John Roberts hearings...

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 6:18 pm

I see that the Democrats have been running the argument that John Roberts is a threat to the civil rights of blacks and women, however, watching part of the hearing today, among the Democrats I saw no minorities and few women.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 6:20 pm

I would respond, but any repsonse would most likely mischaracterize your mental handicap.

Cicero · Post by **Cicero** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 6:21 pm

Of course not. Dems care about minorities about as much as Repubs. Very little. If the blacks didnt vote for them, they wouldnt give a shit when it came to trying to get their vote.

Risa · Post by **Risa** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 6:21 pm

Bizzarofelice wrote:I would respond, but any repsonse would most likely mischaracterize your mental handicap.

and yet....

...John Roberts is a threat to the civil rights of blacks and women, however, watching part of the hearing today, among the Democrats I saw no minorities and few women.

dude would have a deeper point, wouldn't he?

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 6:35 pm

DrDetroit wrote:I see that the Democrats have been running the argument that John Roberts is a threat to the civil rights of blacks and wome.....

What Democrats have been running that?

Link?

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 6:55 pm

mvscal wrote:Kennedy, Biden, Schumer, Boxer, Leahy the CBC, NARAL, Moveon.org...you name it.

It would be quicker to come up with a list of Dems who haven't run with that bullshit.

link me to the quotes........

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 6:59 pm

Felix wrote:
mvscal wrote:Kennedy, Biden, Schumer, Boxer, Leahy the CBC, NARAL, Moveon.org...you name it.

It would be quicker to come up with a list of Dems who haven't run with that bullshit.
link me to the quotes........

Oh, they'll link you to quotes all right. These are the same people that turned a draft dodging coke snorting frat boy into a "War President".

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 6:59 pm

Take this to the Hockey place.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:10 pm

Felix wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:I see that the Democrats have been running the argument that John Roberts is a threat to the civil rights of blacks and wome.....
What Democrats have been running that?

Link?

I've posted about this before:

LONG BEACH, Ind. - Like many towns across America, the exclusive lakefront community where Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. grew up during the racially turbulent 1960s and '70s once banned the sale of homes to nonwhites and Jews.

The story describes Roberts' hometown as "Mayberry-like." It goes on to question Roberts' record on civil rights:

Roberts' criticism of racial "quotas" in some documents from his work as a White House lawyer has alarmed civil rights groups and some Democrats, who say he may be a partisan for conservative causes. Other memos from his time in the Reagan Justice Department portray an attorney who urged his bosses to restrict affirmative action and Title IX sex discrimination lawsuits.

Quotas is in quotes. Civil rights = affirmative action. And Title IX comes into play — why? Were there no women in Mayberry either?

It is hard to know how much Roberts' upbringing in this northern Indiana community on the shores of Lake Michigan influenced his views. Some say the fact that there were riots and restrictions on home ownership is not relevant at all.
(AP link here

Translation: It's hard to know whether Roberts' upbringing in Mayberry made him a racist. Some say it's possible he's an intelligent man capable of grappling with policy issues independently of where he grew up.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:12 pm

Felix...I also posted about it here, too:

Following on the heels of Wednesday's AP hit piece and after left-wing groups slamming the dems and the media for not hammering away at SCOTUS nominee John Roberts, today's Washington Post takes their shot at Roberts:

According to WaPo's headline, Roberts Resisted Women's Rights
Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. consistently opposed legal and legislative attempts to strengthen women's rights during his years as a legal adviser in the Reagan White House, disparaging what he called "the purported gender gap" and, at one point, questioning "whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good."

The allegation is that Roberts "resisted women's rights" follows from his opposition to the "comparable worth" theory — a theory that is NOT the same as equal pay. Nowhere in the article do the reporters identify the distinction or even fully explain "comparable worth", by which judges rather than employers could decide how much pay any worker should receive.

But, put aside for a moment that the entire Post story today has the feel of a 30-second negative attack ad. (It often doesn't go back and quote the fuller context of either what Roberts said or what proposal he was responding to.) Put aside the idea that Roberts should be punished for resisting a proposal that is FORMERLY "in vogue." What screams bias here is the idea that a headline saying Roberts "resisted women's rights" is to imply he believes women don't have or deserve rights, an odd position for a guy whose wife helps Feminists for Life.

As well, as you read further down in the Post story, it becomes evident that contrary to the way it is presented the lead, Roberts never seriously questioned "whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good." As the context makes clear, Roberts was making a lawyer joke in a personal aside at the end of a memo about an inconsequential contest.

