Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 09-12-2005, 08:04 PM   #1 (permalink)
Addict
 
politicophile's Avatar
 
Advise and Consent: Or, State the Obvious

So I was sitting in front of the television this afternoon watching the opening statements of members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the John Roberts hearings. Mr. Roberts was sitting facing the committee, but was not asked any questions by the Senators, as these were merely opening statements. Instead he sat idly and did his best to smile at the Senators addressing him.

With a few exceptions, each opening statement went something like this: "The Constitution is the fundamental document in our nation, affecting the lives of millions on a daily basis. Interpretation by the Supreme Court will have lasting consequences for everyone in the country. Judge Roberts is only 50 years old, so his appointment will last for decades. This is why it is so important that we select the right man for the job..."

If Democrat: "We must find out Mr. Roberts' stances on abortion, gay rights, and other important issues before we agree to confirm him."

If Republican: "John Roberts has a perfect record, a calm disposition, and the appropriate judicial temperment for such a high office."

John Roberts, who knows more about the Constitution and the Judiciary than virtually anyone else on the planet, sat for hours on end listening to blowhard Senators lecturing him about the importance of the Constitution. In listening to the comments of some Senators, I realized that my understanding of constitutional law was superior to theirs. Yet, they felt qualified (I certainly wouldn't) to ramble on about a document they don't understand in front of a world-class expert on the subject.

Today's hearings shattered my faith in the importance of Senate confirmation. Senators, Republican and Democrat alike, seem to enjoy listening to themselves fail to read their pre-written speaches properly. Is there any purpose to having these ignorant elected officials confirm the judicial appointments of another elected official?
__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
politicophile is offline  
Old 09-12-2005, 08:31 PM   #2 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
All you have to look at is Dianne Feinstein's speech. Sorry I cant find it online, I'm sure others have better methods of searching for transcripts of these proceedings than me.

Anyways it was bad... talking about how Nazi's made the Jews take their shoes off to shame them. What did that have to do with Roberts? It's clear they're so opposed to a double-conservative judicial post they will throw anything in there in hopes to slow things down.
Seaver is offline  
Old 09-12-2005, 08:36 PM   #3 (permalink)
Tone.
 
shakran's Avatar
 
Oh come on. Why is it that when democrats question a republican nominee for something they're throwing "anything in there in hopes to slow things down" but when a republican questions a democratic nominee for something he's "making sure the candidate will do the best job for the american people."

We see through the republican double standard. At least, some of us do.
shakran is offline  
Old 09-12-2005, 09:06 PM   #4 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Seaver's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Quote:
We see through the republican double standard. At least, some of us do.
I have NO problem with them questioning valid points. But read some of the speaches they gave him, especially Feinsteins and you'll be banging your head against your desk.
Seaver is offline  
Old 09-12-2005, 09:19 PM   #5 (permalink)
Tone.
 
shakran's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaver
I have NO problem with them questioning valid points. But read some of the speaches they gave him, especially Feinsteins and you'll be banging your head against your desk.

But like I said, this happens no matter who's nominated and no matter from which party. And no one was questioning today because it wasn't the time to question. They start questioning tomorrow.

Not that any of this matters- the whole thing is just a formality for show. I'll be stunned if Roberts does not get the nod.
shakran is offline  
Old 09-12-2005, 09:23 PM   #6 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by politicophile
So I was sitting in front of the television this afternoon watching the opening statements of members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the John Roberts hearings. Mr. Roberts was sitting facing the committee, but was not asked any questions by the Senators, as these were merely opening statements. Instead he sat idly and did his best to smile at the Senators addressing him.

With a few exceptions, each opening statement went something like this: "The Constitution is the fundamental document in our nation, affecting the lives of millions on a daily basis. Interpretation by the Supreme Court will have lasting consequences for everyone in the country. Judge Roberts is only 50 years old, so his appointment will last for decades. This is why it is so important that we select the right man for the job..."

If Democrat: "We must find out Mr. Roberts' stances on abortion, gay rights, and other important issues before we agree to confirm him."

If Republican: "John Roberts has a perfect record, a calm disposition, and the appropriate judicial temperment for such a high office."

John Roberts, who knows more about the Constitution and the Judiciary than virtually anyone else on the planet, sat for hours on end listening to blowhard Senators lecturing him about the importance of the Constitution. In listening to the comments of some Senators, I realized that my understanding of constitutional law was superior to theirs. Yet, they felt qualified (I certainly wouldn't) to ramble on about a document they don't understand in front of a world-class expert on the subject.

