Welcome to the second live thread for the discussion of John Roberts’ confirmation hearings at the Senate Judiciary Committee as he vies for the top job on the US Supreme Court.
You can watch/listen to the coverage online at C-SPAN 3, starting at 11:30 am ET.
You can read some background information about John Roberts’ career in this article by the Seattle Times.
- Some of us will transcribe live for the benefit of the cubicle dwellers and those without access to C-SPAN live.
- Please don’t post any pics because they slow down loading time.
- If the thread belongs lengthy, I will post new parts to this diary as required.
Have at it and please jump in! The more the merrier. (It’s also a good way to stay sane in the face of Republican autocracy.)
You can review Part 1 of these hearings here.
Lugar, Bayh and Warner made some quickie opening remarks.
Thanking everybody and his dog…
(comments about Rehnquist)
My personal appreciation that I owe a great deal yto others reinforces my humility etc
ooops…phone..
“humility” again…judges have to have modesty…
[after he left his gov’t job, he learned to appreciate how important the rights and liberties of all Americans were…]
I come before the committee with no agenda…I will confront every case with an open mind…I will decide every case based on the record without fear or favour..I’ll remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes…not to pitch or bat…
[reminiscing about Indiana…yawn]
…
Well – that was damn short!
That baseball analogy needs to be shot down in flames — is not the role of the Supreme Court also to SAY WHAT THE LAW IS???
Sorry, Johnny, but you’ve got to be in the game, and step up to the plate, not just stand behind it.
Don’t they know I just started a new diary here? That’s it?? Sheesh…
I will use this diary when the hearings resume on Tuesday morning. See you then!
Here we go with the Latin…
Oh look – I’m on the front page… 🙂
Roberts says he believes the right to privacy is in the constitution – the 6th, 1st and 3rd amendments.
Also said that his personal beliefs would not affect his judgments.
re: the “so-called” right to privacy…he says he was transmitting the Dean’s speech, which was fairly skeptical, in that memo he wrote – says that those views (“so-called right”) are not his views now…
They look crossed to me!
I think he looks like a bassett hound, sort of a hangdog look. The big droopy eyes make him appear compassionate, even though he probably isn’t. When I hear him talk he seems so intelligent and agreeable that it’s hard to keep remembering that he’s dangerous. I used to have the same reaction when I watched Reagan’s press conferences–except for the part about intelligence.
and deservedly so. Roberts declining to answer Roe v Wade questions…surprise! I must say that I am surprised Spector is leading the questioning about the abortion issue. Didn’t he say he would not question Roberts about this or am I confused as usual?
According to WaPo:
Specter asked a lot about “stare decisis”. Here’s the definition of that.
Thank you Catnip!
gotta take the littlest to the doctor for his 2 year old check-up, shot extraveganza….
I’ll miss most of the “fun”.
Thanks for always being there with the goods, catnip!
We’l try our best! I’m not a lawyer, so this should be fun. lol
hornbook law: n. lawyer lingo for a fundamental and well-accepted legal principle that does not require any further explanation, since a hornbook is a primer of basics.
Leahy is calling Roberts to the mat on War Powers and who can end a war based on a prior opinion while Roberts served to Reagan administration. Roberts tries to wiggle out of answering because “this may come up in the court in the future”. Now Leahy asking about torture.
And that’s what we’re going to see over and over in these hearings, I bet. “This might come up in the future, so the people of this country have no right to know my position on it beforehand. Besides, it would be subject to the whims of thse who have bought and paid for my nomination as chief justice…”
Stonewalling on answers should be reason enough not to confirm this latest in a long round of losers nominated by Bushboy…
Leahy asks Roberts about a memo for Reagan which Leahy believes states that congress cannot call for withdrawal of troops.
Roberts says the memo related to a case about pension benefits. Leahy retorts with Roberts’ words which state that congress has no power to stop a war (basically).
L.:Does congress have the authority to declare war? R.:Yes, the constitution gives congress that right.
L.:Does congress have the authority to stop a war? R.:Yes, they certainly “hold the purse strings”.
R.: Depends on the circumstances.
