Skip to comments.What's missing? Why did Justices Ginsburg and Stevens affirm Roberts' refusal to answer questions?
Posted on 10/01/2005 8:08:51 AM PDT by ken5050
Possibly I've become far too cynical as regards the Dems and politics, but the recent comments by Justices Ginsburg and Stevens, both of whom essentially said that Roberts was absolutelty correct NOT to answer question about matters that may come before the Court, leave me flabbergasted, scratching my head, and wondering both why? and why NOW?
Let's review the Dems main objections to Roberts, and subsequent candidates:
1. The WH did not release all the documents they requested. Properly so, but the next nominee will not have worked in the WH council's office.
2. The next nominee has what the Dems call "extreme" views about certain issues. RBG addressed this issue on point, saying that she answered all questions about issues and topics she herself had previously raised in her writings and speechs. IMHO, this absolutely means that Janice Rogers Brown won't be the nominee. The hearing would turn into a zoo, an absolute circus, about every word she had ever written or uttered. While she would be a superb Justice, it's not worth the politcal effort, as there are many equally qualified candidates, all of whose writings and speechs have been carefully vetted by the WH.
3. The nominee refused to answer questions about any cases that may well come before the court in thefuture, especially those pertaining to Roe. This will be the key point upon which the Dems will fight the nominee, and their main attempt to justify a filabuster.
And the WH, and GOP senators have awakened to find they they have received not one, but TWO early Christmas presents, from Justices Stevens and Ginsburg, who both, in the last few days made public comments totally affirming Roberts' decision, and also, thoroughly bitch-slapping Chuckie Schumer.
All the next nominee has to do is to memorize these comments, and prepare to regurgitate them innumerable times, and also, BTW, smile a lot.
So what possessed Stevens and Ginsburg to say what they did, and equally as important, IMHO, WHEN they did, just before Roberts takes his seat as CJ. There are several possibilities:
1. They are both worried that CJ Roberts will take away their parking spaces.
2. They worry about being assigned more homework.
3. They fear they won't get the juiciest assignments to write opinions on the really good cases.
4. There is some evil Dem/lib conspiracy at work here..we just haven't figured it out yet?
5. Both Ginsburg and Stevens are deeply respectful of the Court, the rule of law, and the Constitution, and are secretly appaled at what the Dems and lib interest groups have done? I mean, after all, we all know what the first line of Clinton's obituary will read. if you were Gnsburg, would you want yours to read..."The SC justice cited by Chuckie Schumer as the reason for filabustering other nominees...?
It's possible that both Justices Ginsburg and Stevens love the Supreme Court, the Rule of Law, and the Constitution, and are concerned with their legacy, and the Court they will leave behind, and are secretly appalled at how the Dems have polticized the process. While many here do not agree with most of their opinions, we may owe them a debt of gratitude for these last actions. We shall see...
One last point. Just as I stated that I believe that JRB will not be the nominee, it is possible that Stevens is signalling that he will retire after this upcoming term, and give President Bush a third nomination to the Court. After all, he was a Republican, appointed by Nixon, and though he has become more liberal in his career, as he contemplates the idea of Hillary Clinton or any of the other announced Dem candidates for the WH namng his successor, he may well decide he can't allow that, and chose to step aside.
He is 85, and while is good health, he also recognizes that his time is finite, and he may choose a more relaxed final chapter of his life than did Rehnquist. He's also seen O'Connor decide to step down on at a time of her choosing.
My guess is that they weren't forthcoming. They don't want to be hypocrites.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that Ginsburg and Stevens know Roberts better than Bush and Rehnquist.
"The next nominee has what the Dems call "extreme" views about certain issues."
Always blatantly revealing about the iberal activists. EXTREME VIEWS means: Following the law, supporting the Constitution, interpret the written law, not making law on the bench...this is EXTREME to the socialists who are working hard within thier sick, un-American ideology, to use the SCOTUS as a liberal law-making body to institutionalize liberalism and socialism in our conntry.
Some still seem surprised at this long-recognized objective of the libs...
As the current administration works through issues, while under constant attack from the left, it is becoming clear that the opposition is not prepared to lead, but only complain. Liberals have not put forward a single positive agenda idea in over six years.
I don't think that anyone has missed the point that Liberals today appear to be nothing more than fanatical idiots bereft of ideas to move the country forward. I think those justices are aware that Liberal control of the US would mean the end of the nation as we know it.
Ginsburg and Stevens may both leave during Bush's term.
Since when has being hypocritical ever been a problem for the Dems, though?
