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"


Blogger Medusa said...

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)

9/16/2005 1:11 AM  
Anonymous AfroM said...

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?)

9/16/2005 5:09 AM  
Blogger Milonare said...

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!!

9/16/2005 9:25 AM  
Anonymous bukusu said...

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 .....

9/16/2005 11:15 AM  
Anonymous Irene said...

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...

9/16/2005 11:59 AM  
Blogger jjray said...

As Irene stated, I have not been too geared up about the Roberts nomination because the chances of the Democrats "Borking" him are low (i.e., pegging the guy a far right winger and then successfully filibustering his nomination). Roberts almost assured his nomination the first day when he stated right out of the box that he believes there is a right to privacy in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution (note: "privacy" is not one of the enumerated rights in the constitution nor its amendments and many hard right wingers believe the Constitution contains no such right. A woman's right to choose whether to abort a child is founded upon the implied right of privacy--her privacy rights over her own body). Roberts also said he believes Roe v. Wade is "settled law" meaning it is entitled to be respected as precedent of the US Supreme Court (doctrine of stare decisis). In my mind, that means Roberts is telling us he would not go for an all out repeal of Roe but probably is willing to nibble at the edges. Rehnquist is on record as desiring a repeal of Roe.

Roberts wrote several troubling memos during his time in the Reagan administration. He brushes it off on the grounds that he was just advocating for a client (i.e., Reagan). No one really knows his true thoughts on the subject. He is a devout Catholic so one has to assume that he personally is against abortion.

When you look at Roberts versus Rehnquist, he definitely has a smoother manner and says all the right things. He claims he is not an idealogue which Rehnquist clearly was. That should mean that Roberts has no agenda to roll back the rights of citizens found in the constitution or as established by S.Ct. precedent; however, we won't know which direction Roberts shall go until he starts voting in live cases. Bottom line: I don't see how he could turn out worse than Rehnquist. His appointment, based upon who he is replacing, shall not have any great impact on the court IMHO.

The big fight will come when the replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor is selected. She is one of the two swing votes on the court (Justice Kennedy being the other). She is also one of only two women on the court. I highly suspect that Bush will pull a Clarence Thomas on us and name a very conservative female to replace O'Connor. If O'Connor is replaced with a justice who will reliably vote with Scalia and Thomas, then balance of power will shift to the conservatives on the court.

9/16/2005 2:42 PM  
Blogger Afromusing said...

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 :)

9/20/2005 6:19 PM  
Blogger jjray said...

Today's NYT: Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the "ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee said today that he would vote to confirm Judge John G. Roberts Jr. as the 17th chief justice of the United States, having concluded that the nominee is 'a man of integrity' who is not shackled to an 'ideological agenda.' ... Democratic minority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, said he would vote against Judge Roberts."

Leahy's support seals it, Roberts is the next CJ of the S. Ct. Reid's "no" vote is just a protest (a tip of the hat to the democratic base). As the dems are in the minority, their only real weapon is a senate filibuster and they'd need all dem senators to join that fight to get it done.

Personally, I think the Dems are doing the right thing in choosing their fights carefully. Trying to "Bork" Roberts was a losing proposition so best to hold your fire, keep the powder dry and wait to see who W Bush nominates to replace Sandra Day O'Connor.

9/21/2005 12:34 PM  
Anonymous Pelangsing cepat said...

thanks for sharing

5/03/2015 11:42 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home