* ping *

What aspect of the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruling disturbs you?

Not the SC ruling per se, but Robert's support of the President in giving almost a blank-check with regards to the holding an prosecuting of terrorists.

I know that desperate times call for desperate measures, but the SC does at times go a bit "overboard" protecting the state during a "war". If Roberts is confiremd and holds these ideas of Presidential powrs I can easily see an abuse or maytbe unjust use of that power down the road. I am waiting for the hearings, maybe then we can ascertain his ideas on Presidential powers and the right to due process and right to privacy.

IG

Not the SC ruling per se, but Robert's support of the President in giving almost a blank-check with regards to the holding an prosecuting of terrorists.

Ok, but what Bush is doing with Hamdan is not unprecedented.  Perhaps the only unprecedented part was that it got to court (I dont remember any German POWS suing the US Government).

I understand your reservation.  I just dont see that this was that big a deal, especially since it was a unanimous ruling.

Now that that has been cleared up, to answer your call to debate.

I dont think most people know enough about him to hold strong opinions.  I sure do not.  I would hope he was a conservative in the mold of Scalia, but then look at some of the other 'conservatives' appointed by past presidents?

Regardless, as long as he is judicially qualified, I dont think it is the senates right to pry into his politics.  After all, in 93, easily over 50% of the senate could have been said to be right of Ginsberg (she was not a stealth candidate), yet only 3 voted against her.

What a judge may or "may not" think on a particular subject should be immaterial to we the people. It's not up to us to confirm or deny any judicial appointment. That being said...You do realize that the questions being asked of him are trying to make him violate the the cannons of judical ethics? Here's the link:
Link

I dont think it is the senates right to pry into his politics.

But a person' spolitics form their views. Perhaps not nit-pick, but get an idea as to how he stands on general point of ideology.

We do not have to ask him about internment camps, but maybe ask him if the main focus of Hamdan could be applied to citizens of the US captured in the US? Can the President remove or indefinately delay due process?

Nothing specifics, but the citizens should know where the person about to be elevated to the jurist of the law of the land stands on the basics.

IG

We do not have to ask him about internment camps, but maybe ask him if the main focus of Hamdan could be applied to citizens of the US captured in the US? Can the President remove or indefinately delay due process?

Oh, I definitely hope that someone does ask him that question.  For that goes directly to competance.  I have no problem asking him about his past rulings and the whys of them, but I dont think asking hypothetical question on potential future cases is any of their or in fact my business.

I dont think it is the senates right to pry into his politics. But a person' spolitics form their views. Perhaps not nit-pick, but get an idea as to how he stands on general point of ideology. We do not have to ask him about internment camps, but maybe ask him if the main focus of Hamdan could be applied to citizens of the US captured in the US? Can the President remove or indefinately delay due process? Nothing specifics, but the citizens should know where the person about to be elevated to the jurist of the law of the land stands on the basics. IG

Sorry but this goes against judical ethics. Basically you are asking him to form an opinion based on nothing! No evidence or testimony.

hypothetical question on potential future

True, not about future cases, but a question regarding how far the president's powers extend in times of crisis is, I think, pertinent.

What a judge may or "may not" think on a particular subject should be immaterial to we the people. It's not up to us to confirm or deny any judicial appointment.

But, if the senators are our representatives, that means we have a voice, and ideally it is we who confirm or deny. Also how a judge things on particular section of laew is very much material. The philosphy the judge holds affects his rulings.

IG

It's easy to find reasons to be disturbed by any Supreme Court justice or nominee, from the point of view of any faction.

That's why there's nine of them, instead of just one, and why the whole system is set up so that over time no one faction gets permanent control of the Court. Not to mention the checks and balances provided by the other two Branches of government.

So what if Roberts takes a hard line on terrorism? Would you deny many of your fellow citizens the right to have justices that reflect their opinions on the matter, rather than your own?

Would you deny many of your fellow citizens the right to have justices that reflect their opinions on the matter, rather than your own?

No, but their views and my views really don't enter Robert's decisional equation. While everyone would like a judge that reflects thier views, the more important thing is how he views the law and elements of the law as it applies to the citizenry.

In 15 or 20 years, the views of thepopulace will have changed, but this philosophy for the most part will not.

IG

But, if the senators are our representatives, that means we have a voice, and ideally it is we who confirm or deny. Also how a judge things on particular section of laew is very much material. The philosphy the judge holds affects his rulings.

Like I said before, the answers to questions being asked are trying to make Brown "violate" the code of judicial ethics. And given that, the questions should "not" be asked. What all this means is that we should "not" have a voice in this! On senators and the like? Hell yes! They are "elected" officials! Judges? Hell no! They are "appointed" by whoever the current admin is.

Main Entry: ap·point Pronunciation: &-'point Function: verb Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French apointier to arrange, from a- (from Latin ad-) + point point transitive senses 1 a : to fix or set officially b : to name officially c archaic :

Main Entry: elect Function: verb Etymology: Middle English, from Latin electus transitive senses 1 : to select by vote for an office, position, or membership

On senators and the like? Hell yes! They are "elected" officials! Judges? Hell no! They are "appointed" by whoever the current admin is.

But if we elect the senators, shouldn't they not reflect the will of their electorate? Aren't the senators our voice in the governmental process.

With regards to questions. There are enough lawyers on that committee who should know what questions to ask. If we cannot ask him about future events then question him about his previous decisions. We should be able to gleen enough about his positions to know where he stands.

IG

But if we elect the senators, shouldn't they not reflect the will of their electorate? Aren't the senators our voice in the governmental process. With regards to questions. There are enough lawyers on that committee who should know what questions to ask. If we cannot ask him about future events then question him about his previous decisions. We should be able to gleen enough about his positions to know where he stands. IG

"Why" should you have to question him about previous decisions? Those would be a matter of record. Spend the time to look them up and read them. And the lawyers on the committee? Obviously they don't know or else they don't care about Brown answering questions that would fall under judicial ethics. And to be quite honest "where" he stands should mean nothing to you and me. Did it mean anything before? NO! Not until GW tried to appoint judges. Did it mean anything under Clinton, Reagan, Carter or Ford? Of course not. Just under Bush. And just as an aside....

Thursday, July 21, 2005 10:20 a.m. EDT Orrin Hatch Blasts Chuck Schumer's 'Dumbass Questions' Sen. Charles Schumer's questioning of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts was so hostile during Roberts' 2003 appellate court confirmation hearings that Sen. Orrin Hatch blasted his New York colleague for asking "dumbass questions." In a audioclip of the exchange unearthed Wednesday by ABC Radio host Sean Hannity, the normally mild-mannered Utah Republican complained: "Some [of Schumer’s questions] I totally disagree with. Some I think are dumbass questions, between you and me." "I am not kidding you," Hatch continued. "I mean, as much as I love and respect [Schumer], I just think that’s true." Taken aback, the New York Democrat asked if Hatch would like to "revise and extend his remark" - i.e., offer a retraction for the congressional record. But Hatch refused to back down, telling Schumer: "No, I am going to keep it exactly the way it is. I mean, I hate to say it. I mean, I feel badly saying it between you and me. But I do know dumbass questions when I see dumbass questions."