Boy, who are the AP and WaPo are taking their marching orders from?

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:23 pm

Since when does the Washington Post have anything to say about whether a Supreme Court Justice is confirmed or not. You said Democrats had been running it, and I want quotes from "Democrats", not newspapers.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:37 pm

Felix wrote:Since when does the Washington Post have anything to say about whether a Supreme Court Justice is confirmed or not. You said Democrats had been running it, and I want quotes from "Democrats", not newspapers.

No, you want to be a little bitch. I'll get you your quotes, however, you're going to wait.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:42 pm

DrDetroit wrote:
I'll get you your quotes, however, you're going to wait.

Don't bother.

Seriously bud, all I've read is how everyone expects Roberts confirmation to go through without much trouble......

But it seems you want to bitch for the sake of bitching..........

What, aren't they appointing him fast enough?
Or is it that he might not be approved unanimously?

What exactly is your main objection?

same question there mvs

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:57 pm

Felix the problem is with the outrageous rhetoric. I'm not worried about him getting confirmed, I am worried that you people will trash the process to smear Bush. The two articles I posted are indicative of this. Schumer, Pelosi, Kennedy, Leahy have all adopted this language of the left.

Here's how it works.

Groups like NARAL or People for the American Way release a statement blathering about Robert's being a threat to women, blacks, whatever.

WaPo, NYT, and LA Times run the story the following day.

That day or the next, leading Democrats start referencing these "serious questions" about Roberts' record and adopt the rhetorical language of theese lefty groups.

And then WaPo, NYT, and LA Times dutifully report the congressman's concern about the "serious questions."

NYT, ABC, CBS, etc., then run a poll to show that the public, too, is now "concerned about these serious issues" about Roberts. It's absolute bullshit.

That's the problem here.

RACK Mvscal for the quick work on the statements of leading Democrats.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:00 pm

I posted this in the Spin Forum while back:

Stages of Roberts confirmation --

1. Nominee is named. Dems say they will be open-minded and fair but have important questions. (Honeymoon period.)

2. Dems express concern over “issues that have been raised.”

3. There will be a personal accusation, at first anonymous; Dems say the charge must be investigated and taken seriously.

4. First Dem senators will state they cannot support nominee.

5. On substance nominee is labeled “extreme,” with media and Hollywood now in full-throated opposition.

6. Dem senators say they need more time and information.

7. Leftwing groups demand filibuster.

At the time I posted this we were moving into stage 2 with the demands for documents. It's a stalling tactic for the Dems in their hope that ammunition to use against him will develop in the meantime, then we'll see that first anonymous smear, cue NARAL ad that was subsequently pulled.

We're slowly moving into Stage 4 now with groups like NARAL, PFAW, Kennedy, Schumer, Boxer, et al associating Roberts with racism and discrimination.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:03 pm

DrDetroit wrote:I am worried that you people

You must be thinking of some other "you people", because I think Roberts is a great choice and will be an outstanding Chief Justice.

That's the problem here.

No, you see some problem where none exists......that's the problem.

Which part of "should be confirmed without much problem" are you struggling with here?

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:08 pm

No, "you people" is referring to those, like you, who refuse to believe the charade being layed by the Democrats. You ignore their extreme rhetoric and then blast people like for criticizing the Dems for their bullshit.

I see, as well, that you're content with good people being completely smeared during their confirmation process? Nice.

He'll be confirmed idiot...what about "I'm not worried about him getting confirmed" are you struggling with?

You're ignoring the problem despite me bringing it up and Mvscal proving it to you. Why?

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:20 pm

DrDetroit wrote:No, "you people" is referring to those, like you, who refuse to believe the charade being layed by the Democrats. You ignore their extreme rhetoric and then blast people like for criticizing the Dems for their bullshit.

Seriously, why do you choose to lump me into a group of people? You know nothing about me, what I believe, what I want for this country. Is there some part of "I think Roberts will be a great Chief Justice" you're struggling with? But don't let the facts get in the way of your misdirected hatred.

I see, as well, that you're content with good people being completely smeared during their confirmation process? Nice.

Where did I say that? Lets have some examples of this smearing you refer to.

He'll be confirmed idiot...what about "I'm not worried about him getting confirmed" are you struggling with?

So isn't that the point--for him to be confirmed?

You're ignoring the problem despite me bringing it up and Mvscal proving it to you. Why?

Point out this "smear" against him.

