real, reasonable objections about Roberts. Bush is a conservative, and he nominated a conservative. That is a presidential priviledge and I believe that the Senate Democrats should respect that. Unless Roberts pulls a Bork and says that there is no constitutional right to privacy then I think that the Senate should confirm him unanimously. It seems to me that some Senate democrats would only be satisfied if Bush nominated a liberal (which is not going to happen).
yes. He should be confirmed. I don't see why there should be any big objections. the senator minority leader is just using this for his political benefit getting his name known so if he decides to run for president. He just might want to remember he is from a Republican state and may not be a senator when reellection time comes around. The hearings and Robert not answering certain questions that may come up as issues when his on the board would be a conflict of interest if he would answer them since the senators can commment and effect his judegment!!! That's all I really have to say.
The more the Democrats fight Roberts, the worse they look. They should unanimously confirm him and fight the next nominee, assuming that he is a super-conservative, which I think he is going to be.
Agreed...What we need to do here is compromise. Confirm Roberts as the man for the slot of Chief Justice, and whomever is chosen to fill in the spot of out-going justice O'Connor, that's who the dems' should put up resistance to. Roberts is a justifiable choice for the position at hand.
The more the Democrats fight Roberts, the worse they look. They should unanimously confirm him and fight the next nominee, assuming that he is a super-conservative, which I think he is going to be.
the deal with roberts will most likely turn out favoring the liberals.
Roberts believes in precedent and is not as conservative as the past chief justice.... whose shoes he is about to fill.
the next spot in Oconners spot. Oconner was a moderate, and many people believe that Gonzalez (moderate) will be nominated. If that does happen the court will be slightly more liberal than it was.
There is a cry for either a woman or minority justice...Gonzalez is a perfect candidate not only to be justice, but to fill the request for some diversity
of course bush could screw the nation and nominate some crazy religious nut, and keep his promise to the far right lunatics.....but I dont believe he will do that. He played those loonies for their vote, and although he promised to fill any court vacancies with bible beaters, I dont think he will.
I have no problem with Roberts' answers in the hearing, except when he refused to answer a question about Gore vs. Bush (2000). It's not like that kind of case is about to come up before the court any time soon.
As I've been saying all this time, let Roberts pass through; after all, he's replacing Rehnquist. One conservative to replace another is fair enough, especially since Roberts does't seem to be the judicial activist that Rehnquist was.
However, if the next appointmee is too conservative, fight that one to the end.
The problem with him evading questions is not that he wants to not state anything, but rather not go against anything he does say. But even so, it's incredibly intelligent, though at this point he's just doing the norm. I'm pretty sure every nominee has done the same in the hearing phase.
You all do realize that if he takes a stand on things like abortion now, he will be unable to preside over cases about them in the future, right? Because he would have a bias.
"If there was hope, it must lie in the proles, because only there, in those swarming disregarded masses, eighty-five percent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated," p.60, "1984," by George Orwell
I totally agree with you blue. I don't have anything against Roberts, I just wish he would answer some questions. He has been giving text book answers, answers his advisors feed him. The courts are backed up as it is, lets try to get some info out of him but lets get him on. He will pass through anyway in the end.
"When you pull on that jersey, the name on the front is a hell of alot more important than the one on the back." Herb Brooks
I think Senate Democrats want straight answers out of Roberts. As humble and easy-going as he seems, he IS a politician and has been...what did one of them say? Dancing? Some sort of foreign dance, with them. He hasn't taken a stance on abortion (more specifically Roe v. Wade) because he knows that will put a damper on his chances of being approved.
I got an e-mail from Planned Parenthood not too long ago declaring their opposition to Roberts purely in his refusal to give the Senate an answer (and beacuse I'm sure they know it's doubtful Bush elected Roberts knowing he was pro-choice.)
If he just answered questions straight-forwardly, I'd be more inclined to respet Bush's decision and Roberts' approval.
Topics 
