John Roberts

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by traveler, Sep 13, 2005.

  1. traveler

    traveler Guest

    I don't know if any of you out there are watching any of the confirmation hearings but John Roberts is an extraordinary speaker who is able to answer questions put to him distinctly and precisely. His answers are well thought out and are made with almost no hesitation. I feel this man is an excellent pick for Chief Justice.
     
  2. wily_old_vet

    wily_old_vet Guest

    I love the fact that for the most part his answers come without the use of notes while the Senators questioning him have to read their questions.
     
  3. susiedriver

    susiedriver Guest

    traveler,

    You surprise me. Some on the right have already said "this nomination is shaping up as the biggest failure of the Bush presidency".

    It was refreshing to hear Fienstein actually ask questions instead using it as an opportunity to give a speach.

    I would like to know more about his views. He has repeatedly stated that the thousands of pages of writings we have access to merely reflect the positions of his bosses at the time, and not his own opinions.
     
  4. moreluck

    moreluck Guest

    Fienstein sickens me unless it's Harvey instead of Diane.
     
  5. traveler

    traveler Guest

    susiedriver,

    Though my tendencies are to the right I am certainly NOT far right. There are even a few Democrats that rate high on my list of people! Surprise, surprise!
     
  6. susiedriver

    susiedriver Guest

    traveler,

    Though I am left-leaning socially, I am hard pressed to name a few dem politicians that rate highly on my list of people. In fact, I'm hard pressed to name many politicians at all. I used to admire McCain, and have high hopes for Obama, but it's too early to tell.

    Off topic, but can you explain to me how this crew of current republicans can call themselves conservatives when they spend my money like drunken sailors?(no offense meant to sailors or drunks(don't want wily or danny calling me out for cracking wise about our armed forces)).

    Thanks,

    sd
     
  7. wily_old_vet

    wily_old_vet Guest

    susie-from everything i've seen from you if your were leaning any further left you'd be parallel to the ground.
     
  8. susiedriver

    susiedriver Guest

    Only socially, wily. I think government should exist to enrich everyone's life, not just the privileged. Fiscally, I'm conservative. I'm tired of being raped by politicians that are only in it to line their pockets and those of their buddies. Look at what Bush has done to FEMA, for a perfect example. How many of the top execs have no experience other than campaign fundraising?
     
  9. over9five

    over9five Guest

    "Oh, and by the way.... I hate Bush"
     
  10. traveler

    traveler Guest

    Off topic, but can you explain to me how this crew of current republicans can call themselves conservatives when they spend my money like drunken sailors?(no offense meant to sailors or drunks(don't want wily or danny calling me out for cracking wise about our armed forces)).
    Because they can!
     
  11. toonertoo

    toonertoo Guest

    I was listening to a radio station tonight, comparing Bidens questioning of Ginzberg, during her hearings, to his questioning of Roberts. What a difference 12 yrs and different party affiliations make. He sounds fair to me. He looks and acts knowledgeable. I guess it was time for it to be a minority appointment, but maybe none were available that could rise to the level desired by both parties?
     
  12. ok2bclever

    ok2bclever Guest

    Well first off, as polarized as the current two party system has become there isn't a candidate that would be desired by both parties as each side wants to put someone in the Supreme Court to make policy in the direction of their philosophies.

    That said, you cannot really mean what you just said tooner.

    I am not saying it should be a minority candidate, but you cannot really believe there are no qualified minority candidates in the USA or even that there are no minority candidates as qualified as Roberts.
     
  13. toonertoo

    toonertoo Guest

    I dont know what candidates were avaialble. I thought Oconnor would be replaced with a woman, just to keep balance, but that didnt happen and no one much seemed to care. I dont see that the gender makes a difference, I think it should be the best candidate. I have never read his writings, but doesnt seem they have been able to find much wrong with him.
     
  14. ok2bclever

    ok2bclever Guest

    I would agree that it should be the best candidate, but you know that hasn't ever been the case as this has always been a politically based nomination.

    That there are only two female justices (22%), now probably going down to one (11%) in a country where the female population is well over 50% of the country means either there are no qualified females in the entire USA (what, are you ladies, stupid? NOT!) or the Supreme Court has always been a biased political appointment subject to the prevailing discriminatory "good ole boys" club and will remain so.
     
  15. tieguy

    tieguy Guest

    "Look at what Bush has done to FEMA, for a perfect example."

    Thats odd. All the news stories I have read give congress the credit for reorganizing fema under homeland security. Remember when we had the big 9-11 inquisition and congress identified agencies acting independently of each other as a root cause for the 9-11 disaster? Now it appears we will swing the other way until the next disaster changes our minds again
     
  16. tieguy

    tieguy Guest

    Roberts was groomed for the job and will easily win nomination unless teddy K. is successfull in digging up something out of Roberts closet.
     
  17. sendagain

    sendagain Guest

    Tieguy...You're right on there. The democrats were all saying that there should be one person handling intelligence, managing all departments. Now, they are screaming about hindering FEMA by placing it under homeland security. Seems to me, they just want to bitch.
     
  18. upsdawg

    upsdawg Guest

    Tie

    Roberts was groomed for the job and will easily win nomination unless teddy K. is successfull in digging up something out of Roberts closet.

    Believe me they have tried to dig and have come up empty--it must really burn the Democrats that they really have to bite the bullet on this one and confrim Roberts.I know they are preparing for the next nominee--probably Gonzales---should be interesting!

    Regarding Suzie's comments:
    Off topic, but can you explain to me how this crew of current republicans can call themselves conservatives when they spend my money like drunken sailors?

    I can't imagine that if, and I say if with a smile, the Democrats were the ruling power that they wouldn't be spending even more money---their take would be if NO is going to be rebuilt--it can only be built with Unionized labor at prevailing wages-thus tripling the amount of money that it would normally take!!
     
  19. toonertoo

    toonertoo Guest

    OK2b, I see what you are saying, and I know there are many women lawyers, who could possible be adept enough to be, but what is the percentage of women lawyers, compared to men? Seems to me they dont want to try. Other than Janice Rogers and Priscilla Owens. UPS is still predominately male, but that is because most women dont want or cant do the job. Same with many male dominated industries, construction, truck driving, heavy equipment operators, etc. I cant say that it is easy for a female to get in these kinds of jobs, with EOE, I think if they are qualified, they will usually be given the chance. Most dont want that kind of a job. JMHO.
    PS. I didnt want it either, but I needed to make the money UPS paid.
    I was very in love with operations, but I could not get full time any other way. I wanted to use my degree, and manage, but I didnt like UPS management after 6 yrs as a part time sup.
     
  20. ezrider

    ezrider Guest

    Ok2bclever

    Not that I disagree with that at least in Roberts' circumstance, since it's pretty clear he's certainly "in the loop" and has a history with those who currently wield power. But that doesn't neccesarilly mean that you think the buddy system applies each time a Supreme Court nomination has come up right?

    Or does it?