Thursday, September 15, 2005

John Roberts Job Interview

Has John Roberts ever been on a job interview? If so, and he failed to answer as many questions there as he has in the Senate, he would never have been hired. Since when does secrecy, evasion and "no comment" fill in for substance? Obviously since the Bush administration took office, as that is on page one on the President's playbook of standard operating procedure. If nominated, this Chief Justice will mold the shape of the Supreme Court for the next 40 years. The American People deserve the same from Roberts as we'd expect from anyone on a job interview. Answer the questions, or see the door. The arrogance of his position based on avoiding answers, is a worrisome indicator the he feels unaccountable to his own record. So what is he hiding? Why is the Bush Administration sill refusing to turn over more of his records? Since when is that behaviour Chief Justice material?


Blogger Colleen said...

my husband and i have gone round and round about these interviews. (i should say the DH is not only an attorney but a republican, although he is a very moderate one, and i still love him no matter how conservative he is). i want to know more too. makes you wonder why they aren't telling us.

and, this is just another one of those moments where i wished i lived the west wing life. old white guy dies, they get a liberal woman. old white guy dies, old white woman retired, we get another white guy. sigh.

6:42 AM, September 16, 2005  
Blogger That Dude said...

u guys didnt have a problem with Ginsberg not answering questions. Why this new standard?

7:29 AM, September 16, 2005  
Anonymous Boni said...

As much as I would like to share my view, it would not be prudent for me to comment at this time. I would love to give you my view, but I think I should stay away from discussing particular issues. I just think it would be innapropriate for me to comment.
But, hey...check out these links, QuickTime:
Win Media:
to see a scathing TV spot about our "Cat got your tongue" Supreme Court Nominee.
I am so sick of the B.S. aren't you?

11:53 AM, September 16, 2005  
Blogger Philip Morton said...

Dude: I don't think it would be proper for me to comment on your post at this time on Ginsberg, as it may affect readers who may want to post on this in the future, and therefore may affect my and possibly their potential posting or lack of posting.

12:21 PM, September 16, 2005  
Blogger That Dude said...

interesting (and funny response) but seriously, why the new standard?

8:26 PM, September 16, 2005  
Blogger Philip Morton said...

Dude: It goes something like this, don't change the rules when you're captain of the team. When GOP lead congress under Clinton, and Clinton put up Ruth Gader Ginsberg for judicial review, here was the GOP response on questioning: "When her nomination went to the Senate for confirmation Sen. William Cohen (R-Maine) stated bluntly that the nominee's ideology was rightly a matter of concern." So they made a point to ask her many questions in this vein and she answered, and she was voted in. But now suddenly it's not cool. The Bork inquiry, under Reagan and the subsequent vote against him, was based on Bork's ideological history on paper and in questioning (standard set right there - the '80's), and set the stage for selecting candidates with short paper trails so that one could no longer get a sense of a judge's ideology on paper. What's left? Selecting a candidate with little evidence on paper, then refuse to release most of the paper (as the Bush adminstration has done) And what's left is asking questions, that's the new standard. Not the old standard set under Reagon, and continued under Carter, Bush I and Clinton which is look at the record and ask all the questions you want. GOP did it to those selected under Clinton and made a point to argue for it. Now suddenly they change the rules. That's why. Really makes it seem like there's something to hide, and as Roberts seems to be such a team player, and to my eyes this team is so far right/religious conservative, it could have dangerous effects to ALL our rights, yours and mine. Forget liberal, conservative, dem, rep. I'm talking basic freedoms that you and I take for granted, that this chief justice could find little interest in defending.

9:13 PM, September 16, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home