No hints, no forecasts, no previews…
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg uttered these very words more than a decade ago when she went before the senate judiciary committee panel during her conformation hearings. When pressed about what her positions were on certain constitutional matters, she told the committee in no uncertain terms that she would offer “no hints, no forecasts, no previews, on how she would rule on future cases. And that’s the way it should be.
Okay, I'm not a legal expert, and you wouldn't want to come to me for any extensive legal analysis. However, I do read a lot and I try to keep myself informed about what is happening in this country especially when it comes to the courts. So with that said, here goes my rant.
I’ve been watching the conformation hearings of Judge Roberts, and I got to tell you, I don’t know how the good judge can keep his composure with a couple of condescending boobs like Joe Biden (D-Delaware) and Chuck Schumer (D-New York) lecturing to him and giving him the third degree. They want him to discuss his “judicial philosophy,” translation, they want him to tell them how he would rule on a particular case, and what his “personal” views are on such matters like abortion, gay marriage, the death penalty etc. They’re grilling the man because they don’t happen to like some of his personal ideologies. That is so inappropriate; senators should not badger the nominee into telling them how they would rule on specific cases that could potentially come before the court in the future. And when Roberts invokes the Ginsberg doctrine of “no hints, no forecast, no preview” they have an absolute coronary. Biden goes so far as to accuse Judge Roberts of "filibustering." That is just laughable, and of course senator hair plugs would know ALL about filibustering. It seems to me that Biden had an entirely different demeanor when he was questioning Judge Ginsberg. When Ginsberg declined to answer certain questions from the panel, Biden obliged and said this, “You not only have a right to choose what you will answer and not answer, but in my view you should not answer a question of what your view will be on an issue that clearly is going to come before the court in 50 different forms…over your tenure on the court." -Confirmation Hearing of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, July 1993. Oh, so he’s giving Clinton’s nominee “advice” on what she should answer and not answer, but he’s brow-beating Roberts about not answering certain questions when he (Roberts) is doing exactly what Justice Ginsberg did. Talk about your glaring double standard. Then you’ve got Schumer in his whiny voice, I’m serious, this guy could never be president, because what diplomat, or joe citizen, would want to sit and listen to that voice all day long. Yeah, so you’ve got Chuck giving him the third degree saying how the process is “absurd” because he (Roberts) won’t answer any questions. Um… hello… newsflash… he does answer your questions senator, they’re just not the answers you want! I must say though, Roberts is doing great under all of this scrutiny from some members of this panel. He’s not wavering, and I think it’s driving the democrats crazy, they’re trying to get him on a “gotcha” moment and they got nothing. They’re grasping at straws. The reality is John Roberts will be confirmed, he appears to be a rock solid nominee, and from what I’ve seen and heard, it sounds like he will remain faithful to the original intent of the constitution.
Again, in the words of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, (who was confirmed by a vote of 96-3):
“A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process. Similarly, because you are considering my capacity for independent judging, my personal views on how I would vote on a publicly debated issue, were I in your shoes, were I a legislator, are not what you will be closely examining.” -Confirmation Hearing, July 1993
Okay, I'm not a legal expert, and you wouldn't want to come to me for any extensive legal analysis. However, I do read a lot and I try to keep myself informed about what is happening in this country especially when it comes to the courts. So with that said, here goes my rant.
I’ve been watching the conformation hearings of Judge Roberts, and I got to tell you, I don’t know how the good judge can keep his composure with a couple of condescending boobs like Joe Biden (D-Delaware) and Chuck Schumer (D-New York) lecturing to him and giving him the third degree. They want him to discuss his “judicial philosophy,” translation, they want him to tell them how he would rule on a particular case, and what his “personal” views are on such matters like abortion, gay marriage, the death penalty etc. They’re grilling the man because they don’t happen to like some of his personal ideologies. That is so inappropriate; senators should not badger the nominee into telling them how they would rule on specific cases that could potentially come before the court in the future. And when Roberts invokes the Ginsberg doctrine of “no hints, no forecast, no preview” they have an absolute coronary. Biden goes so far as to accuse Judge Roberts of "filibustering." That is just laughable, and of course senator hair plugs would know ALL about filibustering. It seems to me that Biden had an entirely different demeanor when he was questioning Judge Ginsberg. When Ginsberg declined to answer certain questions from the panel, Biden obliged and said this, “You not only have a right to choose what you will answer and not answer, but in my view you should not answer a question of what your view will be on an issue that clearly is going to come before the court in 50 different forms…over your tenure on the court." -Confirmation Hearing of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, July 1993. Oh, so he’s giving Clinton’s nominee “advice” on what she should answer and not answer, but he’s brow-beating Roberts about not answering certain questions when he (Roberts) is doing exactly what Justice Ginsberg did. Talk about your glaring double standard. Then you’ve got Schumer in his whiny voice, I’m serious, this guy could never be president, because what diplomat, or joe citizen, would want to sit and listen to that voice all day long. Yeah, so you’ve got Chuck giving him the third degree saying how the process is “absurd” because he (Roberts) won’t answer any questions. Um… hello… newsflash… he does answer your questions senator, they’re just not the answers you want! I must say though, Roberts is doing great under all of this scrutiny from some members of this panel. He’s not wavering, and I think it’s driving the democrats crazy, they’re trying to get him on a “gotcha” moment and they got nothing. They’re grasping at straws. The reality is John Roberts will be confirmed, he appears to be a rock solid nominee, and from what I’ve seen and heard, it sounds like he will remain faithful to the original intent of the constitution.
Again, in the words of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, (who was confirmed by a vote of 96-3):
“A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process. Similarly, because you are considering my capacity for independent judging, my personal views on how I would vote on a publicly debated issue, were I in your shoes, were I a legislator, are not what you will be closely examining.” -Confirmation Hearing, July 1993
posted by Dana at
11:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home