L.: I would note that the memo you wrote wasn’t entitled “Veteran’s Benefits”. It was titled “War Powers Problems”. (Now Leahy is bringing up the Biebe (sp?) memo) which relates to the issue of torture (2002). Abu Gonzales never gave an answer about that memo and that’s why many voted against his confirmation. Asks Roberts if he believes the president can override the law as it relates to torture.
R.: says that no one is above the law…brings up some steel mill case (Youngstown)…
L.: I think if you have a law that says torture is unacceptable – that speaks for itself.
R.: (is kind of waffling)
L.: presses on about the separation of powers and the Biebe memo
I missed some of his continued questioning, but he asked about the scope of interested parties participating in cases (gave environmental cases as examples) and talked about a case Roberts dealt with when he worked(?) with Kenneth Starr re: a young girl who was raped and the reparations involved.
H.: what kind of judge are you? ie. a strict constructionalist, a fundamentalist, a minimalist etc.
R.: I am a “modest judge”…I don’t have an overarching philosophy…blah blah blah…
(catnip needs more tea and a law degree)
(new phrase for today: superduper precedent)
H.: Rehnquist believed Roe v Wade should be overturned, therefore isn’t it true that he believed (the principles behind) Dickerson wouldn’t apply?
R.: Yes.
Roberts says that judges have to decide cases based on the law – not on their own personal preferences. (He’s really pushing that meme, probably as a way to quell fears about overturning Roe v Wade).
He’s just a little to smooth for me. I was married to a sciopath and can spot one a mile away. Calm, easy going, intelligent, unflapable, unwilling to anser a question with a direct answer, false modesty. Ugh! This guy is a puke but I am afraid we are stuck with him. I still blame the 48% of registered voters that did not vote last November for the mess we are in!
I agree. When someone seems that squeaky clean, like this happy, perpetually smiling Christian pastor guy I saw on Larry King Live the other nite, you just know there are some skeletons in the closet.
That guy was creepy. He had the light of something in his eyes, and it wasn’t god.
Whatever their other contributions to our society, lawyers could be an important source of protein.
Richard Guindon
now come the fireworks. Kennedy is going to start frothing before this is over.
Kennedy’s sssmokin’!
Begins with civil rights issues using Katrina disaster as an example of the disparity.
K.: Do you believe that congress has the ability to pass laws…eliminating the equalities that we witnessed in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina? (Begins with Brown v Board of Education). Do you agree with the court that segregation in schools based soley on race was unconstitutional?
R.: Yes.
K.: Are you aware that the decision was unanimous? (odd question)
R.: Yes. Justice Warren(?) did a lot of work blah blah blah…
K.: (14th amendment questions)
R.: (basically says that times were different then from the time the amendment was written)
(I think Kennedy’s making the point that times change, therefore the application of the constitution must also change with time).
K.: Bringing up changes in policies based on race, gender and disability etc…would you agree that the progress we made in the last 50 years are irreversible? Do you have any doubts about the constitutionality of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
R.: cautious about expressing an opinion that might come before the court…
K.: Trouble with the existing voting rights act?
R.: No, but there’s a seperate question about whether those rights might be extended so I won’t comment on that since that might come before me.
K.: will come back to the Voting Rights Act because I know you have some reservations about it…I know you are hesitant about it.
R.: I know there are cases coming up about that so…
K.: Fair Housing Act of 1968?
R.: (catnip missed that answer)
K.: I was sort of inhaling your answer to Hatch
(this is disjointed because these guys are speaking very quickly!)
K.: It seems that you want to undo much of the progress re: civil rights/discrimination according to your writings. You do agree that the right to vote is a fundamental constitutional right?
R.: (basically, yes)…it’s one of our most precious rights.
K.: (going over some of the history of voting rights – discrimination based on race…Kennedy is a very adept questioner!) You wrote that violations of the Voting Rights Act (section 2) should “not be too easy to prove”…you concluded that Section 2 was “constitutionally suspect”…you wrote “there is no need for..change”…I was there, Roberts, at those hearings…Roberts wrote “don’t be fooled by those hearings and the 61 senators involved etc…” Gingrich, Quayle etc voted for the extensions but you said they (were wrong)…Do you support the 1982 Voting Rights Act?
