Skip to main content

View Diary: What Would Roberts Say about This? (119 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think he absolutely must address it. (none)
      I don't see grounds for the nominee to refuse to answer questions about such recusals.  He can disagree, agree, or state what's a judge to do.   Would he feel a need to recuse on moral grounds on the same issue?  On any issue, such as  . . .,   . . ., or ... .  It's a valid question.   It doesn't need to involve religion, it involves what issues would prompt a recusal?

    I've heard of conflicts of interest, but this one is where this judge you wrote about can not apply law, or so he seems to say.

    •  Valid question (none)
      definitely. I just don't know what answer I want to hear yet.
    •  Roberts and the Ginsberg Standard (none)
      [snip] I don't see grounds for the nominee to refuse to answer questions about such recusals.  He can disagree, agree, or state what's a judge to do.  [snip]

      IIRC, they were talking about applying the "Ginsberg Standard" regarding privacy issues. If they do, then Roberts will have to answer, because Ruth Bader Ginsberg not only answered that question, she did so eloquently, and cited Constitutional Amendments as the basis of her stance.

      So, unless they were just blowing smoke, and if they actually do use the GS, then he has no choice but to answer. To do otherwise would leave him open to charges (if that is the right word), that he would not apply the law, as it stands. Which is a clear-cut reason to block his elevation to the SCOTUS.

      But again, this is JM5CW...

      I Support the Separation of Church and Hate...
      Rev Denise Michel
      revdenisemichel@yahoo.com

      by rev denise michel on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 02:19:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site