You're In The Agora
Welcome to the Net's best new source for commentary on current events, culture, faith, science and much more.
Faith
Confessing Evangelical Evangelical Outpost He Lives Mere Comments Mirror of Justice Religion Clause Three Hierarchies Science Dispatches from the Culture Wars In the Pipeline New Scientist Tierney Lab Liberty A Constrained Vision Asymmetrical Information Becker-Posner Blog Hit & Run Instapundit Positive Liberty The Agitator Volokh Conspiracy Economics Café Hayek EconLog Environmental Economics Freakonomics Free Exchange Greg Mankiw J. Bradfor DeLong Marginal Revolution The Right Andrew Sullivan Best of the Web Eunomia Hugh Hewitt Michelle Malkin Power Line The American Scene The Corner The Left After the Future Ezra Klein Matthew Yglesias Political Animal Talking Points Memo Errata Daniel Drezner Democracy in America Dilbert Blog Lilek's Bleat Overcoming Bias The Sartorialist Hoosiers Daily Contentions Indiana Barrister Masson's Blog Matthew Stevenson |
|
« Wal-Mart to the rescue | Main | Breaking News » September 12, 2005Court WatchThe US Senate Judiciary Committee will begin its confirmation hearings today for John Roberts. The hearings will mark the first US Supreme Court confirmation hearing in 11 years since former President Bill Clinton's successful nomination of Justice Stephen Breyer in 1994. If the nomination is successful, Roberts will begin work when the Court's new term commences on October 3. Committee chairman Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) has said that Roberts should be prepared for questions on several hot topics, including his views on the precedential effects of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the panel's highest ranking Democrat, has joined calls for increased scrutiny of the nomination, noting that the hearing "is the only opportunity for the American people to examine what kind of justice John Roberts will dispense if promoted to the Supreme Court." Reuters has more. Monday's hearing begins at 12 Noon ET; the Judiciary Committee offers a live webcast on its website. Meanwhile Robert Novak reports that President Bush "met secretly" with Judge Priscilla Owen last week. Novak also mentions Edith Jones (5th Circuit), Karen Williams (4th Circuit), and Michigan Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan as conservative women who may be under consideration to fill Justice O'Connor seat. Novak attributes the report about Judge Owen to "White House sources;" it isn't clear whether these additional names came from the White House or not. As Novak notes, Judge Jones is relatively old for the nomination at 56. Novak says that Edith Clement, reportedly the runner-up to John Roberts in the last go-round, didn't impress President Bush in her interview with him and is now out of the picture. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at September 12, 2005 12:03 PM CommentsIf I were the Dems and wanted to pressure Bush to release documents about Roberts he doesn't want to cough up for some reason, I think I'd start hammering away on Bush's nomination of "Brownie" as FEMA director. "We now know that we can't rely on Mr. Bush's judgment with respect to nominations and we can't rely on his vetting process to be accurate." Or some such. Posted by: Doug at September 12, 2005 12:30 PM | permalink Too old? Blech. Regardless of my opinion of someone's politics, I'm annoyed at the modern trend of going with younger and younger appointments. Whatever happened to going with older, respected jurists? Cardozo: 62 Sure, your appointment is on the Court longer, but Cardozo had more impact in 10 years than most justices have in 30. Posted by: A Steve at September 12, 2005 01:33 PM | permalink Well, Josh, you are, relatively speaking, a snot-nosed kid for your age. ;-) 56 is old? Guess I've got one foot in the grave. I think this helps explain why there is so much generation difference in thinking. Personally, I don't know that anyone needs to serve on the court for more than 15 years. Democrats certainly claimed that Reagan was too old to become president at age 69. But he always seemed younger than Walter Mondale. Posted by: Joel Thomas at September 12, 2005 01:41 PM | permalink If the Dems spend the whole time trying to get Roberts to commit to a position on Roe v Wade, they're wasting everybody's time. He's going to have a noncommital response prepared. There must be SOME other issue they can ask him about. How about federal govt vs states' rights? How about treatment of detainees overseas? How about what little is left of the fourth amendment? How about "takings" and environmental protection? How about vouchers for religious schools? He probably won't give straight answers on any of those, either, but at least there's something there to talk, as opposed to shout, about. Posted by: wahoofive at September 12, 2005 02:33 PM | permalink Posted by: Mean Dean at September 12, 2005 02:51 PM | permalink Or here's another one: Can a US citizen be imprisoned indefinitely just because the president wants it? Posted by: wahoofive at September 12, 2005 06:48 PM | permalink If Roberts sees a "right to privacy" in the Constitution, well then "I'm just pleased as punch." (An old Hubert Humphrey frequent saying, which I can easily recall, having one foot in the grave.) Posted by: Joel Thomas at September 13, 2005 12:21 PM | permalink Post a comment |
|
---- ADVERTISEMENTS ----
|