R.: rambling answer about the effects test…it was the position od the admin that the VRA should be extended without changed…it was your position that the effects test should be changed…
K.: the effects test was the law of the land…the Zimmer case was the law of the land…
R.: this is the same debate from 22 years ago…you think the Supreme court (got it wrong)
(this is getting quite combative with both parties cutting each other off…Specter keeps telling Kennedy to let Roberts finish his answers)
R.: I certainly agreed that the VRA should have been extended…
K.: after it was overwhelmingly signed into law…we have the memo that says “the fact that we were burned by last year’s legislation does not mean we should go slowly on the housing legislation”. What did you mean by “we were burned”?
R.: (basically that things didn’t go the administration’s way)
correction:
K.: Do you believe that congress has the ability to pass laws…eliminating the equalities that we witnessed in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina?
should be “inequalities”
Kennedy questions Roberts on affirmative action.
Arlen Specter’s sounding like a crabbby school marm!
admonishing Kennedy again to let Roberts answer his questions…
Hasn’t he done that at least three times now? It’s undermining Kennedy’s questions …
Kennedy should tell him to go Cheney himself.
I was watching on MSNBC, and had to write another e-mail to MSNBC:
TO:
news@msnbc.com
editor@msnbc.com
CC:
KOlbermann@msnbc.com
Hardball@msnbc.com
SUBJECT:
Norah came on. I switched to CNN — Jeffrey Toobin is far better
TEXT:
as an analyst anyway. That’s what he does for a living and for The New Yorker.
Norah is likely to spin the White House preferences in arguments anyway.
=dumb as a stone.
Perfect vacant-eyed purveyor of Bushco BS…
Likely to spin? Norah all but confirmed Roberts right there and then. just report the facts Norah! We don’t need your analysis!
Schedule:
2 rounds of questions until 12:45 pm ET
reconvene at 2:15 pm ET
(Dems and Repubs have policy lunches to go to)
(paraphrased) I love you Johnny…I love, love, love, love you! Did I mention that I love you?
Smoochie, smoochie!
(Gawd, that FIRST (he’s the FIRST president of Iraq, Georgie proudly said) president of Iraq was talking and talking and talking — some blather about terrorists / didn’t really listen … I had to switch from CNN to CSPAN to see if the hearings were back on.)
It was quite the butt-kissing press conference. I’m surprised they didn’t eembrace and exchange some tongue.
G.: what do you consider to be the role of a judge in a democratic society (quotes Cardoza(sp?))?
(yawn)
R.: Judges operate as judges when they’re confined by the law. We don’t turn a matter over to judge because we want to know what (he thinks) – we want him to judge on the rule of law (judges are constrained by rules and precedents).
G.: Is there any room for the judge’s (personal) beliefs?
R.: No. That’s why judges wear black robes…it doesn’t matter who they are…
(Funny – I just thought the male judges liked wearing dresses.)
G.: Should the courts (act as a vehicle to form a just society)?
R.: No, they should decide the cases that come before them.
G.: Suter said that the courts are there to “fill vacuums” left by congress. Do you agree?
R.: won’t comment on what Suter said because he’s either going to be one of my colleagues or one of my bosses (laughter in crowd)…(bascially repeating what he said before about courts only deciding on cases that come before them).
G.: (asking about changes to the constitution coming through the courts)…quoting Lincoln…
R.: Lincoln was referring to one of the most aggregious cases in our history – the Dred Scott case…blah blah blah
G.: What is the appropriate judicial role re precedent?
R.: There are cases that say when you should and should not refer to prior precedents. Adherence to precedents promotes stability, fairness etc. The stare decisis is not a (?) command. If the basis of the precedent has eroded, that’s a basis for reconsidering the precedent…
Calling Roberts mean-spirited with cramped and stingy words on civil rights issues.
Maybe the boy is spending too much time with george.
“Hey judge, how are ya?”
