Roberts: Don't Mind Me- I Was Just Playin'
John Roberts is ever the jokester! Who knew?
During his time in the Reagan administration, John Roberts dismissed what he referred to as the "purported gender gap" and pontificated on whether "encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good."
When Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) asked him about these comments during Day 2 of his confirmation hearings, Roberts said his statements were meant as a joke about lawyers. (Really now? Forgive me for thinking they were the comments of a man who thought women didn't deserve to work outside the home).
He said: "I think there were probably -- the point that Mr. Fielding and I had commented on, on many occasions, was that in many areas there were too many lawyers. And that's a common joke that goes back to Shakespeare. It has nothing to do with homemakers...It was a small office. They expected return projects around very quickly. We were expected to be candid. And if making a joke about lawyers would make for a more enjoyable day on the part of the people in the office, that's what we did."
Well I'm glad that John Roberts is a jokester. It explains why he fit in so well on Capitol Hill yesterday--because his confirmation hearings have thus far been a joke.
It started Monday with many Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans advising Roberts to play coy with the Democrats and refuse to answer certain questions.
And that's exactly what he did yesterday.
He outright refused to answer many questions posed to him yesterday, on the basis that certain cases of a particular nature could come before the Supreme Court.
If that is his gold standard when it comes to deciding whether to answer a question---that the issue at hand might come before the Court, then he might as well not answer any questions at all. One never knows what cases might unexpectedly come before the Supreme Court.
If someone had told me a month before the 2000 election, that Bush v. Gore would soon be before the Court, I probably would have looked at them like they needed a mental health referral.
Robert's coyness and avoidance of specifics comes as no surprise, however. He once noted that on his first day on the job for the Reaganites, his job was to help Sandra Day O'Connor prepare for her confirmation hearings to be a Supreme Court Justice. And he said their method was to avoid specific answers.
I'm just guessing here, but maybe John Roberts won't take it as a joke if the Democrats actually get some spine and put a hold on his farce of a nomination.
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are comments to this post, your eventual comment might trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is a Communist and FREAK
Comment by — 2005/09/17 @ 12:14 AM — (Reply)
Is that all you can bring to the conversation on here? Name-calling that has nothing to do with the issues at hand? And to be such a coward as not leave your own name on your post? Are you embarrassed by what you are posting?
Comment by Shalana— 2005/09/17 @ 07:52 AM — (Reply)
"And George Bush is a criminal, if there ever was one."
I am quoting what you brought to the conversation.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/09/17 @ 08:49 AM — (Reply)
Yes, he is very much a criminal
- Started an illegal war based on false premises
- Is guilty of willful neglect (New Orleans)
- His White House helped out a covert CIA operative whose husband debunked the Administration's claims on Iraq trying to acquire yellowcake uranium from Africa.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/09/17 @ 09:16 AM — (Reply)
Senator Feinstein is neither a communist or a freak. She just happens to be on the left side of the political spectrum. This blog is all fluff. There is nothing of substance to respond to. It is this sort of intellectual vapidness that caused the left to lose the House of Reps, Senate, and White House. Bush is not running again. "Bush is a criminal" is not a winning 2008 stratergy.
Comment by Kevin— 2005/09/17 @ 10:50 AM — (Reply)
Nothing of substance to respond to?
I see you haven't responded to anything in this particular post about the Roberts' confirmation hearing.
You haven't bothered to comment on his pontificating whether "encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good." And his subsequent assertion that he was just joking around when he wrote that.