Which pro

bray2 · Post by **bray2** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 4:04 pm

Watching the hearing, Roberts just made kennedy look like a complete idiot.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 4:05 pm

As Roberts will do over and over and over. It's why Schumer held mock confirmation hearings to prepare for this.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 4:09 pm

Seriously, why do you choose to lump me into a group of people? You know nothing about me, what I believe, what I want for this country. Is there some part of "I think Roberts will be a great Chief Justice" you're struggling with? But don't let the facts get in the way of your misdirected hatred.

I know your posting persona from the comments you post here.

I am lumping you in with people who have their heads in the sand re: the confirmation process. You don't care if a perfectly qualified nominee is completely smeared by the Democrats so long as he ultimately is confirmed. I have a problem with as do many, many Americans.

So stfu already.

Where did I say that? Lets have some examples of this smearing you refer to.

You're denying that this should be an issue...your satisfied so long as he is ultimately confirmed.

So isn't that the point--for him to be confirmed?

Sure, so long as the Democrats and their lefty pals are not permitted to smear a perfectly qualified nominee.

Point out this "smear" against him.

Suugesting that he is a racist. Suggesting that he supports abortion clinic bombers. Brian Williams yesterday spouting off that "we don't know yet if he's a perjurer or a lawbreaker."

Those smears you ignorant fool.

Are you even paying attention?

Ang · Post by **Ang** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 6:36 am

Face it folks, everyone hates it when a President in office that is not of their party has a chance to put a justice on the Supreme Court. It happens all the time.

Bush could have chosen a conservative flamer, but he didn't. He did choose a guy who walks the conservative walk, but by all accounts will take his position seriously as a justice not an advocate. Who really knows til they get there, but at least he is saying he will be a justice and look at the law.

That said...I just like the guy because he looks like Bill Self (one of my favorite basketball coaches) and he doesn't apologize for his wife's work in Feminists for Life, which I think is breaking ground in a way that many of my old feminists groups have left for others. So we all have our biases :)

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 1:47 pm

BSmack wrote:
Felix wrote:
mvscal wrote:Kennedy, Biden, Schumer, Boxer, Leahy the CBC, NARAL, Moveon.org...you name it.

It would be quicker to come up with a list of Dems who haven't run with that bullshit.
link me to the quotes........
Oh, they'll link you to quotes all right. These are the same people that turned a draft dodging coke snorting frat boy into a "War President".

This is of course, false.

Almost two decades of inaction against terrorists and STATE sponsors of terrorists coupled with a bold attack on OUR COUNTRY, turned a FORMER DRUNK and alleged COKEHEAD .... THAT SERVED IN THE AIR NATIONAL GUARD and was a member of the "Skull And Bones" frat in a "War President".

Get your facts straight.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:33 pm

Hell, Roach, did you watch any of the hearings yesterday? Feinstein wasn't even letting the guy finish his answers before starting to ask the next question. Kinda makes you wonder if she was interested in his answers at all.

Kennedy was absolutely pathetic. Dude was reading a statement, not asking questions. It was great humor watching him though reading his script and stumbling all over it.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:47 pm

Roberts is as good as confirmed. The usual suspects are just getting soundbites and making sure to cut Roberts off before he makes them look like stumbling buffoons.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:55 pm

Too late for that...

Roberts made Kennedy and Biden look totally incompetent. Schumer fared only a little better having to tuck tail muttering, "well...we'll just leabe it at that."

I love the fact that Democrats and Kennedy believe that reading statements from NARAL and the PFAW somehow makes them appear to be informed and insightful.

Kennedy with him feigning being "deeply troubled..." The only thing I gathered from Kennedy was that he is a deeply troubled man.

'Bode Roberts.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:45 pm

I can see those scathing comments directed toward Roberts have you all up in a tizzy there Doc, so let me ask you......

What should they be asking him about...what his golf handicap is, or whether he prefers his mint julep with extra mint?

Provide me with what you think are relevant questions they should be asking him........

jiminphilly · Post by **jiminphilly** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 6:02 pm

Felix wrote:I can see those scathing comments directed toward Roberts have you all up in a tizzy there Doc, so let me ask you......

What should they be asking him about...what his golf handicap is, or whether he prefers his mint julep with extra mint?

Provide me with what you think are relevant questions they should be asking him........

Well they should try asking a question first instead of just making long winded statements.

See You Next Wednesday · Wed Sep 14, 2005 6:08 pm

jiminphilly wrote:
Felix wrote:I can see those scathing comments directed toward Roberts have you all up in a tizzy there Doc, so let me ask you......

What should they be asking him about...what his golf handicap is, or whether he prefers his mint julep with extra mint?

Provide me with what you think are relevant questions they should be asking him........

