View Full Version : Kennedy asked Roberts this........

09-15-2005, 04:20 PM

09-15-2005, 09:06 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: ...it's not funny this time! :D :D :D

Kennedy did not interupt nearly as much as Biden did - it was as if Kennedy had no clue what was going on and just asked questions given to him!

Biden...it is not every day someone can sit next to Teddy and make him look competent! What a major idiot Biden is. He has less credibility than Shemp!

09-17-2005, 02:15 PM
I don't know how many of you followed the senate judiciary hearings on Roberts, or to what extent. I've managed to follow fairly closely, catching large blocks here and there on both days of questioning whenever I could.

I was very impressed with Judge Roberts. Of course, I don't know much more about him than what's out there as a matter of public information, but I do know this guy is one sharp cookie. Not once during the hearing did he refer to notes or consult with any aides during his grillings. His answers to all the questions were completely spontaneous. This modus operandi, of ocurse, stood in sharp contrast to the meatheads who were questioning him. Every senator was well rehearsed. Each came with reams of notes, prepared questions and even follow-ups to anticipated answers. But despite the Libs' (on both sides of the aisle) best efforts, it didn't appear that anyone laid a glove on the Judge. To the contrary! Roberts made mincemeat out of the meatheads.

Some here may recall that in his opening statement to the committee, he drew a great analogy that a judge is is to the "game of government" what an umpire is to the game of baseball, for example. Just like umpires in the latter environment don't step up to the plate to bat, or take to the field to field plays, or walk to the mound to pitch, so, too, judges in the former context should adopt an attitude of humility and realize that their role in government is really quite limited. Their role is restricted to calling "balls and strikes", and of course to make sure the rules of the game are followed. He simply isn't a player in the game. Nor is his role to make up the rules to the game as its being played. The only "players" in government are the President, Congress and the Electorate. Period.

But even though all the Libs know up front what Roberts' judicial philosophy is, they couldn't resist asking inappropriate and downright stupid questions. One of the best exchanges that I listened to involved IL Senator Durbin -- a DemRat, naturally. (In fact, even Rush Limbaugh had much to say about a particular question that Durbin posed to Roberts.) Both Durbin's question and Robert's answer allows us to glean some very deep insights into the mind of a liberal and conservative, respectively. Here was Durbin's question, asked on the second day of the questioning:

"I said at the outset that I thought one of the real measures as to whether or not you should be on a court goes back to a point Senator Simon had made: 'Would you restrict freedom in America or would you expand it?' When you are defending gays and lesbians who are being restricted in their rights by the Colorado amendment, you were trying from my point of view to expand freedom. That to me is a positive thing. That's my personal philosophy and point of view. But then, when you say if the state would have walked in the door first to restrict freedoms, I would have taken them as a client, too, I wonder, where are you? Beyond loyalty to the process of law, how do you view this law when it comes to expanding our personal freedom? It is important enough for you to say in some instances, 'I won't use my skills as a lawyer because I don't believe that that's a cause consistent with my values and beliefs.' That's what I'm asking. Will you punt? Will you punt on your view of the law and stand up for the downtrodden and the minorities in this country who don't have a chance because the way this country is put together? Will you put aside what you think the law says, and give those people a break?" (emphases mine)

Gotta love the way the question is phrased, i.e. "restrict freedom...or expand it"? Real cute. The megabytes of irony is that this is being asked by a liberal whose only interest is to expand the power of government, which would automatically shrink individual freedoms!

But why is he asking a SC nominee about how he would rule on this issue? Whether freedom is restricted or expanded, this choice should only be expressed by the people through their elected representatives. Wasn't this the way it was done recently when the Patriot Act was passed? Or did the justices on the SC pass this piece of legislation!?

Then this dimly lit lightbulb asks if Roberts would go "beyond his loyality to the "process of law". "Blind" should be implicitly understood in the question because what libs hate is a rigid adherence to the strict interpretation of law, generally, and of the Constitution even more specifically. What's really being asked here is if Roberts would suspend his "loyality" to the Constiutional mandate of the limited role of judges and, instead, take a [b]more proactive role in formulating public policy. Would he be willing to step from behind the catcher at the plate as an umpire and take his stand in the batter's box!?

But now we get to the best part, i.e. the reason for this lib asking the question in the first place: He want's to know if Roberts will "punt on the law" (instead of just refereeing the footbal game} and give the poor, the dowtrodden, the disadvantaged, the underprivileged, the minorities, etc. a chance because...the way this country is put together such types just don't stand a chance! This senator surely must live on URANUS because he knows nothing about what has made this country so great!

This is one of the most anti-American and anti-Capitalism statements I've ever head come out of anyone's yap. I guess no one ever told this meathead that this country is the Land of Opportunity. That peoples of all nations have and are continuing to risk life and limb to move to this Land just to be exposed to the limitless opportunites this nation offers. I guess no one ever told this Uranusite that this country is the wealthiest nation on the earth, and that there is more wealth per capita here than in any other nation in the world. And most certainly no one ever told Durbin that the ones most likely to succeed in this country are those who willing to shed "blood, sweat and tears" in hard work in order to get ahead. This is one senator who should relocate permanently to a communist country where he must think things are so much better.

Bur Roberts not only neatly sidestepped all the emotional overtones (punches) to this type of stupid question, but in a succinct and cogent manner KOd senator with a reply that respectfully but poignantly reminded this meathead of a fundamental Constituional truth:

I had someone ask me in this process, I don't remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, "Are you going to be on the side of the little guy," and you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy is going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution. That's the oath. The oath that a judge takes is not that I'll look out for particular interests; I'll be on the side of particular interests. The oath is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that's what I would do. (emphases mine)

This is a fundamental truth to the Constitution -- something, I'm sure, would be trivialized and minimized and downgraded by the likes of the Durbins in this country. The Durbins of this nation would much rather have liberal activist judges in high courts so that they can do what liberal lawmakers in this country are having a increasingly tougher time doing, i.e. formulating public policy. They'd much rather have judges like the Carter-appointee in San Francisco who ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance with its "offending" phrase "under God" is unconstitutional. (But even liberal lawmakers are pretty silent on this ruling because it's too much of a public embarrassment to them. It's too much anti-God at one time. Most lawmakers prefer the more subtle, incremental approach to policy making.)

Now my only hope and prayer is that the next Bush nominee be at least half as sharp as Roberts -- in which case, he or she should have to no problems getting confirmed.

The greatest value to the senate judiciary hearings was not that Roberts showed America how "brilliant" he is, but the hearings clearly showed what a large number of Nincompoops America has for elected officials!