Posted on 09/15/2005 5:04:54 AM PDT by OXENinFLA
Do I ever agree with you. I got my law degree from Columbia in the 1980s and practiced corporate law in NYC for nearly a decade. Never in my life have I heard a lawyer who was as gifted as Judge Roberts. He's lightning-fast on his feet, his ideas come out in full paragraphs and sentences with subordinate clauses, and on more than one occasion I heard him give an extemporaneous answer that led with a tease of something that he intended to go back to. For example, he tossed off Madison's famous statement that the province of the court is "to say what the law is." This phrase is readily identifiable to any lawyer, but Judge Roberts seamlessly wove it into a sentence, and then in the next paragraph started talking about things that were happening at about the time when Madison made that statement.
It is obvious that Judge Roberts knows literally thousands of cases. Moreover, he knows them not only by holding (what they stood for), but by what was contained in the briefs, what the factual history was, what statutes were implicated and what their legislative history was, which judges or justices dissented and why they dissented, and what the legislative consequences were of those decisions. The questions -- many of them very interesting -- have touched on the history of constitutional law, as well as most of the important areas of constitutional law today and in the past. Yet Judge Roberts gives very clear answers and explanations and makes the whole thing look entirely effortless.
These hearings have made the case for strict constructionism like it never has been made before. I believe that Schumer was correct when he said that possibly in the history of the republic there has never been a more impressive presentation than the one given by Judge Roberts.
By making the nation understand why he cannot comment on cases that may come before the court, and by demonstrating again and again that his interest is in judicial process and not in advocating political ideas, Judge Roberts has set the stage for subsequent nominees to do the same. He has destroyed the perceived validity of judicial activism for at least the remainder of the Bush administration.
Then, too, he has mastered the 100,000 documents that were provided to Congress.
I want to get a videotape of these hearings. They were exhilarating, and showed the best of constitutional law and they demonstrate what every lawyer should aspire to become.
Oh, yeah. He did it without aides or notes. If you notice, there is a second chair at the witness table, and in front of the chair is a note pad with a pen. The chair has remained empty throughout. The pad never has been touched. Every single word has been extemporaneous.
They will try
Will they succeed is a question for the Republicans
EXCELLENT and THANK YOU.
I hope everybody here sees it.
and for the above reasons the liberal are afraid.....very afraid....
Maureen Mahoney had worked with Roberts. Says he is brilliant. Listened to all views. Does not harbor bias against women.
Can't think of anyone who would be a finer chief justice. In the Solicitor's Office, he was not viewed as partisan, but as a brilliant advocate -- lawyers were all across the spectrum. "Attentive to and respectful of all views" from his colleagues.
Reminds the committee not to assume view expressed in memos are necessarily his. His job was to defend the policies of the administration within the bounds of the law. Notes that Thurgood Marshall as Solicitor filed a brief against Miranda.
Troubled about suggestions of bias against women. He recruited her to Solicitor General's office -- highly coveted position. Later shepherded her through a nomination process. He harbors no bias.
He is well suited to succeed CJ - modesty, wit, understands role of a judge to serve, not to rule. Ought to be confirmed.
Mahoney: Roberts is like Rehnquist, modest, intelligent, witty.
Text of Lindsay's comments today brought to us by our Star Fan!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1484912/posts?page=1079#1079
This wanko is a hoot. Watch closely. Red dress woman.
Gore's gal....
What a great move Bush made. The Dems know O'Connor has a sick husband and wishes to spend her time with him. It would be cruel to drag on another Nominee. What the Dems should realize is that the court is only one part of our government and jerking these illustrious people around does nothing for their constituency.
Mahoney is sharp, Browner is dull.
EPA should not be dismantled. Addressing : Commerce clause, citizen standing and ???
We've done racism, bias against women and now the enviroment... can abortion be far behind?
Dirty air does blow across the country, she says. Well, maybe she is talking about herself.
Did I just hear a KATRINA reference?!? DRINK!
"It's about the Children"
Shall we drink?
Ever notice that liberals have children where as the rest of us have kids?
Why the left hates John Roberts
"If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy's going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy's going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That's the oath," he said.
Judge John Roberts
The left is afraid of this
U.S. Constitution Amendment 14 Sec 3
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html
AND the FBI has proof.
Hanoi Kerry Timeline of a traitor
includes FBI files
May 1970
Kerry and Julia traveled to Paris, France and met with Madame Nguyen Thi Binh, the Foreign Minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of Vietnam (PRG), the political wing of the Vietcong, and other Viet Cong and Communist Vietnamese representatives to the Paris peace talks, a trip he now calls a "fact-finding" mission.
(U.S. code 18 U.S.C. 953, declares it illegal for a U.S. citizen to go abroad and negotiate with a foreign power.)
http://www.archive-news.net/Kerry/JK_timeline.html
a) A person charged with absence without leave or missing movement in time of war,
or with any offense punishable by death,
may be tried at any time without limitation.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm#*%20843.%20ART.%2043.%20STATUTE%20OF%20LIMITATIONS
Bye, Bye Hanoi Kerry!!!!
I would think NOT!
Poor toad just mentioned.
oxen,
Could you kindly start a new thread, and hit your ping list, with the text of Lindsay Graham's comment?
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050915/ap_on_go_su_co/roberts_transcript_day45_1
EXCERPT
GRAHAM: Yes, Mr. Chairman, just for a couple of minutes. I'm trying to compile questions from the past where the answers were very similar to the answers of Judge Roberts about, I can't comment, I can't give you -- I can't answer your question because it may compromise my integrity to judge in the future. And I would ask permission of the committee to get a chance to organize this because there are so many volumes.
And what I would like to be able to demonstrate to the committee is that the pattern that he has displayed in terms of saying, I can't give you an answer because it may disqualify me is not unique to the Senate and very similar to past nominations. And we've got some examples of that.
But if I may, and I know we've been here and Lord knows this guy's been through the wringer, I just want to comment a little bit an unhealthy area I think we find ourselves in in the last hour.
Most of us are lawyers, and I would hate to be judged by the people I've represented in the past totally. I've represented some people that are not very nice.
(LAUGHTER)
But I gave them my all. I've represented people on Air Force bases that were so unpopular, Judge Roberts, that no one would eat with me, because it was my job as the area defense counsel to represent that person. Your heart -- nobody can question your intellect, because it would be a question of their intellect to question yours...
(LAUGHTER)
... so we're down to the heart. And is it all coming down to that? Well, there are all kind of hearts. There are bleeding hearts and there are hard hearts. And if I wanted to judge Justice Ginsburg on her heart, I might take a hard-hearted view of her and say she's a bleeding heart. She represents the ACLU. She wants the age of consent to be 12. She believes there's a constitutional right to prostitution. What kind of heart is that?
Well, she has a different value system than I do. But that doesn't mean she doesn't have a good heart. And I want this committee to understand that if we go down this road of putting people's hearts in play, and the only way you can have a good heart is, Adopt my value system, we're doing a great disservice to the judiciary.
Thank you.
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.