My goodness these hearings are boring. Can’t someone find a pubic hair on a coke can or something? And has Lindsey Graham been drinking? Would you please stop interrupting the candidate, Sen. Graham?
And Jeff Sessions may be
mildly seriously retarded. I think I saw him in O Brother Where Art Thou.
Sadly, I missed DiFi and Chuckie.
*** Update ***
If Sessions had been raised in NY, Chuck Schumer would have ridden the little yellow bus to school with him. “Do you apologize for the tone, not the substance of those memos?” What a slimy oaf. He really is the embodiment of every sleazy lawyer joke you have ever heard.
Feingold was at least decent.
I guess what depresses me is watching bright people, and having just read the Ginsburg testimony, reading these bright people be subjected to questioning from this motley collection of morons. If I were a Senator on the Judiciary Committee, I would do everything I could to make these hearings as short as possible to keep the public from finding out how stupid our elected leaders really are…
agreed… Jeff Sessions is definitely an idiot. What kind of Senator uses a Supreme Court nomination to learn the basics of judicial procedure? How on Earth was he elected?
Oh, you meant someone related to the hearings. Sorry.
Did you catch Sen. Coburn yesterday? He started crying, as he lamented on about the damage that partisanship has done to our country.
Now ignoring for the moment that Mr. Coburn is a prime example of those responsible for the partisan divide…
There’s no crying in Baseball or Senate Confirmation Hearings, you twit!
It’s kind of too bad that this running commentary of yours can’t show up on TV as a split screen alongside the hearings. Sort of like the optional commentary on a DVD. It would make things so much more entertaining.
For any of you Canadians out there, I found an interesting book yesterday — “What Canadians Think” by the good folks at Ipsos-Reid.
Disagree with you on Graham, John. (and Chuckie on right now). Several of his fellow members seem to forget just what is appropiate – Lindsey is using his time to remind them.
FWIW, cspan.org has both video and audio streams.
Could the Republicans please do a little better job of fluffing Roberts while they fluff themselves. I’m serious. If I have to listen to one more grandstanding soliliqui about how much a Senator doesn’t like abortion, I’m going to be sick.
That said, there will be other court battle besides Roe v Wade version 2.0 and it’s always refreshing to hear any Senator – Republican or Democrat – refer to a court issue that doesn’t contain dead fetuses in it.
Of course they’re all idiots; you can watch CSPAN’s normal broadcasts from Congress anytime you want to confirm it.
“Do you apologize for the tone, not the substance of those memos?” What a slimy oaf.
Is this a joke? “Illegal Amigos”? You’re defending this shit? Roberts will be hearing workplace discrimination cases and he’s too tone deaf to say he would not use the phrase again?
Oh, and Graham is the biggest moron in the Senate. Why didn’t he just ask Roberts if he owned all Sean Hannity’s books? Or how bad Kofi Annan is?
The best reason to vote against Roberts is not his ideology. It’s that he might be a partisan hack. And Graham practically asked Roberts if he was wearing dittohead underwear. Brilliant.
Cornyn just jumped the shark with the baseball analogies.
To refine space, the real objection against Roberts is that hes not a Democrat partisan hack… the worst sin of all.
Why can’t it just be that he’s a partisan hack? Because he’s a republican partisan hack you feel he’s acceptable for a lifetime appointment as Chief Justice? Two years on the bench, thats all he’s got.
Today’s only silver lining is that stunning lady in pearls sitting behind Robert’s right arm. Who is she? Mmmm
Roberts has sounded very sharp, very knowledgable, very forthright. On the issues, I don’t think he’s come across as the guy the Republican base was looking for at all.
I understand a lot of statements are coming from the GOP message makers to the effect that “don’t worry, he’s just saying what he has to say, this guy is on our side.” And that might be the case. But one side is getting played, and only a fool would assume it has to be the other side.
All sides are getting played. It’s been like that for years. How else do you explain cost plus, no bid, etc.
An appropiate question jg… No I dont think any partisan hack should sit on any bench. But aside from partisan rhetoric (from both left and right), I have yet to see any real evidence which suggests that Roberts is not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.
Two years on the bench? To me its feels a lot like grooming an otherwise outrageously unqualified person to be president by having him spend a term as a governor of a large southern state just before running for president.
It’s been so long since the last SC nomination that we forget, historically, that these guys have not always been 20-year veterans of the federal bench. Plenty of them weren’t even judges before getting named to the SC, although that’s kind of an outdated model.
The closest analogy I know to Roberts’ resume is Thurgood Marshall: He was considered the foremost appellate advocate of his generation, and a top-notch lawyer, but he only spent a short time on the federal bench before receiving a promotion to the SC.
Do you have anything other than the short duration that Roberts has sat on the DC court that leads you to state that he’s “outrageously unqualified?”
You couldn’t tell the outrageously unqualified comment was about Bush?
