I’ve been watching the hearings on and off, mostly in between classes and studying for the past three days. As a Criminal Justice/Pre-Law Major it’s, for lack of better words, “pretty cool” (damn, that was corny) to watch some history in the making on live television. Today in my Criminal Justice: Courts class our professor “rewarded” us for doing well on our first exam this past Monday (I scored a 91%) and turned on CNN, and we watched the beginnings of today’s rounds of questioning rather than have the usual lecture and note-taking session. As if on cue Roberts sidestepped certain questions and issues, mostly posed by the Dems. And we remember that Justice Ginsburg did the same thing and used the ‘Judicial Fifth’ to get out of answering certain questions when she was up for her confirmation hearing.
To me at least, I have noticed Roberts’ carefully coached side come out while he was both answering and dodging questions. And perhaps some, dare I say, “flip-flopping” from him on certain issues, so as to appear to be a docile moderate. Twenty-some years ago he said something along the lines of “the so-called right to privacy” does not exist, now he says ‘there is a right to privacy.’ (yes, poor paraphrasing on my part). Then he goes on to repeat the ‘Roe was established and settled, *stare decisis*, blah, blah,‘ mantra. Funny, stare decisis was actually one of my Courts class’s ‘vocab’ words on Monday’s exam. Senator Biden and Kennedy have been pressing Roberts pretty hard during their questioning sessions, and I was surprised to see Feinstein go after him a little bit. And this exchange between Biden and Roberts was pretty, uh, interesting?
Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Delaware: “Judge, is gender discrimination, as you’ve written in a memo, a perceived problem, or is it a real problem?
John Roberts: “Of course gender discrimination is a serious problem. It’s a particular concern of mine and always has been. I grew up with three sisters, all of whom work outside the home. I married a lawyer who works outside the home. I have a young daughter who I hope will have all of the opportunities available to her without regard to any gender discrimination. There’s no suggestion in anything that I’ve written of any resistance to the basic idea of full citizenship without regard to gender.”
(arches a brow)
********
Now for some links and bloggers linking back and forth from each other, because we like doing that:
Echidne of the Snakes said on Monday that Roberts reminds her of ‘Sleeping Beauty.’
Feminist Majority: “Roberts ducks questions on reproductive rights.”
Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon has an answer for Armando of the DailyKos…
The National Organization of Women is, naturally, not happy with Roberts’ refusal to clearly answer questions about and endorse Roe v. Wade and Privacy Rights.
Sheelzebub of Pinko Feminist Hellcat actually agrees with a certain “lefty” male blogger…
In their post-titles, Roxanne of Rox Populi and Lauren of Feministe seem to be in agreement about the hearings.
SCOTUSblog’s live-blogging of the hearings….
Some limericks on Roberts’ performance from MadKane…
Yesterday, Egalia of Tennessee Guerilla Women: “Roberts has no agenda and no womb either…”
The Heretik: “Damned Democrats.”
Planned Parenthood’s “we oppose Roberts” statement for the day and their Roberts’ Hearing Blog.
Gee, imagine all the fun we’ll have yet again when Dubya nominates another potential Supreme Court justice.
As with the old Jell-O[tm] slogan, “There’s Always Room For One More Cop-Out.” :p
Nice of Lauren to point out that Roe has been eroded so badly over the years;Truth is, a lot of these patriarchal DP party hack shitheads –in office and on blogs– probably have no problem with that. Hell, the elected species participates in these erosions with the sure-fire knowledge that their own pwecious daughters and wives won’t be affected. If Roe stays on the books but only a scant handful of privileged women can actually get an abortion, they are two-time winners. They compel us to stay barefoot, pregnant, and out of their way, but they also get to claim that they’re really Nice Guys Who Care.
Let’s not forget the ancillary slogan: “There’s Always One More Reason To Put Off Founding That Woman’s Party.” [tm] :p Do you suppose that when there are finally so many Rightie justices on the SC that Roberts is the default moderate voice –and when the usual passive-aggressive shills are saying that “we” need to “save our strength” for the next big battle and not make a fuss– it’ll finally be time ?