I'd love to see her list ...
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Ginsburg visits Wake Forest University
Supreme Court justice speculates on next nomination
By Titan Barksdale
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said yesterday that she would like to see another woman named to the nation's top court, but "not any woman."
"I would not like to be the only woman on the court," Ginsburg said during a speech at Wake Forest University. But she added: "There are some women that would not make good judges."
She didn't name anyone specifically and said that the main requirement should be the quality of the candidate, regardless of gender. She said she has a list of qualified women but hasn't been asked for it by the Bush administration.
But I thought that judges were supposed to rule on the letter of the law and not allow their rullings to be steered by political or other opinions.
Worrying about a judge's political views says a lot about the Demorats. The justice system is full of liberal judges that legislate from the bench, so they naturally expect judges nominated by Repubs to be the same way.
A potential/intended justice can't reveal personal opinions about a number of issues in these interviews because it would establish a public record of opinion that would then render future possible rulings moot: their opinions would be/could be used to hold any future, related issue ruling as bearing prejudice by the justice.
Meaning, they have to be careful what they reveal as to personal opinion in order to not provide "pre-existing" appearance of prejudice and/or personal opinion that would show bias in any future ruling/decision from the bench.
All some attorney would have to do is say, "see, you said in 2005 that you considered X to be less important than Y and that means that you are today biased in favor of Y and your ruling of today in favor of Y indicates personal bias and is therefore the basis of an appeal of today's ruling."
Something close to that, anyway, since I'm no attorney. Nor a judge.
I don't think that anyone has missed the point that Liberals today appear to be nothing more than fanatical idiots bereft of ideas to move the country forward.
Only their kool-aid drinkers have. They are of the ilk that cares about nothing, knows nothing, and has no idea how this country works or what has made it great. The libs have but one agenda...and it is NOT moving America forward. It is the generation of a SOCIALIST, government dominated and controlled society. But they cannot say that...deception is a must for them, as they continue to LIE AND DECEIVE.
It would be unprofessional and unethical to comment about future cases that may come before the court. Just because he is familiar with the cases from reading the news media, that doesn't mean that he is intimately familiar with all of the legalities.
For him to comment on matters before they come to the court shows prejudice and would damage any claims of him being an impartial judge.
"All the next nominee has to do is to memorize these comments, and prepare to regurgitate them innumerable times, and also, BTW, smile a lot."
Cute kids and volunteer work for gay groups wouldn't hurt either.
As an aside, C-Span 2 is airing a meeting of the Commission on Dem Presidential Elections. It is fascinating to those who inject politics directly into their veins Harold Ickes just said that the election period is way too long and if it had gone on longer, their candidate would have been at zero. They are trying to dis the non-diverse states of Iowa and New Hampshire. The tug of war is very telling.
I think a good Justice understands that an activist court, left or right, influenced by interest groups and political parties is a very bad thing. While I consistently disagree with Ginsberg/Stevens conclusions, I generally don't find naked activism on their part as members of the court, say, in the way the 5th Circuit (I think that's the one) is.
I believe that Ginsburg and Stevens, by publicly addressing this are attempting to remove fuel from the fire of the next hearings because...brace yourself...they think it is WRONG to predetermine anything. I for one can imagine many situations where you might disagree with he outcome of a case, but might have to vote in a certain way because of the particulars of a case. That is the nature of the beast.
As far as the next nominee...I for one, am unwilling to second guess the President and make myself look like an utter fool. In fact, I am continually surprised by those who are stupid enough to do it over and over again.
Good analysis Ken.
I think guessing why Stevens and Ginsburg have defended Roberts for not answering some questions is like guessing, when they were confirmed, how they would rule as judges, for the most part. Although in Ginsburg's case I think there was never much doubt about how she would vote on an abortion case.
The GOP should call them as witnesses in the hearings for the next Supreme Court nominee.
Maybe Justices Ginsburg and Stevens just discovered here is a new Chief Justice that is brilliant. He could make life unbearable for them. Remember, the Chief Justice is in a powerful position and he has an IQ that is out of sight. I honestly feel they fear his intellect.
Point Three is moot. These two will never join the new permanent majority on anything of importance, so they'll never be writing any significant opinions.
Except for their own dissents.
Ann during the confirmation hearing would break all television records.
The republicans own the committees and can force votes and disallow crap form the communist/socialist/anarchists if they WANT TO.
The problem is - the "republicans" don't want to. They are sniveling cowards that need to go back and find their manhood somewhere where they lost it back in gradeschool.