(cracks a joke about Senator Fred Thompson who’s sitting behind Roberts)
(is lovin’ the whole baseball analogy thing – yawn)
Is basically saying that you’re not just a batter – as a Supreme, you define the strike zone ex. whether a search is “reasonable” or “unreasonable”.
Judge, you’re going to be an inferrer, not an umpire.
(Biden is quite entertaining so far).
Re: the Ginsburg rule – Ginsburg commented specifically on 27 cases.
B.: Do you agree that there is a right of privacy to be found in the liberty clause of the 14th amendment?
R.: I do, sir. Liberty covers areas such as the right to privacy. I beleive every member of the court subscribes to that.
B.: Do you believe there is a right to privacy for woman (under that amendment)?
R.: Certainly.
B.: I asked Justice Ginsberg if a state passed a law prohibiting abortion – she said that was a foul ball. Do you agree?
R.: That is an area in which I think I should not respond.
B.: Why? If you adhere to the Ginsberg Rule?
R.: Because she had already writen extensively on the issue.
B.: (says it’s a stretch to say that just because she wrote about it and he didn’t that he can’t answer questions about it)…Biden retorts with “let’s talk about things that she didn’t write about that she talked about”…(in other words, Roberts excuse sucks)
R.: (won’t answer question)
B.: Justice Ginsberg didn’t write about the question (a specific case Biden quoted), but she talked about it.
R.: Nominees have to draw the line where they’re comfortable…need to maintain the integrity of the courts etc…
(Biden played a gotcha on that round and is arguing with Roberts that he’s misinterpreted what Ginsberg said about not answering questions)
Ooooo….Biden says to Roberts after Specter tells him to let Roberts finish his answers: “Go ahead and continue not to answer”. You go Joe!
B.: Judge – tell me how a guy beating up his wife in Minnesota is any different than a guy in New York. (referring to comments Roberts made in a 1999 appearance and the Violence Against Women Act)
R.: (sticks up for state’s rights)
B.: (question re gender discrimination)
R.: (safe answer)
B.: Do you think that when a state law distinguishes between a right that your wife, your daughter, your son etc has, that the Supreme Court (ought to take a heightened look) at such laws?
R.: Yes senator I do and I always have. The (problem) is around the term “heightened scrutiny”…(semantics)…
B.: Explain to me what you meant when you wrote the 1981 memo saying that gender issues shouldn’t have “heightened scrutiny”.
R. (starts to answer…Biden interrupts…Specter gives him heck…Biden tells Specter he doesn’t have very much time…Roberts makes a distinction between “heightened” and “strict” scrutiny.
B.: cites case re female prisoners (in Mass (?)…questions R. about 1982 memo
R.: I can’t elaborate on what’s in the memo.
B.: Well, I hope you still don’t hold that view, man.
R.: responds that (whoever) it was he was working for had such policies so he didn’t differ from that…I believe it was just good staff work.
B.: I believe it was very poor staff work…
(watch these Biden clips if you get the chance – I can’t transcribe effectively his confrontational manner)
B.: (on Title 9) Were youa rguing that it should apply broadly? The district court decided that it should only applied to admissions. What was your position of Reagan’s civil rights chairman who had narrowly defined that case.
R.: (getting testy) I was just a staffer…I didn’t ahve a position.
Specter cuts off Biden’s interruption again and tells him to let him finish his answers…Biden says *”I believe his answers are misleading”…Roberts says his answers are his answers…Biden carps that he hardly ahs any time left and keeps pounding on Roberts views on the Title 9 issue…
Phew!
Says there’s a saying around DC that there is no greater love in Washington than that between Biden and the sound of his voice. lol
Is there anyone out there following along? Should I continue transcribing when they reconvene?
This cubicle dweller is hanging on your every word 🙂
But if I’m the only one, it probably isn’t worth it…
Thanks for responding! As long as there’s even one person who needs the transcriptions, I’ll keep doing them. You really need to check out the videos of Kennedy’s and Biden’s questions where they’re available. 🙂
You’re not the only one, e!! (and of course, you’re worth it!!)
catnip, I have some laundry to fold (don’t I always?!) so I’ll try to chime in if I can when they reconvene!