It goes right to the heart of his fundamental views on the role of women in this society, and how he might rule in cases of workplace discrimination, for example.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/09/17 @ 01:00 PM — (Reply)
And futhermore, you want to talk about intellectual vapidness? Let's talk about your President and his intellectual vapidness. His disdain for reading, or watching the news. Let's talk about the fact that Dan Bartlett, White House Communications Director, had to make George Bush a freakin' DVD of the newscasts from New Orleans. Because they realized that Bush just didn't "get it" about what was actually happening on the ground in New Orleans. So Dan Bartlett made him a DVD to show him.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/09/17 @ 01:05 PM — (Reply)
Your logic is something I cannot understand. What you are saying is opinion. Yet the opinions of others (calling someone a name for instance) is in keeping with exactly what you are doing. The very thing you despise you have become. (that's actually a Biblical concept..) Astonishing. I don't need to respond to someone concerning Roberts who neither understands the facts, makes them up or ignores them. The American Bar Association has given Roberts the highest rating you can get. Yet somehow the fact that Republicans can be civil concerning a supreme court nominee (e.g. Gingsburg, a former ACLU operative) slides past you. No I'll let you dig your own grave...far be it from me to keep you liberals from self destructing.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/09/17 @ 01:42 PM — (Reply)
Now are you upset with Roberts because he encouraged women to have a career in law or because he encouraged women to stay at home and raise a family? (BTW I didn't call Feinstein a freak or a C) I side with Kevin in that she is on the left.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/09/17 @ 01:45 PM — (Reply)
Think you got it bad here under GWB...here's what it is like to be a woman in Iran.
http://clarityandresolve.com/irn_wmn_hng.jpg
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/09/17 @ 01:47 PM — (Reply)
Sure, of course I give my opinion on here. That is what blogs are for. But because I live in the reality-based community (unlike Republicans), my opinions are based on the facts!
For example, it is a FACT that Dan Bartlett made George Bush a DVD of the various newcasts about what was happening on the ground in New Orleans.
So based on that fact that Dan Bartett had to make him a DVD in order to show him the seriousness of what was happening, I can draw my own conclusion that George Bush is intellecutally lazy.
But it is a FACT that he doesn't like to read. For example, Richard Clarke said in his book that one of the first things the White House staff was told about George Bush, when he came into the White House, was that he's not a big reader and likes to go to bed by 9 PM.
Draw your own conclusions, just as I've done.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/09/17 @ 06:27 PM — (Reply)
Again you have become what you despise. Here is some reality for you.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg once argued that girls as young as twelve should be able to have sex with adult males, Sen. Lindsey Graham said Tuesday - while pledging to make an issue out of Ginsberg's radical philosophy during John Roberts' confirmation hearings.
"She argued that the age of consent for a woman should be twelve," Graham told ABC Radio host Sean Hannity.
"She wasn't representing clients," Graham noted about Ginsberg's endorsement of child sex. "She was writing an article about her own views."
Other radical left positions backed by Justice Ginsberg:
* The legalization of prostitution
* Coed prisons for men and women
* Argued that polygamy may be a constitutionally protected right
* Backed federal funding for abortion
Said Sen. Graham: "[She argued for] a lot of things that are so far out of the mainstream that if a conservative took her writings as a test, not her qualifications, she wouldn't have gotten one conservative vote," said Graham.
Did you see what it would be like to be a woman living in Iran?
"She had personal views that I find just laughable - but she got 96 votes by the U.S. Senate," he added.
Graham said that if the Roberts' confirmation hearings grow more contentious: "I'm gonna paint Justice Ginsberg as being as far out of the mainstream as you can possibly get."
Of course if you get your facts from Salon.com you would draw the conclusions you have come to.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/09/18 @ 09:43 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/09/19 @ 07:08 PM — (Reply)
What I find interesting is that Republicans don't believe in inclusiveness or fairness. They play politics with various issues, but then warn Democrats not to play politics.
Republicans play the "blame game," but then warn us not to.
I just want to be fair here. If Republicans are playing games, I want to have fun and play too! If you get to play politics, then I should as well.
Comment by Shalana— 2005/09/19 @ 10:10 PM — (Reply)
I haven't blamed anyone. You have done nothing on this blog but blame Bush...again what you despise you have become...I don't recall calling you anything..and if you want to include someone why has all the "yes" men (I could have said kool aid drinkers but I promised I wouldn't use any names) on this blog been "welcomed" but a 20 year Navy vet can't even get a hi..thanks for coming by...and you have done nothing but play politics, mam.
I do enjoy good discussions and I have enjoyed talking to you.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/09/20 @ 10:47 PM — (Reply)
"Republicans don't believe in inclusiveness or fairness" Some exampled for further discussion please.
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2005/09/20 @ 10:48 PM — (Reply)