My guess is like gold standard Alan Greenspan supporting the institution views of the FED after being appoint chairman of the FRB, Ginsburg and Steven are supporting the instution in which they work. They probably don't want the SCOTUS particularly the confirmation process polticized more.
Of course this is a contrdictory position for Ginsburg who was giving the president political advice in her not just any woman will do speech. I suspect she took enough internal heat for that to take this step. [This worry of politicalization is why I think if or when Roe goes it may go 8-1 or 7-2. I would think if it were to be over turned swing votes like Kennedy might want to join in so that the abortion advocates could see that they had to take the battle to the states and would not hope to change the membership of the court again and continue this battle.]
Throw in that Roberts is the new guy assigning who writes opinions and the possible rift between Renquist and Souter and maybe they are also trying to curry favor with the new Chief.
It would certainly be the most memorable moment of TV history.
Stevens and Ginsberg are both close to leaving the court. IF one presumes the Democrats believe they will win the next presidential election, they are covering future justices from having to answer questions Democrats are asking now but won't be asking in the future if they do win. Health may force either to leave before the end of Bush's presidency, but I'd bet a nickel they are holding on as long as possible hoping for a Democrat president.
Your words are those of (bonafide reality) today.
You may not be an attorney or judge but you're right on what would happen if a potential jurist exposed themselves on how they would rule.
Liberals today appear to be nothing more than fanatical idiots bereft of ideas to move the country forward<<<
A conservative bases his politics on his morals/principals
A liberal bases his morals/principals on his politics.....Rudderless ships on a sea of whim with no destination
Perhaps, they too, see the folly of their constant legislating from the bench. The natives are getting restless with their meddling in legislative prerogatives.
It's run by the power brokers and the honest candidate is doomed.
It is clear, listening to this Commission, that they all know that Iowa is not giving up its pole position. This whole thing is pretty hilarious...how can we win by jiggering the system. I'm listening carefully to Ickes, because I want to hear the plan to make Hillary! the candidate. His major hope is to shorten the campaign period so people will see less of her.
I am keeping my hopes for Janice Rogers Brown. Any woman that calls the government a bunch of thieves has my vote.
Ooh. Did she say that? I love it!
The Communist Party is alive and thriving in the Democrat Party!
"I would not like to be the only woman on the court," Ginsburg said during a speech at Wake Forest University.
America to Ruth, you can fix the problem by resigning.
Thanks for the link.. I think Roberts will surprise a lot of folks, happily for our side....He believes the Rule ofLaw must operate outside the realm of politics..but he also cut his teeth in the Reagan WH, and he has just see the Face of politics up close and personal..and he knows it cannot be ignored...What I found most telling, ( and no oe else has yet remarked on it) if you read his remarks at his swearing in, was that the first person he thanked, after the President, was Ed Gillespie, for getting him through the process...There were several hundred people in the room..Ed was the MOST political type there..I think that's Roberts' thumbing the Dems in the eye..
The Communist Party is alive and thriving in the Democrat Party!
Worse than that, it is THRIVING in the Progressive Caucus IN OUR CONGRESS!!! Talk about HYPOCRISY. We are out running around the world, fighting oppression, communism, dictatorships, and we allow this crap to fester in our Congress, in the ACLU, and in the CPUSA.
Just take a look at WHO belongs to the Progressive Caucus in our Congress....it amounts to very dangerous gross hypocrisy.
This is one of the beauties of the Roberts appointment. He has lived/worked inside the beltway for decades. He is not going to go native on us ala Souter.
If the Republicans had a history of blocking even the most Liberal of Justices, that theory would be sensible. But I doubt either Stevens of Ginsburg fear the Republicans breaking new ground in this aspect.
I couldn't hazard to state I know the absolute cause, perhaps, it is due to their feelings Congress is attempting to usurp their power. The branches can be territorial beyond ideology when they feel threatened.
Perhaps, also, memory of the process underwent creates sympathy. They aren't inhuman, though they may be activist Liberals.
Then there is the possibility when they choose to depart they'd prefer to do so speedily then suffer an ongoing battle over their replacement.
I have more hope now than I did 10 years ago. I see them being exposed more every day. They will continue to lose elections. I have faith in God and also in the people of this Country.
I remember them shutting down Bill Bradley's places to vote and giving Bradley's votes to Gore.
This time they gave Dean's votes to ketchup boy when Kennedy rolled into town to take over.
Gephardt was shoved aside too.
Simple. Sucking up to the new head dude.
If a conservative nominee for the Supreme Court is borked, then a liberal nominee is krobed?
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.