BTW, e, how the hell ARE you?? Vacation good? All that it was intendeded to be? Call me any time to yak — I loved hearing your voice and am glad to see you back!!
PS I still expect some Cracker headed my way!
😉
Hey Cat!
My vacation was great. I could feel the stress winding out of my body starting around day 2. By the time I had to head home, I was as relaxed as a narcoleptic stoner after eating a box of cheez-its 🙂
I do have some Cracker for you. I’ll email you about that tonight when I get home!
catnip, and shycat and tracy and Boo and Susan and MintheM and diane and infidelpig and ghostdancers way and….oh, shit, how did I get myself into this?!
Your ALL the best!!
😉
Boohoo…she forgets me already…lol! And Catnip this is appreciated more than you know. I am running around the complex today scolding tenants for not adhering to rules. Ugh! It is always the same ones too that think the rules do not apply to them. I get so tired of “babysitting” these spoiled brats sometimes.
Anyway, I just got the chance to catch up. Hope I can catch Biden on the news or a replay later tonight.
Is anyone else having a hard time sleeping since Katrina hit? Man, I wake up every night at 3am and cannot get back to sleep. I feel like I am dragging all day too.
What? Spoiled brats in Del Mar? Who knew?
Isn’t that something? Who would have ever thought huh Shycat? Sometimes I have to stop myself from just screaming at them. I must admit my tolerance for their nonsense is pretty low these days. I have a friend coming out for two weeks in Oct. and am taking 10 days off then. I think I need to decompress a but.
oh honey- you are the bestest too!
Absolutely. I can’t bear to watch this on tv actually(I am so burned out on watching/listening to repugs that I’m going to start breaking out in hives I think the next time I see/hear one)so following along here is much better for my mental health.
Thank you very much for doing this catnip. Very greatly appreciated.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/c_09132005_520.gif
A good cartoon says more than most msm journalists say in a year. SAD….. Excellent toon, however…..
Excellent political cartoon !
Starts out by saying that it’s unfair for Roberts to be speaking to policy decisions of the Reagan administration.
re: Biden’s questioning Roberts on Ginsberg’s remarks – reads from the testimony of Ginsberg regarding Pole v Olman (?) and Moore v City of Cleveland…Kyl says Ginsberg was not asked about the specifics of the cases…Ginsberg did say that she agreed with the decision of Justice Powell (in one of those cases)…(this is a bit complex)…Kyl says Ginsberg wasn’t asked about that case – she brought it up and did so because she wrote extensively about the issues.
re: Biden’s questioning on Cantorino v Wilson (sp?)…
Kyl says that some of his colleagues yesterday expressed concern over what they had termed “progress” and “freedom”…Kyl asked himself what those two words mean…when can we say that the decision of the court expands or contracts “progress” or “freedom”?…cites recent emminent domain case and how some may see that as “progress” while others don’t (himself included)…cites another case regarding discipline in public schools and its effects on schools…I’m not sure that represents freedom or progress…cites a child porn case where some types are not prohibited…some see that case as an advance of freedom…Kyl disagrees…Kyl’s conclusion is that it is not the job of a judge to advance progress or freedom…that ought to be done by the people…asks how Roberts views his role as a judge in advancing progress and freedom…
R.: judges and justices do have a side in these disputes…they need to be on the side of the constitution…there are areas where the constitution sets aside these questions ie. the Bill of Rights…judges and justices should not take sides…they should interpret the law relying on the constitution…up to states to set policy decisions..those decisions should be made by elected reps…
K.: what’s the difference between dealing with a case on an issue of constitutionality and one (that is not)?
