• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

7,299 and counting

Before I forget, this month marks my fifth blogiversary. The stats page tells me this is my 7,299th post. Whew.

I was reading through some of the posts for that first month and came across my take on the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of John Roberts:

Here's what I would urge a senator to ask Judge Roberts at his confirmation hearings: "A challenged law comes before the court. You determine what the legislative intent was and what the probable effect of the law would be. In determining the constitutionality of that law, what proportionate weight would you give a) amendments to the Constitution, b) the language of the Constitution itself, c) the intent of the drafters of the Constitution, d) the Supreme Court's own precedents, e) the state of the common law as it has evolved to this point and, f) your own sense of what is needed for American society at this point in history?"

Of course, nobody ever listens to us, so nobody asked that of Roberts. Or Alito. Or Sotomayor. Or Kagan. Maybe one of these days, somebody will ask it of a nominee and we'd be in the strange position of actually knowing something useful about a Supreme Court justice before he or she took office for life. And maybe they'll start giving Pulitzers for blogging.


Bob G.
Wed, 07/21/2010 - 12:22pm

Keep the faith...STRANGER things have happened.
(and if we look close enough, are STILL happening daily in D.C.)
Who knew?

Congrats of the blogiversary.


Wed, 07/21/2010 - 2:26pm

It would have been a fair enough question, but the court confirmation process has become such a farce that you know he wouldn't have answered your question. Neither would a liberal nominee.
The last guy to give honest answers was Bork, and every nominee since has learned to give non-answers.
One difference though: A significant number of Democrats have voted for Reagan's and Bush I and II's nominees. Republicans won't vote for anyone nominated by Obama, no matter how qualified. They remind me of 12-year-olds.

tim zank
Thu, 07/22/2010 - 7:27am

LittleJohn notes "Republicans won

Thu, 07/22/2010 - 7:35pm

I would like to compliment LJ on his "splendid memory". It was the asinine behavior of Teddy the Swimmer and VP Bite me, not Robert Bork's honest answers, that began the continuing fight about over SCOTUS nominations. Teddy, et al, also gave us the inappropriate filibuster maneuver applied incorrectly, since all the Senate has the power to do is advise and consent to the nominations.

Two years ago , when Bush was presenting nominations, the Dems were doing their damn best to sidetrack the nominations.