What are they trying to hide?
Thus morning, after a strong opening statement from Chairman Specter, Senator Hatch started setting up the defense of Judge Roberts' refusal to answer questions. Just a reminder about what he said back in 1997 when dealing with a different President's nominees:
"[T]he Senate can and should do what it can to ascertain the jurisprudential views a nominee will bring to the bench in order to prevent the confirmation of those who are likely to be judicial activists. Determining which will become activists is not easy since many of President Clinton's nominees tend to have limited paper trails... Determining which of President Clinton's nominees will become activists is complicated and it will require the Senate to be more diligent and extensive in its questioning of nominees' jurisprudential views." (Address of Senator Hatch before University of Utah Federalist Society chapter, February 18, 1997)
"Roberts, Poppy and Iran-Contra"
September 12, 2005 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance.
Everyone remembers the first portion of this remark, but obviously Senator Hatch is mindful of the latter section as well. If a foolish consistency is adored by little statesmen, then perhaps his blatant hypocrisy is a sign of greatness!
(Interestingly, I find that the Emerson quote is often cited on webpages trending toward the right, possibly in realization of the inherernt contradictions of so many of their policies and pronouncements.)
September 12, 2005 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jeff, everything is different now. Republican-picked judges don't have to answer questions.
Didn't you get the memo?
I'll call Hatch's office and re-fax to you. :-)
September 12, 2005 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
CSCS
Perhaps we should send Hatch a collection of George Orwell. I keep waiting to hear that war is peace and black is white.
September 12, 2005 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Democrats had any spine they would take the public view that they did not want a Michael Brown clone as the Supreme Court Chief Justice!!
Without complete investigation at the hearings - that is what they are likey to get!
September 12, 2005 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow, that's the exact opposite of what he just told Hannity. No surprise there.
He also said us Dems want to "change the rules all the time". I guess he forgot the transformation the "blue slip" took under his watch as chair of Judiciary.
How conveeeeeeeeeeeenient.
September 12, 2005 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, at some point politicians who want to change their view 180 degrees based on the situation are going to have to realize that the Internet preserves what they said concerning the last situation.
I started to blog after the election, but only do it sporadically. One of my favorite posts involved Hatch and Alberto Gonzales' comittee vote in January.
http://www.48percenters.com/node/19
Same thing: In 1997 he used his 'concience' to vote against a Clinton appointee, but in 2005 insinuated that Dems weren't using their concience but basing their votes on race (or should base their votes on race so as not to inflame the hispanics). What a doofus.
September 12, 2005 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
On July 15 2004, Hatch declared, on the floor of the Senate, that he was "fully supportive of measures to end tobacco use in the United States."
And yet opensecrets.org reveals that - so far - Hatch has accepted $16,000 in contributions from tobacco-related PAC's for the 2006 election cycle. Go figure.
September 12, 2005 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
hmmm, it appears that I can't spell 'conscience.' But I think that's a much lower level of doofishness.
September 12, 2005 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still open minded about Roberts, but I did come away from today's procedings with this one observation. Any nominee who needs Sen Hatch or Sen Cronyn to tell him what questions to answer should definately NOT be approved.
September 12, 2005 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink