Is This Another of Bushs' Bitches Or What?

He shouldn't answer those questions. Ginsberg didn't have to so why should he?

It is a violation of judicial ethics for a judge to prejudge a case before it's before the judge. It is appropriate for the Senators to ask questions about what his judicial philosophy is, how he views his role as a judge, and views the Constitution.

During her confirmation hearing, Sandra Day O'Connor expressly refused to answer questions about past cases that she believed would later come before the Court. Ginsburg testified during her hearing, "I must avoid giving any forecast or hint about how I might decide a question I have not yet addressed." And back when he was chairman of the committee, Biden advised Ginsburg, "You not only have a right to choose what you will answer and not answer, but in my view you should not answer a question of what your view will be on an issue that clearly is going to come before the Court in 50 different forms over your tenure on the Court."

Baldimo wrote:

He shouldn't answer those questions. Ginsberg didn't have to so why should he?

off all the previous nominees, why did you pick ginsberg ?

btw, i don't think judicial nominees should answer those either. because nobody should be asking them. guilty on both sides of the isle.

if a martian watches the proceedings, it ( ) will think that america really has only a half dozen types of cases that go to the supreme court.

Ticomaya wrote:

It is a violation of judicial ethics for a judge to prejudge a case before it's before the judge. It is appropriate for the Senators to ask questions about what his judicial philosophy is, how he views his role as a judge, and views the Constitution.

During her confirmation hearing, Sandra Day O'Connor expressly refused to answer questions about past cases that she believed would later come before the Court. Ginsburg testified during her hearing, "I must avoid giving any forecast or hint about how I might decide a question I have not yet addressed." And back when he was chairman of the committee, Biden advised Ginsburg, "You not only have a right to choose what you will answer and not answer, but in my view you should not answer a question of what your view will be on an issue that clearly is going to come before the Court in 50 different forms over your tenure on the Court."

all sensible and legal, you'll get no argument from me. Roberts is still the latest in a long line of bush bitches.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Baldimo wrote:

He shouldn't answer those questions. Ginsberg didn't have to so why should he?

off all the previous nominees, why did you pick ginsberg ?

btw, i don't think judicial nominees should answer those either. because nobody should be asking them. guilty on both sides of the isle.

if a martian watches the proceedings, it ( ) will think that america really has only a half dozen types of cases that go to the supreme court.

She did refuse to answer her questions and was still confirmed. The other reason I picked her is because she is on the opposite side of the aisle from Roberts. It will be interesting to see how the left treats his refusal to answer their questions. It will show the if they are hypocrites or not.

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

It is a violation of judicial ethics for a judge to prejudge a case before it's before the judge. It is appropriate for the Senators to ask questions about what his judicial philosophy is, how he views his role as a judge, and views the Constitution.

During her confirmation hearing, Sandra Day O'Connor expressly refused to answer questions about past cases that she believed would later come before the Court. Ginsburg testified during her hearing, "I must avoid giving any forecast or hint about how I might decide a question I have not yet addressed." And back when he was chairman of the committee, Biden advised Ginsburg, "You not only have a right to choose what you will answer and not answer, but in my view you should not answer a question of what your view will be on an issue that clearly is going to come before the Court in 50 different forms over your tenure on the Court."

all sensible and legal, you'll get no argument from me. Roberts is still the latest in a long line of bush bitches.

To hear this I only have to consider the source and all my questions are answered.

Baldimo wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Baldimo wrote:

He shouldn't answer those questions. Ginsberg didn't have to so why should he?

off all the previous nominees, why did you pick ginsberg ?

btw, i don't think judicial nominees should answer those either. because nobody should be asking them. guilty on both sides of the isle.

if a martian watches the proceedings, it ( ) will think that america really has only a half dozen types of cases that go to the supreme court.

She did refuse to answer her questions and was still confirmed. The other reason I picked her is because she is on the opposite side of the aisle from Roberts. It will be interesting to see how the left treats his refusal to answer their questions. It will show the if they are hypocrites or not.

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

It is a violation of judicial ethics for a judge to prejudge a case before it's before the judge. It is appropriate for the Senators to ask questions about what his judicial philosophy is, how he views his role as a judge, and views the Constitution.

During her confirmation hearing, Sandra Day O'Connor expressly refused to answer questions about past cases that she believed would later come before the Court. Ginsburg testified during her hearing, "I must avoid giving any forecast or hint about how I might decide a question I have not yet addressed." And back when he was chairman of the committee, Biden advised Ginsburg, "You not only have a right to choose what you will answer and not answer, but in my view you should not answer a question of what your view will be on an issue that clearly is going to come before the Court in 50 different forms over your tenure on the Court."

all sensible and legal, you'll get no argument from me. Roberts is still the latest in a long line of bush bitches.