I’m new to the political game. I thought a supremem court judge would be someone who spent many years at the lower level. I’m dumbfounded to learn that a newbie can get Chief Justice. Shouldn’t THAT position go to someone with impecible qualifications? At least someone currently on the bench.
Earl Warren, for example, was a district attorney and the Governor of California, but he never spent a day as a judge before becoming Chief Justice.
Roberts showed signs of slight impatient towards the end of the first session. How many more of these sessions does he have to sit through? Can you imagine him flipping out and jumping on his desk? Can you imagine what he might say? “I’d rather spend the rest of my short miserable life in guantanimo than have to tolerate being interogated by the worlds 18 foremost MORONS. I’M OUT OF HERE. …”
I did not know that.
So basically a supreme court nominee need not be a judge. In fact I bet it’s preferable so that there is no judicial history to examine. Couple that with not being able to ask any real question (won’t be answered anyway) and you can put the most ideaological moonbat/wingnut you can find on the bench without the opposition being aware. Scary.
yet another jeff
Hmmm, I’m having trouble thinking of good reasons to not just shrink the size of govt. a bit and lower the SCOTUS seats back down to 7.
I think thats the plan yet another Jeff. Make us all hate gov’t so much we’ll all want it gone.
How many Jeffs we got here anyway?
I’m a Jeff (raises hand).
No, I didnt see – my mistake for a quick read. In terms of elected officials, it’d be nice to think those putting them in office would take qualifications in consideration. Yet if you use solely duration of post as a meter of qualification… The junior senator from NY had held NO elected office prior to her current position. I’ll note that both my sister and her husband, much to their surprise, are not dissatisfied with Mrs. Clinton’s abilities to represent the state in federal affairs. To me that’s pretty strong anecdotal evidence that one’s resume need not be filled with subordinate postings for that which they are applying.
Furthermore, jg, I can think of three major city mayors who did not have any political credentials. Bloomberg in NYC, Hickenlooper in Denver, and of course, Nagin in New Orleans.
No, actually, the reason that non-judges have often been preferred for SC posts, and particularly for Chief Justice is because politicians need to understand the art of hair splitting compromise.
You overestimate the value of not having a judicial record to defend. Loni Guaniere had no judicial record, and yet was taken down (correctly, to my mind) on the basis of her academic pubs. (Yes, that was for AG, but she still was out of the mainstream.) Robert Bork is often viewed as having been hurt by a Democratic witchhunt; in fact, he was taken down because his views on privacy and (hmm) substantive due process were out of the mainstream.
I want Roberts grilled on _Gobitis_ and _Casey_, and specifically on O’Connor’s majority opinion. ALl else is frivolous
OTOH, Jesse “the Body” Ventura was elected governor on Minn.
(and no, I’m not forgetting about the Terminator out in Cal – I just think the verdict’s still out.)
bains, you know, I seem to remember an…actor, he must have been, played second bananas for years…name of Ronald Raygun, or something. Got elected governor of California. Was a failure, but parlayed that into getting elected President. Twice.
I don’t know case history. So, I have to express my interests crudely. I’m interested in Jose Padilla, Patriot Act, War Profiteering, Disaster Profiteering, Posse Commitatus, and Nuclear Option, etc. I think it’s the big money that runs the show.
For nomination to supreme court. You’re about to start rattling off rock stars who previously had no experience as rock stars or something. In response to your diversion I will say that SOME offices don’t nescessarily require a previous or lower office to be held, some do.
[snark]I would never have guessed that last one[/snark]
Ask yourself what Constitutional issues would be raised in the Jose Padilla case. Fundamentally, the question is whether he has the right to counsel, and, if he does, whether the nominal right to counsel actually provides him with the capacity to execute a vigorous defense. That is, the question is whether or not he can get substantive due process. The questionable parts of the patriot act concern gag orders and secret warrants…again, issues of substantive due process. The Nuclear Option is not litigable, but, even if it were, it’s patently Constitutional: the Senate sets its own rules.
The other things you listed are word salad to me.
Follow the money.
Maybe, this is good news. Unless, he duck hunts with Darth Cheney.
I was setting an example. Thank’s for countering it.
So, if the Senate has a rule about making rules, then it can just ignore it?
Fair enough on the diversion – but I think the point stands. People are qualified based primarily upon thier abilities, for which we correctly use past history in similar posts, as a meter. That is not to say that one without such history in summarily unqualified, nor should they be disqualified. Without such history, we look elsewhere. As I said, I’ve yet to see any evidence that Judge Roberts is not qualified.
Have you ever heard the schoolboy taunt “If God can do anything, can He make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?” The standard answer is “yes. God can do anything he wills, so if he wills that there are objects he cannot affect, then that is how it is and will be.” The Senate is the same way for rules. If the Senate makes a rule, and then, by majority rule, decides to ignore it, then that rule is no longer a rule.
