| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 08/05/2005 3:31:02 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator, reason:
Duplicate: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1457777/posts |
Posted on 08/05/2005 2:57:32 PM PDT by curtisgardner
Sen. Charles Schumer of New York is leading the choir of Democrats calling for full disclosure by Judge John Roberts, seeking confirmation to the Supreme Court. Joining the chorus are Sens. Edward Kennedy, John Kerry, Dick Durbin, Barbara Boxer, etc. They want to know Roberts' views on abortion and Roe v. Wade; they want direct answers to hypothetical questions; they want access to everything Roberts has written as legal counsel during his days in the White House and the Justice Department. Unsatisfied with the 75,000 pages that have been released thus far, they want more. Of course, what they'd really like is for Bush to nominate the kind of liberal justice that Kerry would have, had he won the 2004 election.
In regard to direct answers from Roberts on hypothetical questions and commitments on how he'd vote on cases that may come before the court in the future, it just ain't gonna happen. Roberts has clear precedent on his side as well as Canon 5 of the American Bar Association's Model Code of Justice. He even has the concurrence of a distinguished member of the United States Senate who said: "We have to respect that any nominee to the Supreme Court would have to defer any comments on any matters which are either before the court or very likely to be before the court. This has been a procedure which has been followed in the past and is one which I think is based upon sound legal precedent." Ironically, these were the words of the aforementioned Sen. Kennedy. Why the apparent contradiction? Because Kennedy said this in 1967, when the tight-lipped Supreme Court nominee was a liberal, Thurgood Marshall.
Senate Democrats were also more than willing to subordinate their curiosity to principle and precedent in 1993 when Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the stonewalling nominee. Not that there was any doubt that Ginsburg would be a reliable liberal on the Supreme Court. By the time Bill Clinton nominated her, she had already established a liberal track record as a federal judge, appointed by Jimmy Carter. Before that, she had not only been general counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union, she was also the first director of the ACLU's Women's Rights Project. Nonetheless, Ginsburg played her cards close to the vest during her confirmation hearings, yielding less useful information than a hard-core al-Qaida detainee at Gitmo.
Here are some examples of Ginsburg's repeated refusals to answer the kind of questions Democrats are now demanding that Roberts answer:
Sen. Patrick Leahy: "Does that mean that the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause are equal, or is one subordinate to the other?"
Ginsburg: "I prefer not to address a question like that; again to talk in general terms about principles that have to be applied in concrete cases. I like to reason from the specific case . . ."
Sen. Strom Thurmond: "What are your views on the constitutionality of some form of a voucher system . . . ?"
Ginsburg: "Senator Thurmond, aid to schools is a question that comes up again and again before the Supreme Court. This is the very kind of question that I ruled out."
Sen. Diane Feinstein: ". . . What factors (might you) look at in discussing Second Amendment cases should Congress, say, pass a ban on assault weapons?"
Ginsburg: "I wish I could \[say], Senator, but all I can tell you is that this is an amendment that has not been looked at by the Supreme Court since 1939. And apart from the specific context, I really can't expound on it."
Sen. Arlen Spector: "Let me ask you a question articulated the way we ask jurors, whether you have any conscientious scruple against the imposition of the death penalty?"
Ginsburg: "My own view on the death penalty I think is not relevant to any question I would be asked to decide as a judge."
Sen. William Cohen: "What about sexual orientation?"
Ginsburg: "Senator, you know that is a burning question that at this very moment is going to be before the court based on an action that has been taken. I cannot say one word on that subject that would not violate what I said had to be my rule about no hints, no forecasts, no previews."
The flat-out refusal by nominees to answer questions of this kind has become known as the "Ginsburg Rule." Senate Republicans honored it in 1993, confirming Ginsburg 96-3. Democrats and liberal activist groups like People for the American Way, now demanding direct responses from Roberts, made not a peep about Ginsburg's silence back then. These are not people to be taken seriously.
don't screw'em, rape'em violently and be done once and for all with them, I am sick of these obstructionists
but I bet ya all knew that ;-)
A collection of fools.
If the "choir of Democrats" really want to derail the
nomination, all they need to do is endorse Roberts.
Meanwhile, they can expect to hear, endlessly looped,
the old tape of Teddy advocating the Ginsburg Rule.
Yuck.
Ylater, and we STILL don't know! Nor care!
What? He wasn't asking HER orientation? Ohhhh. Nevermind!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.