Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
View Poll Results: in the wake of katrina, will john roberts sail through the confirmation hearings?
Location: on the run from johnny law... ain't no trip to cleveland
Posts: 9,352
A$FN: 1,000
i disagree, sort of. no, it won't change the votes. john roberts will be voted in by a large majority, regardless of the storm. but i think the actual hearings will not be as petty as chuck schumer will like them to be.
NO, he will not sail through, infact he will now face a tougher road because of being nominated CJ...
I know that well be hearing a lot from the pundits about why are they worrying about JR so much when we have a disaster in NO... One does not have to do with the other, and just like in the aftermath of any disaster (man made or Natural) they should always keep their eyes on the prize.
Otherwise, things will be slipped past that would not be prior to disaster and that is another lesson of 9/11 IMO.
Location: on the run from johnny law... ain't no trip to cleveland
Posts: 9,352
A$FN: 1,000
also, just to clarify, the question here is whether or not the hearings will be easier as a result of this. i think, prior to katrina (and during, if you're chuck schumer), that certain people were hell bent on finding anything to smear him. they couldn't find anything, but still, they tried to fabricate things. i think this kind of fabrication will suddenly be seen as very trivial in the wake of real issues.
also, just to clarify, the question here is whether or not the hearings will be easier as a result of this. i think, prior to katrina (and during, if you're chuck schumer), that certain people were hell bent on finding anything to smear him. they couldn't find anything, but still, they tried to fabricate things. i think this kind of fabrication will suddenly be seen as very trivial in the wake of real issues.
What exactly have Democrats tried to fabricate Jenna? And please dont use that junior reporters story on JR's neighborhood growing up, I mean real Democrats in the Senate/House.
If they have serious questions they want answered they should be. This guy has virtually no record and should be scrutinized.
And--like I said earlier--the confirmation process and the tragedy in NO have nothing to do with eachother. Pretty much everything is trivial when compared to the tragedy, but that does not mean that scrutiny should be suspened in light of it.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has a job to do and that job is to determine the qualifications of a judge for the Supreme Court and not to worry about how their job is affected by something tragic and horrible, yet unrealated to their job.
Location: on the run from johnny law... ain't no trip to cleveland
Posts: 9,352
A$FN: 1,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoyaltyisaCurse
What exactly have Democrats tried to fabricate Jenna? And please dont use that junior reporters story on JR's neighborhood growing up, I mean real Democrats in the Senate/House.
chuck schumer has been chomping at the bit trying to find anything that could be used against him. he has yet to find anything. but i think a couple of good examples of other democrats would be naral or the new york times. both did reprehensible things in their efforts to keep him off the courts.
Quote:
If they have serious questions they want answered they should be. This guy has virtually no record and should be scrutinized.
yeah, right, answer questions. just like ginsberg, eh?
Quote:
And--like I said earlier--the confirmation process and the tragedy in NO have nothing to do with eachother. Pretty much everything is trivial when compared to the tragedy, but that does not mean that scrutiny should be suspened in light of it.
no, they don't have anything to do with each other. but when the scrutiny has been reduced to mere pettiness because people are upset that they have nothing to smear him with, then this is a case where a tragedy really brings to light how desperate some people are.
Quote:
The Senate Judiciary Committee has a job to do and that job is to determine the qualifications of a judge for the Supreme Court and not to worry about how their job is affected by something tragic and horrible, yet unrealated to their job.
the committee has a job to do, and that job is to make sure john roberts doesn't have any huge ethical problems, not to find out how he would vote in every situation. unfortunately, the latter seems more what people on the left are focused on.
chuck schumer has been chomping at the bit trying to find anything that could be used against him. he has yet to find anything. but i think a couple of good examples of other democrats would be naral or the new york times. both did reprehensible things in their efforts to keep him off the courts.
Examples from members of congress please, I am not interested in opinions of news papers, journalist, etc..
Quote:
Originally Posted by jenna2891
yeah, right, answer questions. just like ginsberg, eh?
lol...That is a serious stretch
Quote:
Originally Posted by jenna2891
no, they don't have anything to do with each other. but when the scrutiny has been reduced to mere pettiness because people are upset that they have nothing to smear him with, then this is a case where a tragedy really brings to light how desperate some people are.
It still makes no sense to even bring up the discussion and has no place in the process. IMO bringing that up is an attempt to trivialize a very important process of government and to marginalize some Democrat's concern about a stealth candidate.
What do you coinsider petty questions or topics?
Also, what examples of smearing by actual Democrats on the judiciary committee or congress can you provide, for I have not seen any evidence of smearing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jenna2891
the committee has a job to do, and that job is to make sure john roberts doesn't have any huge ethical problems, not to find out how he would vote in every situation. unfortunately, the latter seems more what people on the left are focused on.
What can you base that opinion on Jenna? Seems to me, this is an excuse that is brought up when it is a subject or question that Republicans or some on the right don't like to discuss and thus does not make the concerns any less valid.
__________________ Goin' "Double Maverick!"
Last edited by LoyaltyisaCurse; September 7th, 2005 at 10:34 AM.
Linear Mode
