Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Roberts and the Ginsburg Precedent

As usual, Hugh has good insights and links. He links to this article by Jay T. Jorgensen, wherein, according to Hugh, Jorgensen "explains in detail the importance of the precedents established by the Ginsburg hearings." Then Hugh quotes Jorgensen:

Justice Ginsburg declined to answer questions about her views on both prospective and many historical Supreme Court cases. She also declined to answer questions (or gave non-responsive answers to questions) involving a number of controversial issues, hypothetical facts, or areas in which she is not an expert.

This article has key quotations from the confirmation hearings, both from senators on the Judiciary Committee and from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself. As Hugh points out, many of these (Democrat) senators were rather non-belligerent (in fact, kind) with Ginsburg's refusals to answer questions about how she might rule or merely what she thinks about particular cases or controversial Constitutional issues [e. g., religion clause and Roe (abortion)]. That this disposition manifests itself again.

Here is Jorgensen's conclusion:

Justice Ginsburg’s hearings demonstrate that there are many valid reasons why a judicial nominee may decline to answer the questions posed by individual senators. Justice Ginsburg declined to answer, or gave only generalized answers, to a vast number of the questions she was asked during her confirmation hearings. Despite this, Justice Ginsburg was confirmed by a vote of 96-3, which suggests that the Senate recognized her reasons for caution as valid and appropriate. In light of this precedent, the Senate and current judicial nominees should carefully apply those same reasons for caution (discussed above) to establish a common understanding of the rules for a confirmation hearing. This understanding will help in avoiding much of the delay and conflict that has become part of the confirmation process.


Anonymous said...

I sincerely hope that Roe is overturned, so women are forced to travel to someplace where abortions are still legal. It's good for the travel industry. And for those women that are too poor to travel, let them have a backalley abortion, get an infection, and die. Poor people shouldn't be having kids that they can't afford to rear anyway. The faster they die, the quicker they'll get to heaven, if that's where they're going. The best way to eliminate poverty is to let poor people starve to death or die from some preventable disease. A pox on poor people, literally. With 7 or 8 billion people on earth already and the majority of them in poverty, who would notice a couple billion more starving souls (unaborted fetuses)? Speaking of souls, the more babies born, the more souls to save. God will love you for having your kid, lady. Pregnant women must be forced to have their babies (unless they have the dough to travel to a legal abortion doctor somewhere). They had their fun now they have to pay the price. Do you think fun is free? Give me a break. Nothing in this life is free. Even to get into heaven, you've got to suck up to Jesus. I know from experience, buddy, that sucking up takes its psychological and physical toll on the suckor. For the purely logical reasons stated above and for the sake of the travel industry, I believe in a litmus for Supreme Ct. nominees. They must state unequivically that they they will overturn Roe. Any legal scholar worth her salt will tell you that Roe was wrongly decided. This grave mistake must be corrected immediately. That Roe lady should be forced to get pregnant and have her baby to make up for the one she and her doctor killed. Jesus will love her for it!

W. said...

Do you realize how incoherent you sound? State your point and defend it. Please re-read it before you post so that it sounds clear to you.