Gee, did Karl Rove spread his evil tentacles even further to force this District Court Judge to strike down saying "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and provide the American people with another example of the type of ruling they don't like to see from judges. In fact, the whole spectacle of the Roberts hearings, if anyone is watching it, would present people with an example of Democrats who are more interested in feelings than in the actual words of the Constitution.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., was only a little more successful. "I guess what has begun to concern me a little bit is Judge Roberts, the legal automaton, as opposed to Judge Roberts, the man," she said. "I do expect to know a little bit more about how you feel and how you think as a man, because you're a very young man to be chief justice."
So, if she decides to vote against him it will be because she just doesn't like him as a man? This is a totally new standard to be using for assessing judicial nominees.
On C-Span on Sunday they had an interview with a woman who worked with Judge Roberts when he was in private practice and she was effusive in her praise of his manner of dealing with other people. She talked about how he always had time to help other lawyers and never made them feel that he had something more important to do. She talked about how there were many with tears in their eyes at his going away party when he left to join the Bench. I have never read anyone write or say anything against Roberts the man. What does Diane Feinstein think she's going to learn in a Senate hearing about the man? What a dumb approach to confirming a Chief Justice. posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:40 AM
0 comments
Comments:
Gee, did Karl Rove spread his evil tentacles even further to force this District Court Judge to strike down saying "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and provide the American people with another example of the type of ruling they don't like to see from judges. In fact, the whole spectacle of the Roberts hearings, if anyone is watching it, would present people with an example of Democrats who are more interested in feelings than in the actual words of the Constitution.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., was only a little more successful. "I guess what has begun to concern me a little bit is Judge Roberts, the legal automaton, as opposed to Judge Roberts, the man," she said. "I do expect to know a little bit more about how you feel and how you think as a man, because you're a very young man to be chief justice."
So, if she decides to vote against him it will be because she just doesn't like him as a man? This is a totally new standard to be using for assessing judicial nominees.
On C-Span on Sunday they had an interview with a woman who worked with Judge Roberts when he was in private practice and she was effusive in her praise of his manner of dealing with other people. She talked about how he always had time to help other lawyers and never made them feel that he had something more important to do. She talked about how there were many with tears in their eyes at his going away party when he left to join the Bench. I have never read anyone write or say anything against Roberts the man. What does Diane Feinstein think she's going to learn in a Senate hearing about the man? What a dumb approach to confirming a Chief Justice. posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:40 AM
0 comments