R.: there are two ways to look at those – one where the law is unconstitutional of its face (there are very few of those)…the second would be a case that is unconstitutional as applied according to the facts of a particular case…
K.: to some extent it’s impossible to say (beforehand) that a case may be unconstitutional without knowing the specific facts of that case
R.: (basically yes)
(Kyl is giving Roberts an out on answering specifics about Roe v Wade – that’s very obvious)
R.: (is bobbing his head yes like one of the dogs in the back window of a car)
K.: questions and cases regarding laws based on international laws…cites case of a 17 yr old in which it was deemed unconstitutional that he be put to death based on laws in other countries…(he’s basically saying that American law should stand on its own without reference to international law)…
[damn Republicans]
(he’s bashing Canada re judges ruling on “homosexual marriages”)
R.: Scalia and Bryer (sp?) had a debate about this…has concerns about using foreign law as setting precedent in US law…because judges are appointed and not elected, if we’re relyng on the decision of a German law – he wasn’t appointed by the US…should rely on domestic precedent because you can find anything you want in foreign law…that allows the judge to use their personal preferences which (he feels is contrary to a judge’s role)
K.: you had a pro bono case re a death row inmate…comment?
R.: I was involved on an appellate issue in an area I had some experience (doesn’t expand on what that issue was)
K.: you were put on a case 2 days before it came up
R.: (yes, aren’t I great??)
K.: How did you do?
R.: the court got it right on both cases (hahaha)
K.: what did you learn from Rehnquist and Friendly(sp?)
R.: Friendly had a committment to excellence and the rule of law… blah blah blah…he liked the fact that columnists couldn’t figure out if he was a liberal or conservative…he was humble…he was an absolute genius…
(this is all fine and dandy but what about YOU Roberts? < catnip’s question)
R.: Rehnquist – he remembers doing a draft that Rehnquist criticized (funny little ditty for the audience)…learned to write crisply and efficiently…
K.: I love you – can I have your baby?
LMAO, you are too funny.
You can now watch the opening statements of Specter, Leahy and Roberts on C-SPAN.
Starting now, for the next hour,
send caffertyfile@cnn.com
the question that YOU would like to pose to Roberts.
(Cafferty was so funny just now …)
(catnip is hungry)
Kohl begins by asking Roberts about Brown v Board of Education…using Roberts baseball analogy of just calling balls and strikes as a neutral umpire, Kohl makes the point that the Supremes back then were groundbreaking – not neutral.
K.: basically asks if judges are automotons
R.: brings up the facts that judges wear black robes (again) ie. they don’t bring their personal views to the bench.
K.: re aftermath of Katrina – what roel would you play in making right the wrongs seen in the aftermath? equal opportunity for all Americans?
R.: equal justice under law…the most important thing the court can do is uphold the rule of law…the constitution etc…(brings up the failings of the Soviet constitution because no one enforced those rights)
k.: all of our rights and all of our rules, we still saw the effects of our laws etc…do you see a particular role for improving our ability to respond to those circumstances?
R.: we have to decide the cases coming before us…foresees some possible federal cases…will rule on those if an when they come up
K.: do you believe reasonable people can agree and disagree over Roe v Wade and respect those opinions?
R.: yes
K.: reads a former Roberts quote on the issue (I missed it)…do you believe that was reasonable?
K.: yes (basically)…reads Roberts former legal opinion on the Roe v Wade issue “there is no support in the text, history or (something) in the constitution”…
R.: ?
K.: you said you were writing those opinions as a staff member only?
R.: yes
K.: which of those (former) opinions would you support and which would you disavow?
R.: I would have to look at those issues anew…that’s not how I would look at those issues as a judge not as a staff member (which I was)…
K.: (tries to coax Roberts into stating how he might differ from previous writings)..re: Griswald do you agree that there is a fundamental right to privacy re contraception?
R.: I agree with the Griswald decision…
K.: I’m delighted to hear you say that because once youa ccept thereasoning behind Griswald ie. teh right to privacy – scholars believe that supports the right to privacy in Roe v Wade
R.: I feel comfortable commenting on Griswald because that’s not an issue that will come before the court again..won’t comment of Roe v Wade though because it may come before the court again..
K.: if the president had told you that a woman would be chosen to replace Day O’Connor, would you be okay with that?