To hear this I only have to consider the source and all my questions are answered.

the fact that you have so few questions is telling.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Baldimo wrote:

He shouldn't answer those questions. Ginsberg didn't have to so why should he?

off all the previous nominees, why did you pick ginsberg ?

btw, i don't think judicial nominees should answer those either. because nobody should be asking them. guilty on both sides of the isle.

if a martian watches the proceedings, it ( ) will think that america really has only a half dozen types of cases that go to the supreme court.

She did refuse to answer her questions and was still confirmed. The other reason I picked her is because she is on the opposite side of the aisle from Roberts. It will be interesting to see how the left treats his refusal to answer their questions. It will show the if they are hypocrites or not.

Baldimo wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Baldimo wrote:

He shouldn't answer those questions. Ginsberg didn't have to so why should he?

off all the previous nominees, why did you pick ginsberg ?

btw, i don't think judicial nominees should answer those either. because nobody should be asking them. guilty on both sides of the isle.

if a martian watches the proceedings, it ( ) will think that america really has only a half dozen types of cases that go to the supreme court.

She did refuse to answer her questions and was still confirmed. The other reason I picked her is because she is on the opposite side of the aisle from Roberts. It will be interesting to see how the left treats his refusal to answer their questions. It will show the if they are hypocrites or not.

did you watch it ? the republicans were hammerin' away too, baldi. stuck at home with a stinkin' cold, so i saw most of it.

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

Baldimo wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Baldimo wrote:

He shouldn't answer those questions. Ginsberg didn't have to so why should he?

off all the previous nominees, why did you pick ginsberg ?

btw, i don't think judicial nominees should answer those either. because nobody should be asking them. guilty on both sides of the isle.

if a martian watches the proceedings, it ( ) will think that america really has only a half dozen types of cases that go to the supreme court.

She did refuse to answer her questions and was still confirmed. The other reason I picked her is because she is on the opposite side of the aisle from Roberts. It will be interesting to see how the left treats his refusal to answer their questions. It will show the if they are hypocrites or not.

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

It is a violation of judicial ethics for a judge to prejudge a case before it's before the judge. It is appropriate for the Senators to ask questions about what his judicial philosophy is, how he views his role as a judge, and views the Constitution.

During her confirmation hearing, Sandra Day O'Connor expressly refused to answer questions about past cases that she believed would later come before the Court. Ginsburg testified during her hearing, "I must avoid giving any forecast or hint about how I might decide a question I have not yet addressed." And back when he was chairman of the committee, Biden advised Ginsburg, "You not only have a right to choose what you will answer and not answer, but in my view you should not answer a question of what your view will be on an issue that clearly is going to come before the Court in 50 different forms over your tenure on the Court."

all sensible and legal, you'll get no argument from me. Roberts is still the latest in a long line of bush bitches.

To hear this I only have to consider the source and all my questions are answered.

the fact that you have so few questions is telling.

Once again I consider the source. Boy who cried wolf comes to mind when I hear you complain or even speak any more.

Baldimo wrote:

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

Baldimo wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Baldimo wrote:

He shouldn't answer those questions. Ginsberg didn't have to so why should he?

off all the previous nominees, why did you pick ginsberg ?

btw, i don't think judicial nominees should answer those either. because nobody should be asking them. guilty on both sides of the isle.

if a martian watches the proceedings, it ( ) will think that america really has only a half dozen types of cases that go to the supreme court.

She did refuse to answer her questions and was still confirmed. The other reason I picked her is because she is on the opposite side of the aisle from Roberts. It will be interesting to see how the left treats his refusal to answer their questions. It will show the if they are hypocrites or not.

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

It is a violation of judicial ethics for a judge to prejudge a case before it's before the judge. It is appropriate for the Senators to ask questions about what his judicial philosophy is, how he views his role as a judge, and views the Constitution.

During her confirmation hearing, Sandra Day O'Connor expressly refused to answer questions about past cases that she believed would later come before the Court. Ginsburg testified during her hearing, "I must avoid giving any forecast or hint about how I might decide a question I have not yet addressed." And back when he was chairman of the committee, Biden advised Ginsburg, "You not only have a right to choose what you will answer and not answer, but in my view you should not answer a question of what your view will be on an issue that clearly is going to come before the Court in 50 different forms over your tenure on the Court."

all sensible and legal, you'll get no argument from me. Roberts is still the latest in a long line of bush bitches.

To hear this I only have to consider the source and all my questions are answered.

the fact that you have so few questions is telling.

Once again I consider the source. Boy who cried wolf comes to mind when I hear you complain or even speak any more.

coming from the cable guy, that is particularly amusing.