Well they should try asking a question first instead of just making long winded statements.

That's exactly what happens....in bizarro world.

In 1962, Byron White faced the ordeal of a Judiciary Committee hearing in his process of nomination to the Supreme Court.

His hearing lasted an hour and a half, most of which time was taken up by testimony of various bar associations. He faced eleven minutes of questioning.

He was confirmed in a Senate floor voice vote that same day, and then proceeded to serve for 31 years.

Times have changed...for the worse.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 6:15 pm

Felix wrote:I can see those scathing comments directed toward Roberts have you all up in a tizzy there Doc, so let me ask you......

What should they be asking him about...what his golf handicap is, or whether he prefers his mint julep with extra mint?

Provide me with what you think are relevant questions they should be asking him........

The "scathing comments" have me "in a tizzy?" What gives you that idea? Was it the fact that I thought that Roberts went 'bode on Biden and Kennedy? Was it that I was getting a laugh out of Kennedy and Schumer?

Felix, what do you call that tactic you just used there? Where you take someone expressing doubt and humor and turn that into them being in a tizzy?

Oh, I get it...you just lie about their posts. Check, got it.

What should they ask him? Anything, dumbshit. Kennedy, Schumer, Biden, Feinstein...they all talked more than Roberts did. They cold actually ask questions.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 6:16 pm

jiminphilly wrote:
Felix wrote:I can see those scathing comments directed toward Roberts have you all up in a tizzy there Doc, so let me ask you......

What should they be asking him about...what his golf handicap is, or whether he prefers his mint julep with extra mint?

Provide me with what you think are relevant questions they should be asking him........

Well they should try asking a question first instead of just making long winded statements.

RACK!!! Didn't see your response prior to posting mine to Felix. But you're right on the $ and if Felix had any idea what he was talking about he'd have recognized my earlier point and not walked into a wall on that one.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 6:16 pm

See You Next Wednesday wrote:
jiminphilly wrote:
Felix wrote:I can see those scathing comments directed toward Roberts have you all up in a tizzy there Doc, so let me ask you......

What should they be asking him about...what his golf handicap is, or whether he prefers his mint julep with extra mint?

Provide me with what you think are relevant questions they should be asking him........

Well they should try asking a question first instead of just making long winded statements.
That's exactly what happens....in bizarro world.

In 1962, Byron White faced the ordeal of a Judiciary Committee hearing in his process of nomination to the Supreme Court.

His hearing lasted an hour and a half, most of which time was taken up by testimony of various bar associations. He faced eleven minutes of questioning.

He was confirmed in a Senate floor voice vote that same day, and then proceeded to serve for 31 years.

Times have changed...for the worse.

But, SYNW, they all got confirmed right? No problem then.

Sincerely,
Felix.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 6:17 pm

mvscal wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:Kennedy with him feigning being "deeply troubled..." The only thing I gathered from Kennedy was that he is a deeply troubled man.

Mary Jo was also "deeply troubled".

Bwahahahahaaaa....RACK!!

It sickens me that this guy stands in judgment of so many others when his own colleagues dismiss that event without a second thought.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 6:55 pm

DrDetroit wrote:
The "scathing comments" have me "in a tizzy?" What gives you that idea? Was it the fact that I thought that Roberts went 'bode on Biden and Kennedy? Was it that I was getting a laugh out of Kennedy and Schumer?

Actually it was your first few posts here wherein you were accusing the Democrats of "smearing" him.

Felix, what do you call that tactic you just used there? Where you take someone expressing doubt and humor and turn that into them being in a tizzy?

It's not a "tactic" I was just asking you what they should be asking Roberts. Instead of answering the question you go off on some tirade about them making statements, orating, etc. But again, what questions do you think they should be asking him? It's a really simple question, I would have thought that you'd have some kind of opinion on this rather than taking this as another opportunity to go rambling .......

Oh, I get it...you just lie about their posts. Check, got it.

Point me in the direction of this "lie". And I for one didn't know these people "posted" here, who are they?

What should they ask him?

That wasn't the question now was it?

I'm asking you to provide examples of the kind of questions they should be asking. I'm trying to get a handle on what you think are appropriate questions......

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:25 pm

Actually it was your first few posts here wherein you were accusing the Democrats of "smearing" him.

But your comment that the Democrats scathing comments have me in a tizzy was not made in the context of me complaining about the treatment of Roberts by Democrats (i.e., the first few posts of this thread), but rather it was made in the context of the Democrats on the Judiciary committee questioning Roberts.

