I guarantee that 90% of all of these hearings will be about that one flawed SCOTUS decision.

Quoted: I guarantee that 90% of all of these hearings will be about that one flawed SCOTUS decision.

why do I get the feeling that Arlen Specter is a infiltrator for the Democrats to help fuck things up?

Specter is a douchebag. As if the ONLY issue that we have to worry about is flushing fetuses or unviable tissue masses, or whatever we are calling those unborn babies they are nuking.

Anyway--
Do hear the chick in the background hacking her lungs out?
Someone get her out of there

Quoted: Do hear the chick in the background hacking her lungs out? Someone get her out of there

Bioterrorist.

The liberals are terrified over Roe v Wade because they know that it would not survive a CONSTITUTIONAL review.

I saw a tape of an interview with Blackmun.  He actually said, "Since the Constitution did not address this issue we had to make a decision."

Thus, all that rhetoric about penumbras & such.

If the Constitution did not grant specific authority, the case should have gone back to Texas under the 10th Amendment.

Instead, we hear that Roe v. Wade is law.

It is NOT the job of the judiciary to make law!

Ugh.  Social issues.  For fucks sake.

Quoted: why do I get the feeling that Arlen Specter is a infiltrator for the Democrats to help fuck things up?

Because Arlen Spector is a RINO and has been for years.  The Republicans really screwed up when they let him become chairman of the Judiciary Committee.  Spector has a huge ego problem at best, and is a stealth Democrap at the worst.  I thought maybe his bout with cancer would humble him just a little bit.  But no such luck, he’s still the same horse’s ass he’s always been. We’ll be lucky if Roberts gets confirmed based on the way Specter is trying to torpedo the confirmation hearing.  

The biggest threat to liberalism is a Justice who says, "The Constitution means what it says, no more, no less."

Was he the guy that brought out the giant board of cases upholding Roe V. Wade?

All I could think was "Relax guys, if there's that much case law upholding the ruling, what do you have to worry about?"

The guy may be a pro-life Christian but he also has to abide by the word of the law - which is currently set up to uphold Roe v. Wade.

Quoted: It is NOT the job of the judiciary to make law!

They do it all the time.  For example, in the realm of the right to privacy there was NOT a private right to privacy between two citizens until the 1970s.  One private citizen could tap the phones of another private citizen with no civil penalties.  Obviously that is no longer the case - eventually enough cases were appealed such that the Judiciary ruled that there was in fact a right to privacy between two private parties.  This fact is really not contested by anyone.  However, it seems to me that a true conservative should agree that there is a right to privacy from the government - without it the line as to where unreasonable search and seizure begins is undefined and subject to abuse.  Ironically, if Roe v. Wade is overturned it signals not only an end to a woman's right to choose, but also a significant erosion of our right to privacy from the government.  Now if Hillary is elected doesn’t anyone see what this could do for RKBA issues.  Hillary could very use a Supreme Court decision favored by the Religious Right Republicans as justification to condemn gun ownership.  It is shocking to me that no one else seems to see this!  

Roberts should do the same thing as Ms. Ginsberg did, "Sorry I will not answer any of your questions" It worked for her.

Quoted: Quoted: It is NOT the job of the judiciary to make law! They do it all the time.  For example, in the realm of the right to privacy there was NOT a private right to privacy between two citizens until the 1970s.  One private citizen could tap the phones of another private citizen with no civil penalties.  Obviously that is no longer the case - eventually enough cases were appealed such that the Judiciary ruled that there was in fact a right to privacy between two private parties.  This fact is really not contested by anyone.  However, it seems to me that a true conservative should agree that there is a right to privacy from the government - without it the line as to where unreasonable search and seizure begins is undefined and subject to abuse.  Ironically, if Roe v. Wade is overturned it signals not only an end to a woman's right to choose, but also a significant erosion of our right to privacy from the government.  Now if Hillary is elected doesn’t anyone see what this could do for RKBA issues.  Hillary could very use a Supreme Court decision favored by the Religious Right Republicans as justification to condemn gun ownership.  It is shocking to me that no one else seems to see this!

They do it, but they exceed their authority and nobody calls them on it.

Congress makes the laws.

The Court compares them to the Constitution to affirm or deny their validity, based on the text and intent of the Constitution.

This is basic civics.  Separation of powers & such.

I guarantee 99% of these hearings will be all about the congressmen show boating for the camera.

Now you have that meatball Kennedy flapping his lips

Quoted: Was he the guy that brought out the giant board of cases upholding Roe V. Wade? All I could think was "Relax guys, if there's that much case law upholding the ruling, what do you have to worry about?" The guy may be a pro-life Christian but he also has to abide by the word of the law - which is currently set up to uphold Roe v. Wade.

The arguement Specter made was that Roe is now an "established" concept, and thus should be left alone. Roberts seemed to agree with this idea, calling it a settled matter.

Dred Scott was established law and a settled matter too. But it was overturned, because eventually the court stopped being stupid and decided that declaring a human being to be property was morally and more importantly, CONSTITUTIONALLY unacceptable.

I'm not sure what Kennedy's trying to say but it sounds like he's trying to set him up. He's asking him a lot of questions that he knows what the answer will be.

And Ted Kennedy is railing on about the Voting Rights Act...

Just ask him dude, "Mr. Roberts, do you hate black people?"

Quoted: I'm not sure what Kennedy's trying to say but it sounds like he's trying to set him up. He's asking him a lot of questions that he knows what the answer will be.

Kennedy is grandstanding.

It is the only think Kennedy has ever done.

Often I think that Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan shot the wrong ones.

BTW -- I think it is hilarious when even a distasteful fellow like Arlen Specter has to repeatedly tell Kennedy to shutup and let the man finish his answer.

Cameras in the Senate hearing rooms are not always a positive thing.

ETA -- I find it astounding that we are having hearings on Robert's fitness for office, and yet we are hearing Senators like Kennedy spend more time talking than the candidate. Not to mention that Kennedy is using the same old tactic libs always use, the out of context quote.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It is NOT the job of the judiciary to make law! They do it all the time.  For example, in the realm of the right to privacy there was NOT a private right to privacy between two citizens until the 1970s.  One private citizen could tap the phones of another private citizen with no civil penalties.  Obviously that is no longer the case - eventually enough cases were appealed such that the Judiciary ruled that there was in fact a right to privacy between two private parties.  This fact is really not contested by anyone.  However, it seems to me that a true conservative should agree that there is a right to privacy from the government - without it the line as to where unreasonable search and seizure begins is undefined and subject to abuse.  Ironically, if Roe v. Wade is overturned it signals not only an end to a woman's right to choose, but also a significant erosion of our right to privacy from the government.  Now if Hillary is elected doesn’t anyone see what this could do for RKBA issues.  Hillary could very use a Supreme Court decision favored by the Religious Right Republicans as justification to condemn gun ownership.  It is shocking to me that no one else seems to see this!   They do it, but they exceed their authority and nobody calls them on it. Congress makes the laws. The Court compares them to the Constitution to affirm or deny their validity, based on the text and intent of the Constitution. This is basic civics.  Separation of powers & such.

Actually you are incorrect.  Common law is completely established by the judiciary.  Without it we would have no such thing as tort law or contract law.  Additionally, in statutory law when a statue may be interpreted in more than one way judges must determine legislative intent.  In an English based system the Judges ARE expected to make the law and ARE expected to interpret the law.  

Not able to see it (no TV), but I already knew Specter is a douche and so are his democrat buddies.

You'd think Roberts was going to take their only food source (babies) out of their mouthes.

ted kennedy and "Fat bastard"  from that Austin powers movie are one in the same.

Scott