(Just sign me “laughing on the outside…”)
Thanks so much for linking to my Roberts limericks and for your fine selection of Roberts linkage.
Roe has been whittled down. Where the law allows liberty, regulation restricts its full flowering. And the Democrats are not doing much to keep Roberts from having anything but a smooth ride to a seat on the bench for life. Why people don’t see the implications of Roberts ascendancy speaks to the fact that people presume life will be as it is now forever into the future. Or will it be the past?
I piped in, too, on my blog. I was an Independent until the last election, when I switched to Dem. I’m seriously considering switching back to Independent, since the Dems don’t seem to think that women’s reproductive health is an important issue.
Why is Roberts’s confirmation all about abortion? The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in the case of Jose Padilla that the President has the authority to detain US citizens indefinitely without charge, and that case will likely come before the Supreme Court. Roberts’s previous rulings seem to indicate that he would uphold this ruling and other similar rulings infringing on Constitutional rights and international law.
Trading Roberts for Rehnquist doesn’t change the equation on Roe. It may not make much difference to other civil-liberties cases either, but I don’t understand why everyone (on both the right and the left) is more concerned about abortion than about the possibility that a US citizen could be locked up for the rest of their life without due process.
Now don’t everybody flame at once.
Just for the record, I didn’t see The Countess’s comment before posting mine. Women’s reproductive health is an important issue. I just don’t think it should crowd everything else off the stage.
IIRC, no justice has ever answered questions on how they might rule in the future on specific issues. Judge Roberts isn’t going to be the first. Neither is Pres. Bush’s next nominee, who, if they are not a complete nutball, will also get confirmed. Not that the President isn’t capable of nominating a complete nutball, but I doubt it will happen.
Sure, Roberts has been coached. Any nominee to the Supremes will be coached, no matter who’s President. The basic principles seem to be 1) don’t tell anyone anything about how you’re going to rule on a given case, hypothetical or not, and 2) keep control of your emotions.
Roberts’s previous rulings seem to indicate that he would uphold this ruling and other similar rulings infringing on Constitutional rights and international law.
International law is only relevant to the Supreme Court when it is part of a treaty that the President has signed and the Senate has ratified. Being a member of the U.N. does not make any hare-brained scheme the U.N. comes up with law that the U.S. is subject to. I make this point because one recent ruling by the U.S. on the death penalty (which I oppose) cited Scottish and other laws. The Supreme Court has no business considering any laws that are not American.
I think that the ruling on Jose Padilla was wrong. Designating a non-citizen as a “foreign combatant” (or whatever the phrase is) seems legitmate to me, but an American citizen has rights that no American official should be able to erase.
It’s not the only issue to “everyone on the left,” Lu. It’s just that the liberal blogosphere and its Right-wing gate crashers have a different definition of what constitutes the full range of “left” issues than some other folks do.
La Lubu, I agree that abortion isn’t the only issue, but it’s an important one. I’m glad it’s getting discussed. I’m sure Roberts will be confirmed, and replacing Rehnquist with him won’t be much of a change. The Padilla case is also getting attention regarding Roberts. I don’t think one issue is necessarily taking attention from the other.
Replacing Rhenquist with Roberts is expected to be a wash, although you never know how these things turn out. It’s the O’Connor replacement that will possibly make a big change in the Court.
Out of curiousity (haven’t been able to figure out the correct sequence to google!), how precedented is replacing a Chief Justice with someone who hasn’t even sat on the supreme court before?
Honestly, this is the one that has me thrown for a loop, and I haven’t heard others really mentioning it. Is it that common?
Kim,
From wikipedia:
Yes, any President who gets to appoint a Chief Justice would like to have a person that he appointed to the court himself. It allows the “Chief Justice X” court to have the appointing President get full credit for its legacy.