Comments on: The Confirmation Equivalent of the 5th Amendment

By: ICallMasICM

ICallMasICM — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 12:50:20 +0000

'Is Kennedy really only semi-functional or was he drunker than Otis Campbell?' I'm going with the first one as a long term result of the second one. He should really consider retirement since it's really not conceivable that he'd be able to serve another term.

By: Ol' BC

Ol' BC — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 00:10:38 +0000

It wasn't until recently in our history that these nominees subjected themselves to these nonsensical questions of the committee. Previously, other witnesses appeared. (Is Kennedy really only semi-functional or was he drunker than Otis Campbell?)

By: legion

legion — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 19:21:29 +0000

Well, it's one thing to say some particular case wasn't 'well-argued'. That implies the outcome might have been different if one side had better (or worse) representation, and that's pretty logical. The problem is when someone believes a particular legal principle is in doubt, such as a fundamental right to privacy, abortion, whatever hot-button issue... _that's_ pre-judging something. Of course, there's also the issue of whether or not you think the nominee is lying out his ass, but that's a different debate :-)

By: McGehee

McGehee — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:30:44 +0000

Hmmm...

If only Roger Taney could've been Borked. Maybe it isn't such a bad idea after all...

By: Herb

Herb — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:05:55 +0000

snide

By: RightWinged.com

RightWinged.com — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 11:11:35 +0000

Round Two for Judge Alito...

Remember yesterday, how I busted on the media for their prewritten story about Bush and Alito having breakfast, and Alito heading off to the hearings? As I said, it wasn't the normal liberal media bust, but a lazy media bust...

By: Anderson

Anderson — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 02:55:49 +0000

Who needs argument when you've got Caps Lock?

By: Herb

Herb — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 02:38:12 +0000

This entire thing about not declaring what they really think is NOT RIDICULOUS.

What the democrats fear is that someone like themselves will be confirmed and overturn the laws they got from activitist judges they promoted to get the laws they couldn't pass in the legislature or other legitimate ways.

By: jpe

jpe — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 02:01:20 +0000

The whole notion that judges shouldn't declare what they think the law is is utterly ridiculous. It's important that they don't prejudge, say, criminal cases prior to hearing the case, but ruling on the law is completely different from ruling on a case.

By: Herb

Herb — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 22:54:23 +0000

The nominees are a lot smarter than those asking the questions. I don't blame them for not providing a straight answer, after those asking the questions are masters at not answering a question. It' almost poetic justice. In fact what needs to happen is for some nominee to tell those, who ask the dumb questions, to "take this job and shove it" and have the tune played on the PA system while doing it. As I watched Kennedy today give his song and dance anti people rehtoric, I was constsntly reminded of how Kennedy let Mary Jo die in his car while he walked off in a drunked stupor, then with money and power got off scott free. What a hypocryte and slime ball. Kennedy, Schumer, Lahey, and the rest of the left wing, self serving liars don't deserve a straight answer on anything, They don't pass the "Truth Test".

By: Anderson

Anderson — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 22:49:09 +0000

I just don't think the dodge works for a justice, who will have the power to change the law (excuse me, "how the law is interpreted"). Saying that you believe Roe and Casey were well or poorly-reasoned opinions is not the same as declaring in advance whether you'd affirm or overturn them. In theory, at least, there are other arguments that you might consider that would sway you more powerfully. But so long as the Senate cares more about advancing party interests than about protecting its prerogative of "advice and consent," such dodges will be tolerated.

By: legion

legion — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 22:25:20 +0000

judicial nominees have been defeated much more frequently in recent years than in the early days of the Republic

While I'll bet that's true, I wonder if there's any way to check to see if more candidates (then or now) get bounced because they're not qualified (like Meiers) or because their political views/baggage aren't acceptable to enough people in the Senate (like Bork)...