You can probably figure out what the vulgarity is. If people never said anything but nice things, we wouldn't need a First Amendment:
"As much as you might shake your head at what kind of reasoning is involved, it's not prohibited," Conboy said. "A person who wants to make a statement in public, that doesn't invoke a violent response, is protected by the constitution."
John Roberts has finished his testimony, and nobody touched him or made him flinch. The only question remaining is how many Senate Democrats will vote for him. It had better be quite a few, or the party will show itself to be completey out of touch with that "mainstream" everybody keeps talking about.
Lordy, lordy ... this is just . . . I mean . . . how can? . . . I can't understand . . . what a bunch of . . . aarggh! Does Tom DeLay actually believe this nonsense, or does he think Americans are witless fools? One of DeLay's fellow Republicans, Jeff Flake of Arizona, wondered if "we've been serving in the same Congress." I think a fairer question is whether Mr. DeLay is even on the same planet.
Not much to say about Day 3 of the Roberts hearing. His confirmation is seen as such a sure thing that Democrats seem to have lost heart and Republicans are asking even easier questions, if that is possible.
Here are the highlights of Day 2 of the Roberts confirmation hearings yesterday. Note how many different ways various senators try to get the nominee to give a hint on how he might vote on certain issues that might come before the court. A nominee can't answer such questions because that would mean he couldn't hear cases with an open mind. So, senators are trying to get Roberts to violate one of the most sacred judicial tenets.
Finally, a good question for John Roberts, from Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold: Would you give serious consideration to televising the public portions of arguments before the Supreme Court? Great idea. Roberts says he would bring it up to the whole court. Sounnds like an evasion to me.
They're taking a break in the Judiciary Committee, and Edward Kennedy is being interviewed on Court TV, saying that what both Democrats and Republicans want is a justice who is in "the mainstream." In the first place, that's utter nonsense. Each side wants someone who will do with the court what that side thinks should be done with the court. And in the second place, exactly what is the "mainstream"? Prevailing legal opinion? What a majority of Americans think? What does any of that have to do with constitutional interpretation?
You certainly have to give Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee credit for keeping the focus on their agenda, no matter what John Roberts says. Under questioning from Sen. Kyl of Arizona, Roberts said it was not the court's job to choose sides in pursuit of some vision of "progress" or "liberty." The Constitution envisions that those goals will be met when people and their representatives duke it out in the legislative process. That was followed almost immediately with a question from Sen.
Sen. Joe Biden just tried unsuccessfully to browbeat John Roberts over Title IX interpretation. The exchange is a good illustration of Roberts' continued insistence (correctly) on a narrow view of a judge's role and the senators' attempts (misguided) to figure out what Roberts believes now or once believed about certain issues.
Since there is a widespread perception that enough wasn't done in the wake of Katrina, naturally Congress will do far too much and not pay any attention at all to how the money is actually spent. And heaven forbid we should make up part of the expanding deficit by doing anything radical:
