pudge's Journal: Set-up

After yesterday's hearings, I thought something, and I think it even more strongly now. The Democrats are not trying to kill Roberts, they are instead using him.

They know they can't defeat him. And yes, to some degree, this is about appeasing their "base." However, what they are really doing is attempting to establish and solidify the "rules of engagement" so they can use them against the next nominee.

Remember this phrase: "Why won't you answer the question? Chief Justice Roberts did."

Probably right...

[FroMan]

I think the adminsitration giving 80's era documents was a bad precedent also. I am sure that there is a large gun pointing at their foot right now with a Kennedy playing with the trigger.

We will see though. Somehow I doubt the left is going to be clamoring for Renquist to be replaced with a constructionist like they wanted a moderate to replace O'Connor. At best we can assume Roberts is a moderate, not a Renquist.

Re:Probably right...

[pudge]

I think Roberts is more of a strict constructionist than Rehnquist was. Maybe not more than Scalia, but maybe about as much.

Next nominee

[baldass_newbie]

The next nominee should refuse to show before congress stating that this didn't start until the 1940s and falls outside of congress's role of advise and consent.

And I find it remarkable how Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy can question anyone about integrity. (I won't even discuss Schumer who is displaying little, if any, understanding about the Judiciary or laws.)

It's kind of a sad display, really.

Re:Next nominee

[pudge]

The next nominee should refuse to show before congress stating that this didn't start until the 1940s and falls outside of congress's role of advise and consent.

That wouldn't work. The Court nor the President have the authority to tell the Senate it can't do this, and the people of the country like the process more than they dislikes it, and so the Senate will have the full force of law and public opinion to refuse to confirm a nominee who did that.