Sen. Dianne Feinstein
Driveway moment twice this week, listening to npr's summary of the confirmation hearings for John Roberts to be the Chief Justice of the U.S.
What stood out yesterday were Sen. Dianne Feinstein's questions regarding how John Roberts felt about women, whether he did have an 'acerbic pen' or did he actually believe that women should not be equally remunerated in the workplace (or something like that).
You can listen to the summaries on the link above...
I was gallavanting about, but i think he avoided the question
Today's summary also included Sen. Dianne Feinstein's wrestling with just how important her vote is (she is the only woman on the senate judiciary commitee). I havent been watching the proceedings closely enough to offer much, though i suspect jjray has...Your thoughts please? Especially regarding privacy and womens rights.
Oh and today they mentioned that John Roberts once referred to mexican immigrants as
"Illegal Amigos"
What stood out yesterday were Sen. Dianne Feinstein's questions regarding how John Roberts felt about women, whether he did have an 'acerbic pen' or did he actually believe that women should not be equally remunerated in the workplace (or something like that).
You can listen to the summaries on the link above...
I was gallavanting about, but i think he avoided the question
Today's summary also included Sen. Dianne Feinstein's wrestling with just how important her vote is (she is the only woman on the senate judiciary commitee). I havent been watching the proceedings closely enough to offer much, though i suspect jjray has...Your thoughts please? Especially regarding privacy and womens rights.
Oh and today they mentioned that John Roberts once referred to mexican immigrants as
"Illegal Amigos"
posted by Afromusing at
9/15/2005 07:10:00 PM
7 Comments:
I've been following the hearings on NPR as well- albeit infrequently. Some days, its drawn out and I just kinda nod off.. Thus far,it seems he's quite the artful dodger..more than once 'respectfully declining' to answer questions- Despite my rudimentary knowledge of the entire process and his record, from what I've heard so far..i think historians many years from now will mark his appointment as the beginning of a societal/cultural revolution in the US of A..( I dunno if all that makes sense..I promise it does in my head)
medusa, i think it makes sense. After hearing about his memos and his liner notes i felt quite queasy, especially since womens/minority rights do appear in jeopardy (am i being paranoid?)
Cant offer much by virtue of being clueless bout the whole issue...
However, I did like illegal amigos from a purely phonic perspective.
I was imagining a kyuk calling out to his "Illego Amigo" LOL
Auuuwu... I've dotted!!
I think there are 2 sides - some judges who interpret the constitution and those who stick to its text as intended by the founding fathers ... (Scalia, Thomas) alot of the future depends on where he will fit it
I respect this guy - been following on NPR
a. He declined to answer most Q coz he will be dealing with them in near term and he does not want to compromise the integrity of the court by saying one thing in a sworn confirmation hearing and dissenting in his rullings
b. He kept saying in the court, judges discuss internally and some may change sides, by giving answers at the hearing, he will have have put himself in one corner without considering all evidence
c. He raised a very important point - his views DONT matter, as a lawyer he was representing his clients .... so he support his views ... makes sense to me ....
d. Rights {women, minority} - he supported a Reagan era deal about removing the need for Quotas in affirmative action ..... not killing Affirmative action .... bottom line - the client was Reagan :)
I respect this guy - and its laughable that the senators could not get ANYTHING out of him
American Bar Association gave him a thumbs up but National Association of Female Litigators was concerned a little .....
{http://www.abanet.org/nawl/news/release083005.html}
As the issue stands right now, I think (and JJR agrees) that the more crucial matter is who replaces Sandra Day O'Connor. Since John Roberts is not a total wacko, his nomination will definitely sail through. Will he advance womens'/minority rights? Definitely not. Will he maintain the status quo? We do not know. He cannot be worse than the ultra conservative guy he's replacing (Renquist). I think the nomination to watch is that of O'Connor's replacement. That could really have a huge impact on wide arrray of judicial matters...
hey guys, this is really interesting getting your input about this...Sen. Harry Reid is going to vote NO(oranges) on Roberts, so i guess its something to watch. Thanks again for your input, feel free to post updates on this thread :)
thanks for sharing
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home