R.: Yes – kind of – I don’t believe it’s appropriate to comment on future choices but I’m happy with his past ones (laugther)
K.: asks a question about a memo re term limits that he wrote in 1983
R.: I don’t agree with that opinion anymore
K.: comments about the fact that most Americans can’t hire fancy schmancy lawyers…brings up OJ and Michael Jackson cases as examples of justice for sale…
R.: (provides a safe answer, of course)
K.: bills brought up to restrict court rights brought up by organizations who want to strip those rights on cases like school prayer, abortion etc..
R.: (in general he’s saying they’re a bad policy because they don’t add to uniformity and inconsistency in the law)…doesn’t know where he’d come out on the question today..
K.: Really? If you were faced with the decision to fight or take away the court’s authority?
R.: I still think it’s bad policy….unsure on the constitutionality…
K.: (speaking about the maturation process in life)…are there things youw rote back then that make you cringe today? examples of opinions that have changed since then?
R.: term limits…more generally as I look at all of tehse documents – the 80,000 pages..it’s a little daunting…in many of these cases not only have I changed – the law has changed…of all that has been released, it’s mainly a handful of cases that have been noticed…(being pretty vague)…I wouldn’t write everything the same as I did back then…
Go eat something!
I don’t know how you do it, Catnip! Great listening abilities and fast typing too! Terrific.
I think i may turn on soap operas soon …
I got to watch my soap, The Bold & the Beautiful, during their last break. Good timing.
(I don’t know why but I go into a coma when Republicans speak…)
That’s their goal. They use their siren song to put the public to sleep, making the ship of government crash upon the rocks where they can collect the spoils.
D.: asks R. about appointments to the FISA court
R.: gives the stock answer about being cautious
D.: that court is important…blah blah blah…re 1st amendment – Haig v CIO (1939)…I feel we’re seeing a disturbing trend as it comes to the freedom of speech in public arenas…cites case in which a woman was kicked off a city bus for distributing pamplets w/ Bible quotes…cites cases of citizens being unable to post signs on their own property regarding election issues…cites “free speech zones” that are out of sight…woman barred from giving Bible lessons in a community center…how do you evaluate those types of cases?
R.: can’t comment on actual cases…important that people keep a basic principle in mind…a basic “American approach”…it’s a free country…people need to appreciate that…the mode of analysis that the Supreme Court uses to decide these issues is somewhat unsettled…(therefore I’ll just dance around this one – that should satisfy the religious right)…
Feinstein is up next.
You can now watch yesterday’s hearings (opening statements) and this morning’s session over at C-SPAN online. I’d suggest you do that and not rely on my sketchy commentary if you want to get the feel for what’s been happening.
Her speech yesterday was incredibly personal and powerful.
It was and I particularly liked her references to the fact that young woman today have no idea what women went through in the past to get the rights we now have.
..is still going on about the 1st amendment and how he believes it’s there to protect political speech…goes on to cite cases that bombed in the Supreme Court re child pornography..
R.: there are certain limits on child porn etc…there are different categories of protected speech…
R.: citing cases the court has struck down re Violence Against Women Act, Persons With Disabilities Act etc…thinks it’s wrong for judges to set policy…cites the Board of Trustees v Garrett where the court overrode what congress wanted…you stressed the limited way in which judges must make decisions…what role should the court have in reviewing congressional fact finding cases?
R.: courts can’t have congressional hearings…courts can’t make policy judgements in light of the findings that are made…they’re not necessary or necessarily sufficient (fact finding hearings)…the deference to congressional hearings has a solid basis…more recnet cases than Garrett where the court did defer to the congressional hearings (Hibbs case)…(kind of a vague answer to me)
D.: re Garrett the justices got into a dispute about what the facts were – they should have referred to the fact-findings…congress still has the power to protect the disabled….congress wanted to up the drinking age in the Dole case..under the spending clause it seems to me we have the ability to (set policy)…cites case that Roberts was involved in that had some similar circumstances…(this is a bit confusing)…
R.: cites specific case re sovreign immunity…(yawn)
As Stan in “South Park” says, “I learned something today.”
I learned that I want a constitutional amendment protecting me against people handing out religious pamphlets on public buses.
Just in case those jokers decide otherwise. (Was it DeWin who cited that case as worrisome to him?)