Today's hearings shattered my faith in the importance of Senate confirmation. Senators, Republican and Democrat alike, seem to enjoy listening to themselves fail to read their pre-written speaches properly. Is there any purpose to having these ignorant elected officials confirm the judicial appointments of another elected official?
It's supposedly a check on the President's power to appoint individuals, but in reality it's just a forum for partisanship and Senators to get sound bites. After reading your post, it made me wonder how much respect the various appointees can have for the Senators. I could imagine Roberts sitting with his frozen smile, thinking "these people have no idea what they're talking about". Because rarely will the Senators plead ignorance, or even give the impression that they aren't the experts.

And honestly, why would Roberts' opinion on current hot-button issues have any relevance to his judicial competance? The Supreme Court is there not to decide issues, but court cases. I understand that their rulings have great impact on many issues, but I don't think that can be a concern for the court. Their job is to judge legality/constitutionality, not to create backdoor legislation.
alansmithee is offline  
Old 09-12-2005, 10:05 PM   #7 (permalink)
Tone.
 
shakran's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alansmithee
I understand that their rulings have great impact on many issues, but I don't think that can be a concern for the court. Their job is to judge legality/constitutionality, not to create backdoor legislation.

But the door swings both ways. We don't want a candidate who, for instance, says "I (hate/love) abortion and I'm gonna find a way to make it (legal/illegal) even if it means fudging my interpretation of the constitution a little."
shakran is offline  
Old 09-12-2005, 11:00 PM   #8 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
But the door swings both ways. We don't want a candidate who, for instance, says "I (hate/love) abortion and I'm gonna find a way to make it (legal/illegal) even if it means fudging my interpretation of the constitution a little."
But by asking about their views on certain issues, you aren't really finding out if they will fudge their votes to fit their views. Instead of voting for the most qualified individual, you are just voting for people who side with you on issues. Which goes back to the seeming futility of the advise and consent practice.
alansmithee is offline  
Old 09-13-2005, 04:33 AM   #9 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaver
All you have to look at is Dianne Feinstein's speech. Sorry I cant find it online, I'm sure others have better methods of searching for transcripts of these proceedings than me.

Anyways it was bad... talking about how Nazi's made the Jews take their shoes off to shame them. What did that have to do with Roberts? It's clear they're so opposed to a double-conservative judicial post they will throw anything in there in hopes to slow things down.

Here's the first page of the confirmation hearing. You have to navigate to the other pages of the hearing on the sidebar to the right.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...Transcript%201
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Last edited by smooth; 09-13-2005 at 09:15 AM..
smooth is offline  
Old 09-13-2005, 08:54 AM   #10 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Ummm... feinstein's speech was ridiculous and the point she made was about religion, thats why she talked about shoes, because apparently john roberts in going to embarrass jews?
__________________
People who love people
aswo is offline  
Old 09-13-2005, 09:17 AM   #11 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Both republicans and democrats are hypocritical on the issue of federal appointment justices. What should be made into law is the ability to recall your state senator for failure to represent his constituents interests instead of his political party.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 09-13-2005, 12:05 PM   #12 (permalink)
Addict
 
politicophile's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Both republicans and democrats are hypocritical on the issue of federal appointment justices. What should be made into law is the ability to recall your state senator for failure to represent his constituents interests instead of his political party.
Don't you think this is the purpose of regular, scheduled elections?

Also, on a semantic point, we are talking about U.S. Senators, not State Senators. If you intended to add an " 's " on the end of the word "state" above, I apologize for lecturing you.
__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
politicophile is offline  
Old 09-13-2005, 01:04 PM   #13 (permalink)
Crazy
 
I think he is talking about ejecting senators out of office during their terms
__________________
People who love people
aswo is offline  
Old 09-13-2005, 01:12 PM   #14 (permalink)
pig
pigglet pigglet
 
pig's Avatar
 
Location: Locash
Well, whatever pomp and circumstance they're adding to this is minimal compared to the hours they spend doing it year round. It's a pretty big deal that only occasionally comes up, and if they want to waste a little more time making corny speaches, I don't see any particular reason for alarm.

I think at least one purpose for it is simply that it somewhat limits the qualifications necessary for the candidate. ie. The executive branch can't (practically) put someone up for the Court who doesn't have the qualifications. For instance, Karl Rove can't be the next Head Justice.
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style
pig is offline  
 

Tags
advise, consent, obvious, or, state

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:48 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360