Advise and Consent: Or, State the Obvious - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

politicophile · 09-12-2005, 08:04 PM

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?

Seaver · 09-12-2005, 08:31 PM

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.

shakran · 09-12-2005, 08:36 PM

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.

Seaver · 09-12-2005, 09:06 PM

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.

shakran · 09-12-2005, 09:19 PM

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.

alansmithee · 09-12-2005, 09:23 PM

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.

shakran · 09-12-2005, 10:05 PM

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."

alansmithee · 09-12-2005, 11:00 PM

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.

smooth · 09-13-2005, 04:33 AM

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

aswo · 09-13-2005, 08:54 AM

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?

dksuddeth · 09-13-2005, 09:17 AM

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.

politicophile · 09-13-2005, 12:05 PM

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.

aswo · 09-13-2005, 01:04 PM

I think he is talking about ejecting senators out of office during their terms

pig · 09-13-2005, 01:12 PM

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.

09-12-2005, 08:04 PM	#1 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	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

09-13-2005, 08:54 AM	#10 (permalink)
aswo 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

09-13-2005, 09:17 AM	#11 (permalink)
dksuddeth 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."

09-13-2005, 01:04 PM	#13 (permalink)
aswo Crazy	I think he is talking about ejecting senators out of office during their terms __________________ People who love people

09-13-2005, 01:12 PM	#14 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet 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

09-12-2005, 08:31 PM	#2 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie 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.

09-12-2005, 08:36 PM	#3 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	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.