More of having to listen to ted kennedys blathering why dont kennedy just stop trying to be a real jackass becuase a real jackass is smarter
Oh, God, are we going to start the Senate Rules discussion again?
Yes, the Senate can ignore its own rules. The problem with doing so is that it can’t ignore just one rule; it has to toss its entire parliamentary procedure, and then there aren’t any rules until the Senate figures out new ones. And it can make up any rules it likes, including what kind of quorum is needed to pass the new rules.
The nightmare scenario is what happens during the between-rules phase, when everything’s ad hoc. The Senate could decide that a “quorum” consists of two or three Senators (like it already did to vote on the Terri Schiavo bill), or call votes in the dead of night with no advance notice, or hold votes open indefinitely until the Majority Party likes the results, or just refuse to recognize minority Party Senators altogether. In short: the Senate would operate just like the House already does.
Republicans like the idea because they control the WH, the Senate and the House. They believe they always will. So any rules change that favors the Majority Party is fine with them.
Hey, right-wingers? Can one of you spend a few minutes providing this troll with a mechanism by which he can feed himself?
CaseyL — The question was a question of fact and law, not a question of wisdom. Of course it’s stupid and self-defeating to remove the rules of the Senate. The only debate was whether it would belitigible, and, as you said, it would not be.
It’s one of those things which falls into the class of “head-bangingly stupid, but legal is you want to”.
That’s why the Nuclear Option is total bullshit.
Jesus John, you’re talking about elected United States Senators here. Can’t you say something nicer than that about them?
I like them when they shut up for the day. Other than that, they are a bunch of preening peacocks patting themselves on the back for being Senators, while the rest of America thinks they are morons. Roberts didn’t even use notes, while the old decrepit Senators could barely read their 4 minute questions, and would lose their places on the page and flail helplessly about. Ugh, Senators just suck.
Stormy70, why do you hate America?
If you like watching him so much then why don’t you browse over to the archives of “In Session with Jeff Sessions”.
I want him grilled on how much he will allow the New Deal to be rolled back.
Yes, Jeff Sessions is functionally retarded. But at least he didn’t clutch his hanky and weepily demand an end to the bitter partisanship like Coburn. This from a man who referred to his own election as a battle between “good and evil,” called for the death penalty for abortionists, and tagged gays “the greatest threat” facing America. What balls.
I’m looking forward to seeing Jose Canseco and Raphael Palmiero denounce steroid users.
I think Canseco did come out against steroid use. Hence the book and the scandal and the senate inquiry.
(straight from the new talking points to counter talking points that contradict previously issued talking points that dismiss even older talking points)
I’d ask, why cant folks debate honestly, but that’s rhetorical… the reality is folks dont seem able, or dont want to brush aside their own political blinders.
What’s funny, in a sad kind of way, is that John has done such a thing, but for a large segment here that’s not enough. In order to be considered “rational” to these folks, nothing short of a full repudiation of… well everything, is worthy of consideration.
e.g. as soon as you hate Bush as much as I do…
What I’d like to know is how many cases other Justices have actually argued before the Supreme Court, prior to becoming Justices themselves. 39 cases & a 68% winning record seems rather high to me. I know several former US attorneys that don’t have that number & have careers several years longer than Roberts.
The easiest way to scare a liberal is to point out that Stevens is 4 years older than Rehnquist & that Bush may actually get to appoint a 3rd Justice in his 2nd term.
If contemplated as farce, the nominee hearings are compelling television. Where else would one find the likes of Tom Coburn, the Junior Senator from the Olduvai Gorge, and Chuck Schumer, the Senior Senator from the West Bank?
Nietzsche was right: “often mud sits on the throne.”
What a lot of people forget is that Ventura actually had some political experience before he ran for governor. He’d been mayor of one of the twin cities suburbs.
Joe Biden, D-CT, is my favorite (NOT!) I yearn for the day when a SC nominee says, “Go ahead, Joe, ask the fuckin’ questions and then interrupt me and answer them yourself. I’ll watch.”
The rest of the Senators on the C of the J are fairly tolerable. Sigh.
39 cases is a lot. The winning percentage isn’t as important, particularly since he was mostly on the side of the government, which tends to bat better than .500. But the primary determinant of whether you win or lose is the correctness of your client’s position, and it’s not really fair to rate a lawyer by that measure.
The issue is whether he’s a smart and capable advocate, which everyone seems to agree on. The guy knows the law.
Yeah, I watched the Daily Show last night, too.
What every happened to that pube guy anyway?
Hey, sorry – looks like you beat the Daily Show to it. (They did the exact same line – “Can’t someone find a pubic hair on a coke can or something?”)
OH THERES GOT TO BE A MORING AFTER. ITS WIATING JUST OUTSIDE THE STORM