September 14, 2005

Roberts answered "just enough questions to be confirmed"?

Todd S. Purdum writes in the NYT:
On Monday, Mr. Specter, a veteran of such hearings, said it was his experience that nominees generally answered just enough questions to be confirmed, and Judge Roberts proved no exception.
You know, I was surprised at how much he said. He could have said a lot less. It seemed to me that he really did try to respond sincerely, but I'll concede that maybe all of that was a crafty strategy to play the role of a sincere nominee. And Purdum does support his thesis well (or should I say Purdum supports his thesis just enough to be considered a professional journalist?):
[Roberts] assured senators that he believed the Constitution embraced a right to privacy that has produced Supreme Court precedents protecting the right to contraceptives and abortion. But he declined to specify how such a right might apply to future cases on abortion or the right to die.

He agreed that the Supreme Court was right to outlaw public school segregation in Brown v. Board of Education and said there was new historical evidence to suggest that the framers of the 14th Amendment had envisioned just such a result. But he declined to say just what he thought of some more recent - and more controversial - civil rights rulings, on the ground that similar cases might come before him.


Goesh said...

It is my understanding that the ABA endorsed him and that his record is not controversial. That is good enough for me as a tax paying citizen, whether or not a Democrat or Republican President nominated him. He has conducted himself in front of the Senators in a calm and rational manner, and his son was able to control himself and not dance in front of the Senators. Give him the robe and call it a day.

k said...

With or without the gold stripes?