So the hearings for John Roberts begin. While I know he will get in I am asking, no begging for Democrats to try to get this guy to go on the record. I see where republicans offered the advice don't answer anything which really is not suprising. I mean though really with the republican controlled senate no matter what he says he would get in unfortunately.
Say goodbye to a lot of freedoms we have.
7 comments:
Please define "go on the record".
Sorry for the delay in responding to this but I didn't get home til late last night. On the record means publicly stating your views. That's why they look at past casses for Roberts. That's why they have hearings that are televised to see if he would state, on the record, how he would rule when casses are brought to the Supreme Court.
Roberts is not required to, nor should he reveal his personal views publicly. This goes for any judge in any court. A judge is supposed weigh evidence and make decisions based solely on evidence, not what his/her personal views are.
If a judge reveals his/her personal viewpoints, that would be dangerous because it could predjudice other members of the court.
If you have concerns about Roberts' ability to make impartial judgements. then by all means, state them but don't attack him because he won't tell you his personal beliefs.
I feel I have a right to know how a judge is going to rule when cases, such as abortion etc., come up to him. The Head of the Supreme Court is one of the most powerful positions in the world and again his views should be known.
Erik, you (and others) clearly don't seem to understand that the Supreme Court doesn't go into session one day and collectively decide "Hey, how about overuling such and such case today?" Roe vs Wade is over. The only way it could get overturned is if a new case was brought to the Supreme Court with different circumstances. If, in such a case Roe vs Wade was argued as a precedant, then, it is conceivable for the justices to find a flaw in that ruling and make a new ruling. I reiterate, to ask Roberts or any other judge how he/she would rule in such a case is grossly inappropriate since the facts of this hypothetical case are unknown. It is even more unfair to ask for personal opinions of this matter since they have no relavence i.e. their personal beliefs do not guide their dispassionate judgements.
How would you like it if you were hired or not hired based upon your personal beliefs? Roberts is entitled to the same rights as you and me.
Robert if you are telling me judges don't let their personal views clout their decisions you are more naive then I thought. Do you remember 2000?? The vote was strictly in terms of party lines. (I'm talking the election) And you can't convince me (until proven otherwise)that if an abortion case comes up that the court won't rule in favor of pro life in it's current makeup.
Fine Erik, but that's not my argument. I'm stating that it is inappropriate for Roberts to be forced to reveal his personal views as a job qualification.
Funny, I was listening to some of the things Roberts said for the first time and noticed he's making some of the same arguments I am. That is, evaluate him based on his ability to interpret the law, not whatever he personally believes.
By the way, I've been listening to a discussion concerning Roe vs Wade and polls show that the only reason the majority of Americans support it is because they don't really understand it.
Post a Comment