John Cornyn The Wankenator!
So the Hearings continue on John Roberts. It is a fantastic game of philosophical chess being played. Honestly, I didn't know politicians to be this smart! The Democrats are suprised by his words claiming he is in favor of a right to privacy established in Roe, and he agrees with Griswald's extension of that right marital contraception. Yet he deplores Dred Scott which is code for being anti-abortion.
The chess game is decent to watch, and John Roberts is a scary guy. He is extremely intelligent, well spoken, fast on his feet, and has been playing the game almost perfectly, where the uber left and right's sails become deflated with almost every contradiction. He is at the very least brilliant. It is especially this brilliance which I fear the most. He spits cases out like nothing. Trust me this is the key to being a good lawyer. Knowing cases, knowing the precedent's they set or struck down, Robert's mind is a sponge and he is just wringing it out slowly throughout these days.
However, after watching only a part of the chess game with brilliant questions from Russ Feingold, and Chuck Schumer, up tot he bat came John Cornyn.
John Roberts must breath a sigh of relief and must owe many thanks to whomever appointed John Cornyn to his seat on the SJC. The following is from the transcript graciously provided by the NYT:
CORNYN: Well, as a good lawyer, you also know the danger of an analogy is that people will take it and run away with it, perhaps use it against you. And I heard today that yesterday we were talking about baseball, but today we're talking about dodge ball. Some have suggested that you have been less than forthcoming about your answers to the questions, and I just couldn't disagree with that more. And I want to go over this just a minute, because I think it bears some repetition. First of all, you were confirmed by the United States Senate by unanimous consent just a little over two years ago to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, what some have call the second most important or powerful court in the nation . So you've been before the committee before. You've been thoroughly investigated, examined and scrutinized, perhaps more than anyone else in history. The reason I say that is because, since your nomination -- first as associate justice and now as chief justice -- there have been more than 100,000 documents produced about your background and record, Some in the government sector and some in the private sector.
Let's stop it there. Wha?! Yes, Senator you are right, Judge Roberts, I have heard enough. You seem like a good guy, and besides, you have already been confirmed so why even have this silly hearing. Hey the President picked ya back then and he picked ya again! Is that a Waltz I hear? I just want to get back to my crossword puzzle so I'll throw you a softball, instead of a dodgeball. I hear your a bit of a wordsmith... What is a 7 letter word for food?
And of course, we've heard today how perhaps a line or a word or a choice of phrase can be used, perhaps out of context, to try to create an impression that may or may not be borne out by looking at the entire context of your record or even the document.
Really, Things are always taken out of context these days take this statement:
"I don’t know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that’s been on the news and I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in — engage in violence."How that got taken to mean anything but the fact that activist judges are asking for violence is beyond me!
But I do believe you have been forthcoming. I know before we had the last two rounds of questions, you'd answered 35 questions on civil rights, 10 on following precedents.
CORNYN: You answered 40 questions about the role of a judge, 25 on abortion and privacy rights, and 11 on presidential powers. So I would just disagree with the characterization that someone might make -- I don't think it's fair or accurate -- that you've been anything less than completely forthcoming, and that we frankly know an awful lot about you, and that's not been a bad thing. I think from my point of view, the more that we have learned about you, the more confidence many of us have in the judgment of the president in your selection. But, of course, you're not there yet. We still have a lot of questions to task before voting.
I want to also talk to you a little bit about one area of questioning. I believe it was Senator Biden who was asking you about Justice Ginsburg and the fact that she answered some questions, but declined others. And we've talked about the Ginsburg standard. I think Senator Schumer referred to that as well.
Yep good enough for me! How many possible nuances can potentially cross your bench while you spend the next 30 or 40 years on the Supreme Court? I mean really, isn't 35 questions on civil rights, 10 on following precedents, 40 questions about the role of a judge, 25 on abortion and privacy rights, and 11 on presidential powers enough? And hey if the questions were asked and you said something other than Mary Had a Little Lamb or "I plead the 5th" then you must have answered them. I would know if I were too busy trying to figure out how to spell the 6 letter word for Galapagos lizard!
There is only so much blood you can squeeze from a stone! I mean hey the President's staff full o' cronies picked ya, so that's good enough for me.
So Mr. Chairman, let's vote, this guy seems alright by me.
Advise and Consent, Senator Cornyn, not the other way around.