Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What's missing? Why did Justices Ginsburg and Stevens affirm Roberts' refusal to answer questions?
one man's opinion.......

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?


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 109th; ginsburg; miers; robertshearings; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last
To: ken5050
4. There is some evil Dem/lib conspiracy at work here..we just haven't figured it out yet?

It may be more of a power struggle than a conspiracy. Schumer had a very condescending attitude toward Roberts and really played up the dire consequences of no Congressional oversight beyond the confirmation hearing. Now he certainly didn't say anything that meant there should be such oversight, but you can only take the rhetoric so far before you start to give credence to the idea that there are no checks and balances in the other branches for the Supreme Court. I think it was mostly turf defense. I'm sure if Roberts had been a Clinton nominee RBG would have found the time to say that before the vote.
21 posted on 10/01/2005 8:46:00 AM PDT by Ragnorak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

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.


22 posted on 10/01/2005 8:46:23 AM PDT by Logical me (Oh, well!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA
Some sample "extremists" (as viewed by the left):


23 posted on 10/01/2005 8:46:43 AM PDT by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

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.


24 posted on 10/01/2005 8:49:39 AM PDT by Norman Conquest (Matt... Damon...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Syn

Ann during the confirmation hearing would break all television records.


25 posted on 10/01/2005 8:59:01 AM PDT by TomasUSMC (FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

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.


26 posted on 10/01/2005 9:01:35 AM PDT by hombre_sincero (www.spadata.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

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.


27 posted on 10/01/2005 9:03:49 AM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TomasUSMC

It would certainly be the most memorable moment of TV history.


28 posted on 10/01/2005 9:04:08 AM PDT by Dr.Syn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

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.


29 posted on 10/01/2005 9:06:55 AM PDT by Morgan in Denver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

Morning PD,
Your words are those of (bonafide reality) today.
Truth=Realism,
NSNR-CSAOTL


30 posted on 10/01/2005 9:09:52 AM PDT by No Surrender No Retreat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BIRDS

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.


31 posted on 10/01/2005 9:09:54 AM PDT by Morgan in Denver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

Liberals today appear to be nothing more than fanatical idiots bereft of ideas to move the country forward<<<

always remember.......
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


32 posted on 10/01/2005 9:18:41 AM PDT by M-cubed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
I do believe it was Justice Stevens who commented on the Kelo decision as one that did not serve the country well.

Perhaps, they too, see the folly of their constant legislating from the bench. The natives are getting restless with their meddling in legislative prerogatives.

33 posted on 10/01/2005 9:22:38 AM PDT by OldFriend (One Man With Courage Makes a Majority ~ Andrew Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bahbah
The Iowa Caucus is THE most corrupt vehicle for choosing a candidate as can be found anywhere.

It's run by the power brokers and the honest candidate is doomed.

34 posted on 10/01/2005 9:24:27 AM PDT by OldFriend (One Man With Courage Makes a Majority ~ Andrew Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: JLS
My guess is like gold standard Alan Greenspan supporting the institution views of the FED <<<

What??? U think Al has changed his mind a little??? http://www.321gold.com/fed/greenspan/1966.html Prolly the last time he ever spoke or wrote something that the average person could understand without a talking head interpreter...
35 posted on 10/01/2005 9:26:51 AM PDT by M-cubed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Logical me
I honestly feel they fear his intellect. <<<

pompous and false self-esteem is such a wonderful thing to lose...
36 posted on 10/01/2005 9:32:38 AM PDT by M-cubed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
The Iowa Caucus is THE most corrupt vehicle for choosing a candidate as can be found anywhere.

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.

37 posted on 10/01/2005 9:33:01 AM PDT by Bahbah (Call Chuckie Schumer @ 202-224-6542 for your FREE credit report)heh-heh!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
I think those justices are aware that Liberal control of the US would mean the end of the nation as we know it.

I would doubt this. Justice Ginsberg has devoted her life to the cause of liberalism and don't think she's changed her mind on that.

Maybe she was just getting too many requests from journalists as to her opinion on how Roberts answered and just decided to be proactive about it and have a presser of her own rather than being cornered in the parking lot by journalists. She told it the only way she could without being hypocritical: that he was correct in not answering certain questions.
38 posted on 10/01/2005 9:39:48 AM PDT by uncitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: uncitizen

I am keeping my hopes for Janice Rogers Brown. Any woman that calls the government a bunch of thieves has my vote.


39 posted on 10/01/2005 9:43:43 AM PDT by appeal2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: appeal2

Ooh. Did she say that? I love it!


40 posted on 10/01/2005 9:45:36 AM PDT by uncitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson