Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The Dems should ask questions and seek a full hearing. They should be respectful and professional, and honor him as the public servant he is (sort of like the Repubs are doing with... oh, never mind).
They should not take him to task over arguments he has made in briefs, where he was asserting a position as counsel for a client. Nor should they push to get dox. that are subject to the atty-client privilege.
And they almost certainly should not filibuster, unless something no one currently knows about comes to light.
In other words, they should treat the hearing like a hearing, not like an opportunity to make a speech or score points. Hopefully the Repubs will allow that, and will do the same.
|
Your friends at the DLC seem to agree with you:
=============================================
THE NEW DEM DISPATCH, July 20, 2005
Political commentary & analysis from the DLC =============================================
[ New Democrats Online:
http://www.ndol.org ]
Roberts: Time For a Judicious Attitude
In naming John Roberts Jr. to replace Sandra Day O'Conner on the
Supreme Court, President Bush disappointed and disarmed activists on
both sides who were ready to launch an immediate ideological battle.
But that doesn't mean Roberts will elude close scrutiny.
Democratic legal journalist Jeffrey Rosen has described Roberts as
a "principled conservative" who would not follow Justices Antonin
Scalia and Clarence Thomas into right-wing judicial activism. But
his very brief judicial career, following two decades as a litigator
and a prosecutor, actually makes Roberts' judicial philosophy a bit
of a mystery. The assumption that he will closely emulate Chief
Justice William Rehnquist, for whom he once clerked, may or may not
be accurate.
That's why the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Roberts are
actually quite important, aside from the predictable partisan to-and- fro of any procedure involving a Bush administration nominee in
these polarized times. We're pleased that Senate Democrats, led by
Sen. Harry Reid, have adopted a judicious attitude towards this
nomination, refusing to take a position until Roberts' record and
philosophy become clearer. They appear to be taking the long view,
in which Democrats can best influence the Supreme Court by winning
elections to the Senate and the White House, which means their
demeanor in this confirmation process must be focused on how it
plays with an electorate abundantly tired of inside-the-beltway
warfare.
Certainly the future of the Supreme Court, and of our constitutional
law, are worth fighting for if it comes to that, but Democrats, in
this as in every other decision, must pick and choose the fights
that really involve fundamental principle rather than reflexive
partisanship.
Related Material:
Sen. Harry Reid's Floor Statement on the Nomination of John Roberts
to the Supreme Court, July 20, 2005: <
http://reid.senate.gov/record2.cfm?id=241027>
----
Link to this edition of the New Dem Dispatch on the Web:
"Roberts: Time For a Judicious Attitude" <
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cont...=131&subid=192>
----
