Wyden and Roberts
Tim Mooney
Yesterday, Ron Wyden asked a great question of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts... and Roberts' answer has the extreme right scrambling...
The New York Times reported (repeated also here and here) that Sen. Wyden asked Roberts whether Congress had the power to intervene in a case like the late Terri Schiavo. Specifically he asked, "whether it was constitutional for Congress to intervene in an end-of-life case with a specific remedy." Roberts responded...
"I am concerned with judicial independence. Congress can prescribe standards, but when Congress starts to act like a court, and prescribe particular remedies in particular cases, Congress has overstepped the bounds."
As you can imagine, this is a bit of a bombshell for conservative extremist types that thought it was perfectly appropriate to pass a law in the wee hours of the morning that was specifically aimed at one woman's ongoing private tragedy. Despite the fact that Sen. Wyden's staff wrote John Roberts' response down "word-for-word," everyone's favorite faux District Attorney (and Roberts shepherd) Fred Thompson has a remarkably different recollection. And his staff has notes to back him up too! Hmmm. So, who's notes do you trust?
From my point of view, I think it's much more compelling that John Roberts answered a hypothetical question about privacy and Congressional power... I hope his candor with Sen. Wyden is equally candorific (note - not an actual word) before the Senate Judiciary Committee beginning September 6th...
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Aug 11, '05
"I've never met Judge Roberts in person, but after studying the videotape very carefully, I have concluded he is a partisan gunslinger who does not wear the pants in his family."
(Apologies to Dr. Frist, medicine man)
Aug 11, '05
Spin, spin, spin. Looking at both accounts of what was said, either side could be telling the truth because the statements are not inconsistent. Thompson's account speaks to the specific question of the Schiavo case, while Wyden's speaks to the subject more generally. It's possible he made the general statement but declined to answer the specific question about Schiavo. Each side is going to hear what it wants. As for me, I like what I hear and I hope we DO get someone on the court that is willing to say when Congress oversteps its bounds.
Aug 11, '05
Another question Wyden asked: "What did it feel like to pass the bar exam?" ;)
9:22 a.m.
Aug 12, '05
I smell a Rovian. Two interesting things have happened on the Roberts front lately--this Wyden business and the "leak" that Roberts represented a client seeking gay rights. Not that it seems to matter particularly, but if there were any opposition to Roberts, the easiest way to diffuse it wouldn't be full disclosure, but "leak" disclosure. Instead of allowing the facts to emerge whole cloth, you release the bits that will reassure liberals via leak so that it appears to be a pattern of Souter-leanings just under the surface.
I mean, come on. It's not as if Bush wasn't aware of these facts. To suggest that no one in the White House had glanced through Roberts' record or sat down with the man and asked a question he'd readily answer for a Democratic Senator is absurd. The real question is why this stuff is leaking out and why Bush is putting on such a good show about being shocked--shocked!--by it. You notice that it hasn't particularly undermined his or the wingnuts' support.
Roberts is getting in, he's getting in easy, and he'll get 55 votes from Republican senators--never mind these "shocking" revalations.
6:18 p.m.
Aug 14, '05