So, what gave you the impression that the Democrats asking Roberts questions has me in a tizzy?

It's not a "tactic" I was just asking you what they should be asking Roberts.

No, you took my comments about those Democratic committee members to mean I was in a "tizzy." That was before you asked me about the proper questions. I don't appreciate that. It's bogus and it's sophmoric (admittedly, though, not as sophmoric as name-calling).

Instead of answering the question you go off on some tirade about them making statements, orating, etc. But again, what questions do you think they should be asking him? It's a really simple question, I would have thought that you'd have some kind of opinion on this rather than taking this as another opportunity to go rambling .......

Tirade? There you go again.

The Democrats could just start asking questions rather than reading press releases that misconstrue Roberts' positions and then ask him to agree with those representations. Roberts bashed Biden and kennedy over the head yesterday for doing just that. As well, rather than asking questions, the members whine about not having documents.

Questions they should be asking and could ask and get insightful and informative responses to would be about the process that Roberts goes through to decide cases, how Roberts uses precedents in that process, how Roberts considers precedents that have been affirmed by other cases (whether those merit more consideration than precedent cases that have not been reaffirmed), how Roberts distinguishes between interpretation and law-making....ooops, those questions have been asked...by the Republicans. Democrats could be asking Roberts about his thoughts on the concept of separation of powers and how that affects his judgment regarding the role of the Supreme Court in reviewing the actions of the Executive branch or the laws passed by the Legislature. This isn't rocket science to the Senators.

They have a problem with Roberts not answering questions about major cases recently before the Court or to be before the Court because they feel that the Court has a role in making law, ie., solving the ills of society. That's why Biden and Kennedy keep pressing Roberts to answer questions about interstate commerce, end-of-life, and abortion issues...they'll vote for him if he promises to vote on those issues they way the Dem Senators want him to.

Point me in the direction of this "lie". And I for one didn't know these people "posted" here, who are they?

You lied about me being in a "tizzy." Nothing I posted about the Democratis Senators questioning Roberts would leave the impression that I was anythign other than appalled by their behavior.

That wasn't the question now was it?

There you go again, completely ignoring the context. I answered my own question.

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 6:06 am

WOW, roberts is fuckin brilliant, he is such a brilliant mind, he made kennedy and biden look like clowns,
I watched the hearings yesterday, and let me tell you, biden got that smirk wiped off his liberal face so fast, it hurt,
I never laughed so hard in my life,
see, schumer kennedy and biden are in way over their heads, roberts is so brilliant, those liberal fuckers are left with their pimply white asses in a sling,
biden wanted to know why roberts is hiding his views, when other legislators must make known there views to the public?
THEN, very calmly and politely, roberts brilliantly made biden look like a crack smoking idiot on welfare,
roberts told biden, that members of congress and other legislators are voted into office, and therefore they must make promises to their voters, they get kickbacks, etc... so its an entirely different ballgame for judges who are appointed, and, judge roberts totally respects the 3 powers of the government, the legislative, judicial, and the executive, the checks and balances thereof,
heres the thing here,
these democrats are not stupid, they are so FRUSTRATED that they cant win elections, so they are now trying to get liberal wacko activist judges into office, judges who WONT interpret the constitution, rather they will make there OWN laws, and this is a serious violation of the 3 branches, see, we actually need more judges like John roberts, who are strict constructionists, and will follow the law,
its the liberal activists who go against the law, like the sicko judges out in california who allow gay marraiges, OR, the sick fuck who today came down with the ruling that the pledge, with the words, "UNDER GOD", is unconstitutional, WHAT A FOOL!
imagine, a judge , who does not have common sense?
the founding fathers were very smart, in our declaration of independence, they said that every american is given freedom and liberty from our CREATOR, and because of this, those rights can NEVER be taken away,
in contrast, if our rights are given to us from the president, or the government, or some judge, those rights can be taken from us in the future, this is why our founding fathers were so brilliant, they knew that GOD, bestows upon every individual, the right to freedom, and the pursuit of happiness, these rights are FOREVER, and cannot be taken away, because GOD gives them,
BRILLIANT.

the bottom line is this, any atheist can believe whatever they want,
no one forces them to do anything, they too are free, BUT, no atheist can EVER take GOD out of this country, again, no atheist can take away the fact that GOD gives us our freedoms,
if an atheist wants to live elsewhere, see ya! I will buy your one way ticket,
OH, by the way, joe biden looked like a stupid clown today,

T1B

John Roberts hearings...

John Roberts hearings...

Re: John Roberts hearings...

Re: John Roberts hearings...

?