+++++++++++
NEW RULE: Senators must ask all questions in 200 words or less. (25 is entirely unrealistic for that body.)
(Was it DeWin who cited that case as worrisome to him?)
He cited it as a case of restriction of speech as per the 1st amendment.
I think people should be allowed to pass out religious pamphlets. As long as they’re not harrassing people about it.
Of course, they’ll have to agree with my equal right to offer pamphlets promoting satanism, atheism, etc.
The way I look at it is to try to cast it in a more neutral, less offensive light. If someone on a bus came up to me and asked me if I wanted a coupon booklet for Subway, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. If, however, they came up to me and said Hey, you’re fat. You should eat at Subway. Take these. then I’d take issue.
Begins with a smackdown of Roberts by flinging some of his past quotes about women at him.
F.: Do you still feel that way about women?
R.: Oh yes yes yes…I just LOVE them women
F.: oh come on now you misogynist bastard
R.: I have a wife! She’s a lawyer!
(actual quotes now)
F.: You speak about modesty and humility but those comments don’t reflect that.
R.: well I worked in a small office and that was the atmosphere (there’s a soundbite for today)
F. asking about Cantorino(sp?) case re women in prisons
R.: I was just doing my job
F. right of privacy re: beginning of life and end of life
R.: can’t answer because they’ll come up before me…
F.: stari decisis – workability – a framework is one of the things you look for…cites the case (Casey) where Roe was not proven unworkable
R.: cautiously says that the case sets a precedent
F.: you agree that the court said that?
R.: it sets a precedent… won’t answer any further
F.: Casey “the ability of women to particpate equally..has been facilitated by their ability to sustain their reproductive lives”
R.: That’s what it says
F.: do you agree that this analysis is sufficient (or something like that)
R.: yup but can’t comment anymore than that
F.: quoting what Ginsberg said about Casey…Casey held that a state could not require a notification to the husband..would you agree?
R.: That’s what the case stated…
F.: quoting Ginsberg’s comments on equality and liberty re: Casey
R.: well she wrote about those things…I’m taking the 5th
F.: quotes Roberts on abortion – that abortion is not a right specific to one gender…cited another case…
R.: the Supreme Court accepted that argument (about the last case in which he made a wacky comparison)…bringing up the KKK Act with reference to some Operation Rescue case
F.: for 60 years the court didn’t strike down cases based on congress’s commerce law but it has struck down 3 dozen cases in the last decade…do you agree with the direction the court has moved in narrowing the scope of the commerce claus?
R.: cites a marijuana case…and Lopez and Morrison..citing some other cases…won’t comment on particular cases..
F.: the case of some toad(?)…environmental protection
R.: answering related to the commerce clause…(too deep for catnip)
F.: you’re saying that the fact the toad was only found in Calif the act didn’t apply… then what if the toad crosses the border? Why did the toad cross the road?
F. asks about religious freedom and the imposition of religion on the people
R. cites the 10 commandments case…I don’t know what you mean by an “absolute” seperation of the church and state…(I missed the end of that one except to say that he said his faith won;t play a role in his judging)
F.: quotes Brandeis ruling…do you agree with that?
R.: I agree with the principle that people ought to be left alone..regarding wiretapping etc, I won;t comment on that…it’s a free country and the right to be left alone is important…
F.: re your discussion with Widen you basically said that there is a right to end of life decision
R.: yeah but…cases may come before me blah blah blah
F.: cites case that banned assisted suicide…
R.: anytime you say there’s a right, there’s an opoosing right…who’s right? judges decide according to the rule of law
F.: do you believe courts should become involved in end of life decsions?
R.: can’t answer that one either
F.: should the courts have a limited role in that type of decision
R.: courts have to rule based on the facts of the case and precedents..courts should not be shaping public policy…
Sessions on for 15 minutes and then it’s break time for a vote on something on the floor.
Sessions is just butt-kissing.
I love you! Will you marry me?? No wait – I’m a Republican. I forgot. I’m sorry.
Roberts is turning red.
His wife is just a smiley woman, isn’t she?
Sessions has destroyed my computer.