Skip to comments.For Roberts, Hubris And Heartstrings . . .
Posted on 09/27/2005 7:21:21 AM PDT by kellynla
Dianne Feinstein's thoughts on the nomination of John Roberts as chief justice of the United States should be read with a soulful violin solo playing, or perhaps accompanied by the theme song of "The Oprah Winfrey Show." Those thoughts are about pinning one's heart on one's sleeve, sharing one's feelings and letting one's inner Oprah come out for a stroll.
Feinstein, like many Democrats, has interesting ideas about what Supreme Court justices do, or should do. In her statement explaining to fellow members of the Judiciary Committee why she opposes confirmation of Roberts, she began with a cascade of encomiums, describing Roberts as "an extraordinary person" with "many stellar qualities," including "a brilliant legal mind," "a love and abiding respect for the law" and "a sense of its scope and complexity as well." Her next word was "but."
She was, she said, disappointed when Roberts was asked by another Democrat whether "he agreed that there is a 'general' right to privacy provided in the Constitution." Roberts replied, "I wouldn't use the phrase 'general,' because I don't know what that means."
Well, what does it mean? Roberts had clearly affirmed his belief that the Constitution protects privacy in various ways that amount to establishing a right to privacy in various contexts. But what would make such a right a "general" right? Do Americans have, say, a constitutional privacy right to use heroin in the privacy of their homes? No. To sell prostitution services in the privacy of their homes? No again.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
VERY good article by George Will.
Feinstein looked like a pathetically emotive fool sitting in those hearings. Roberts knows that fidelity to the rule of law is the one concern of a judge, not silly emotional attachments to type of person, group or interest.
Excellent article. It exposes DiFi for the idiot she is, along with the rest of the whining touchy-feelies dems.
Excellent article by the old master. I wish he would have pointed out DiFi's blatent anti-catholic bigotry in many of her questions to Judge Roberts. She had an entire line of questions which essentially boiled down to "How could we ever trust a sincere Catholic on the Supreme Court?"
We are hoping that Condi Rice will come home next year to run against DiFi!
These people really are too stupid to be entrusted with the power they have.
Catholicism, the last safe bigotry in America.
And coming from a Jew no less!
Feinstein, like many Democrats, has interesting ideas about what Supreme Court justices do, or should do.
All the tripe that the radical left throws up, is totally transparent. Their SOLE OBJECTIVE with the judiciary, is to convert it to an liberal activism mechanism, that not only legislates from the bench, but IGNORES the Constitution --- for the end goal of institutionalizing LIBERALISM/SOCIALISM in this country. It is totally about aquisition of power and control.
And just so no one misinterprets my post, I meant anti-Catholicsm, the last "safe" bigotry!
The old saying should be changed to " those who can...do, those who can't...politic!" LOL
But monkeys are what the Liberals have turned into. He's a GREAT Justice, BUT he doesn't like killing babies so I can't vote for him. Disgustng.
No kidding...Feinstein and Chuckie Schumer are definiely anti-(pro-life)-Catholic.
That would be so great! It would be wonderful to have a real Republican in California - not that I have anything against Arnold, I'd vote for him over any dem, but Condi would be terrific!
It's a collective right Diane.
Puh-leeze.Her Pacific Heights neighborhood,maybe.The only time Diane sees Hunter's Point is on her way to the airport.I doubt she even campaigns there.