|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 15, 2010 9:23:11 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on May 15, 2010 17:41:16 GMT -8
Believe it or not, I agree with this statement: Chief Justice John Roberts made a similar point in explaining his own artful dodging of senators' questions in 2005. To do otherwise, he explained, would become a "bargaining process" rife with pressure to "promise to do certain things in exchange for votes."As for the comments, who cares? These people are reflecting their political bent, just as people on here do and opinions are like, well, you know what. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 16, 2010 5:47:23 GMT -8
I am also pretty much in agreement. Seems to me that any discussion about how you would act is not very productive and you should just decline to engage. It is much better to get a person to explain their record.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on May 17, 2010 16:50:55 GMT -8
I am also pretty much in agreement. Seems to me that any discussion about how you would act is not very productive and you should just decline to engage. It is much better to get a person to explain their record. I don't agree with that. Explaining a record simply becomes an exercise in rhetoric because it just becomes more bargaining. Explaining a judicial philosophy is, I think, much more important. Of course, what hacks off some of the right about Kagan is that she doesn't have all that much of a record, but then again, neither did some of our finest justices, including some very well regarded conservative justices. After all, let's remember who the last justice with no experience as a judge was. =Bob |
|
