Roberts becomes Chief Justice

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

John Roberts=the Stepford Judge

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

If Bush or any other President had said something similar about a Jewish nominee or a nominee of any non-evangelical religion, for that matter, Dobson & the rest of the American Taliban would raise all sorts of cain.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Sure thing, but it wouldn't make their complaints any more valid than yours.

[SuperJerk 0]

But, come on now..."American Taliban"? That was gold.

[The Czech Republic 0]

'cept not.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

'cept not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Speak of the devil.

 

Judiciary Panel May Ask Dobson to Testify

Evangelical Leader Says He Has Been Privy to Miers's Views

 

By Charles Babington Washington Post Staff Writer

Monday, October 24, 2005; A05

 

The Senate Judiciary Committee is likely to summon a leading conservative Christian to explain the private assurances he says he received from the White House about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, the committee's chairman said yesterday.

 

Testimony by Focus on the Family founder James C. Dobson would heighten the political and religious overtones of the already-high-stakes confirmation hearing for Miers, scheduled to start two weeks from today.

 

Dobson is among several evangelical leaders enlisted by the White House to vouch for Miers's conservative credentials among right-leaning groups unhappy with her nomination. He spoke with Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove shortly before President Bush announced the nomination, and later hinted he had received privileged information. "When you know some of the things that I know -- that I probably shouldn't know -- you will understand why I have said, with fear and trepidation, that Harriet Miers will be a good justice," Dobson said told his national radio audience Oct. 5.

 

Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said yesterday that his panel is likely to require Dobson and perhaps others to testify about such purported conversations. Asked on CBS's "Face the Nation" whether the committee will "bring some of these people who said they were told things that perhaps they shouldn't have been told, like Mr. Dobson," Specter replied: "my instinct is that they'll be called. And the American people are entitled to clarification."

 

Specter has expressed interest in Dobson's comments before, but yesterday marked the clearest signal that the broadcaster may be required to face the 18-member committee in public.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2300348_pf.html

[The Robfather 0]

And so the Charles Krauthammer scenario rules the day.

 

So long to Miers.

[SuperJerk 0]

Conservatives on Roberts: A nominee should be judged by their qualigfications, not by their ideology.  We want judges that will interprete the law, not bring a political agenda to the Supreme Court.

 

Conservatives on Miers: "We're left gathering shreds of evidence in trying to determine how the candidate would vote on the key issues of the day."

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/07/miers.ap/index.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Exhibit B: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/28/sco...next/index.html

 

Conservatives look past Miers

Leaders say they want justice with clear conservative views

 

I'm now laughing at every motherfucker who said it was wrong for me to oppose Roberts because I disagreed with his Constitutional outlook.

[Justice 0]

I'm now laughing at every motherfucker who said it was wrong for me to oppose Roberts because I disagreed with his Constitutional outlook.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well if you honestly disagree with him, oppose him. I mean, that's more understandable than most people I know blindly opposing him.

 

So... who is next on the docket?

[The Robfather 0]

Miers never got off to good start with senators

 

A few snips:

 

A key point came when Sens. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the panel's top Democrat, called a press conference to complain that Miers' responses to their questionnaire were "insufficient" and "insulting," suggesting a lack of respect for the confirmation process.

 

---

 

Across the political spectrum of both parties, senators were in a growing state of unhappiness. At Miers' visit with Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the assistant minority leader and a member of the Judiciary Committee, Durbin said the conversation didn't come easily.

 

"She was not comfortable. She was ill at ease and not ready for this," Durbin said. "I came to conclude this was not her idea. She didn't have her heart in it."

 

---

 

"People who met with John Roberts came away saying, `Good gravy! This guy is fantastic!'" Lott said.

 

In the clubby world of Congress's upper chamber, senators compared notes. "The talk among our colleagues was, `Is this the best choice?' We just were not comfortable," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss.

 

"When she visited members on both sides of the aisle, people walked away saying, `Well, she's going to have to learn a lot more in four or six weeks to be able to answer questions that we need to know,'" said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of the Judiciary panel.

 

Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., concluded: "I don't know of anyone who felt more (favorably) about her nomination after meeting with her."

 

Her writings were embarrassing and the private conversations she had with senators weren't impressive at all. Bottom line, she performed horribly in every way possible. She was not the best qualified pick, and matters weren't helped that she followed Roberts, who impressed even his harshest critics in the Senate. Standards have been raised.