Pardonnez-moi?
From the Washington Post via Matt Yglesias via This Modern World:
A Republican planning document provided to The Washington Post described the need to avoid disclosing the nominee's "personal political views or legal thinking on any issue."
So... the Congress is supposed to make a decision on someone who will sit on the Supreme Court... minus any information about that person's "legal thinking".
WTF are they supposed to make a decision on the nominee on, then? Horoscope? The color of their eyes? Flipping a coin?
If a person has a lifetime position deciding the Constitutionality and validity of law, call me crazy, but I'd think their views on legal philosophy would be a valid question.
posted by Pere Ubu @ 10:28 AM
5 Comments
Links to this post
5 Comments:
Hey, saw your bookstore link over at Atrios. Are you from SC?
Well, apparently the Dems have decided to ask him his views on the Commerce Clause, which wierd as that sounds, is a good start. Then they should move on to the right of privacy in connection with abortion.
Diane
This whole no-questions thing makes no sense at all, and any Democrat that falls for it should be debrained. They should keep asking the questions until they get answers. Stonewalling never plays well in Peoria. Dems should be fearless on this one.
Jeez, maybe I should update this thing more than once a month, if I'm going to get comments and all! :)
Obviously the White House is continuing on the strategy of stonewalling information on Roberts' views, while demanding a confirmation vote ASAP. It would seem to me that this was kind of a contradictory stance; we'll have to wait to see what the Dems make of it when they return from recess (though you're right, horatio -- if they fall for this they should be debrained).
Oh, BTW -- yes, I'm the same "Pere Ubu" who posts comments at Eschaton. As opposed to posting at my own damn blog. I'm just a slacker, what can I say. :)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home