When Clinton nominated the ACLU's general counsel (and board member), Justice Ginsburg was confirmed 97-3. If Roberts gets fewer yeas, it will be an outrage.
More:
Via Rightpundit, Senator Biden's standard for questioning Supreme Court nominies, expressed during the Ginsburg confirmation:
[T]he public is best served by questions that initiate a dialog with the nominee, not about how she will decide any specific case that may come before her, but about the spirit and the method she will bring to the task of judging. There is a real difference … between questions that focus on specific results or outcomes, the answers to which would risk compromising a nominee’s independence and impartiality, and questions on judicial methods and philosophy. The former can undermine the dispassionate and unprejudiced judgment we expect the nominee to exercise as a Justice. But the latter are essential and contribute critically to our public dialog.Still More:
Joe's Dartblog:
The New York Times this morning has a 450-word lead editorial saying, 'We haven't found any dirt on John Roberts yet. Hang tight.' . . . Oddly enough, the editorial is titled, "Scrutinizing John Roberts," yet offers no scrutiny whatsoever.
2 comments:
Be prepared to be outraged. It's payback time for the special interests. I wrote about it.
Sadly, it's about the dance and not the music.
Think John Marshall Harlan II with a sparkling sense of humor. And with a superior record of oral advocacy before the Court.
I can't think of much higher praise to bestow on a Supreme Court candidate.
But, in addition, he has the kind of character and personality that makes acquaintances and colleagues -- and appellate adversaries, which I have been -- into fans.
Carl's got it right. Doug J.
Post a Comment