Skip to main content

View Diary: Bipartisan Opposition to Roberts (198 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Political questions are horrible ideas (none)
    Look, we can't ask Roberts to answer questions about his political beliefs.  It would be a violation of the canon of judicial ethics for him to answer.  

    Period.  Judges aren't supposed to have bumper stickers on their cars, and we absolutely do not want judges going around and using their power to influence public political opinion.

    We have separation of powers for reasons, and this is one of the most ill-informed, ill thought out posts I've seen.

    •  Heh n/t (none)

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Sat Sep 17, 2005 at 08:18:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  so? (none)
        All the more reason to hold nominees to a high standard of judicial ethics.
        •  Heh n/t (none)

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Sat Sep 17, 2005 at 08:21:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I agree. (none)
          Too bad they made a grotesque comedy out of judicial ethics, oh, I don't know, just around November 2000, was it?

          Everybody talkin' 'bout Heaven ain't goin' there -- Mahalia Jackson

          by DaveW on Sat Sep 17, 2005 at 08:22:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  look (none)
            Bush v. Gore was a horrible travesty.  But that doesn't justify dismissing judicial ethics for the rest of all time.  That's like saying, "I've already killed one person, what's another hundred gonna hurt?"
            •  Heh n/t (none)

              The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

              by Armando on Sat Sep 17, 2005 at 08:25:58 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  To put it more simply, (none)
              maybe it's time to quit treating the court and its nominees as if they're anything more than cheap pols who are just as corrupt as their bretheren in congress and the white house. Oops, sorry, that's already been accomplished. Otherwise a mediocrity like Roberts would never have been considered for such an elevated position, and we wouldn't have been hearing all the cheers about how "brilliant" he is. The PTB obviously know exactly how much respect the SC deserves.

              Everybody talkin' 'bout Heaven ain't goin' there -- Mahalia Jackson

              by DaveW on Sat Sep 17, 2005 at 08:34:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  There is precedent of mediocrity (none)
                "Clarence Thomas"

                He was rammed through despite his mediocrity, that too in a Democratic senate.

                This is going to happen time and again.

                The problem is the system - what is the rationale for lifetime appointments for seven people who are the ultimate arbiters in the nation (including having helped anoint a president in 2000)?

                I think it would be to the Democrats' advantage to campaign for term limits for the supremos. Hell it would be to the nation's benefit. If Roberts was going to be on the seat for 4 or 5 years, the implications of his nomination would be drastically different. What if someone comes up with medicine to extend human longevity? Would we want a John Roberts as a chief justice for the next 150 years in that case? Or anyone for that matter?

                •  Exactly. (none)
                  The Constitution is full of crap as well as gold, and the whole SC setup is of the former substance. I'd go for maybe 8 or 12 years, but the lifetime appointment nonsense should have gone out with Divine Right of Kings.

                  As long as we're at it, having a president nominate a justice is the perfect way to assure partisanship and corruption rules the process. I don't much care for moderation in politics, but the SC is the one institution where it should be treasured. We'd do much better by having the Senate nominate with 60 percent and the House confirm by the same margin. Give the president an overridable veto.

                  The overall quality of the court under the current system is a terrible embarrassment. Maybe with a true consensus process we can think about the High court without flashing on drugs or egos.

                  Everybody talkin' 'bout Heaven ain't goin' there -- Mahalia Jackson

                  by DaveW on Sat Sep 17, 2005 at 08:59:50 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  You may not like Thomas' philosophy (none)
                  or approach to judging, but let's refrain from calling him mediocre.

                  This is a guy who graduated college with highest honors, went to a top law school (reportdely with higher LSAT scores than Bill Clinton) ran a major federal agency, and served on the most prestigious appellate court.  Now compare that with William O. Douglas, William Brennan or Earl Warren.  Douglas had no judicial experience whatever, Brennan served on a state (NJ) Supreme Court (and other lower courts), while Warren had neitehr judicial experience nor a degree from a top school.  So, Thomas was more than qualified to take that seat.

              •  Don't Forget Roman Hruska (none)
                On Rejected Judge Carswell, the esteemed Senator from Nebraska memorably said in 1970:

                "Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they?"

                How prescient!  Little did he know that in just 30 years, all branches of government would be dominated not just by the mediocre but by the negligent, reckless and just plain evil.

              •  Mediocrity?? (none)
                Describing Roberts as a "mediocrity" is likely to erode the credibility of those making the charge. The public's conclusion appears to be just the opposite.
            •  Should they also be suspended when a (none)
              justice accepts a paid vacation with a party before his court?  

              How about a judge interviewing for a job with a party before the his court?  Assuming that it was political beliefs in question, which it wasn't, your position is that the standard for enforcement of the cannons of judicial ethics is should be strictly enforced when it will serve a right wing objective and ignored the rest of the time.  

    •  I think you misread Armando's post (none)
      He wants Bloomberg to be asked those political questions, not ROberts.

      Oh when the frogs. . Come marching in. . Oh when the FROGS COME MARCH-ING IN!

      by pontificator on Sat Sep 17, 2005 at 08:20:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Mmm. (none)
        Yeah.  You're right.  Oops.

        It's still almost as absurd to assume that voting for Bush is support for all his policies.  I voted/campaigned for Kerry and I didn't support anywhere near all his policies.

        •  Heh n/t (none)

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Sat Sep 17, 2005 at 08:23:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Supporting Bush for reelection (none)
          is as unambiguous an act as politics is capable of providing. Name a single thing Bush as done that would merit the support of anyone better than a sociopath or self-obsessed opportunist. A vote for Bloomberg is an endorsement of Bush.

          Everybody talkin' 'bout Heaven ain't goin' there -- Mahalia Jackson

          by DaveW on Sat Sep 17, 2005 at 08:36:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  See that's why people are suspicious of democrtas (none)
            when you call 50+ million people sociopaths, it is not terribly likely that they will vote for you.  Ever.
            •  Thank God we have honest (none)
              leadership America can trust.

              Republicans won by making selfishness a virtue, little did the voters know that it wasn't to their benefit.

              •  Keep saying that (none)
                and see the Democrats remain in minority for generation.  Here's a hint.  You don't win votes by denigrating the voters.
                •  We'll win when people vote their (none)
                  own interests and not a moment before. Voters aren't watching this debate. That fact alone should empower the Democrats, but it won't.

                  At some point voters will view the tattered infrastructure, lost international alliances, absent protections of all kinds, and yearn for the days when things worked.  Until they miss functional government the Republicans will win.

            •  I'm not running for anything. (none)

              Everybody talkin' 'bout Heaven ain't goin' there -- Mahalia Jackson

              by DaveW on Sun Sep 18, 2005 at 11:07:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site