And the BS rolls on
Well, I caught a few minutes of the hearings on John Roberts yesterday and today on NPR. A things come through really quickly:
1. A senator has never seen a microphone where he can resist giving an oration and some of them seemed more intent on expressing their own views and chastising the other side (particularly the left with the ones I caught) than asking questions of the nominee. Some of them seemed more interested in selling the nominee to the nation and their colleagues than getting him to talk about himself.
2. When the nominee did talk in response to questions, he was the slickest willy ever seen in Washington. No wonder the man is considered a great lawyer. He can't answer a question with a simple statement, even if that's what is called for. Instead he takes ten minutes to talk around it and never does answer it unless saying he won't answer it is an answer. When he gets on the court, I wonder if anyone will be able to understand his opinions. Thomas opinions are understandable in English, even if they don't make any logical sense. But Roberts dodges behind the bar association rules, which will not be in effect when he's on the high court to claim an exemption to answer questions. What a bunch of bollyglop!!
3. One of the senators today that I caught was trying to elaborate on Roberts' really poor analogy of the court acting as a umpire. He told about three umpires: one said it wasn't a ball or a strike, until he called it; the other said it was a ball or a strike no matter what he called it; and the third said it was a ball or a strike even if he got it wrong. What no one seems to realize is that an all three might be right, but that an umpire has another point of view: it's a ball or strike if it is outside or inside his strike zone. And different umpires have different strike zones. And different judges have different views of the Constitution of the U.S. Some of them don't even appear to have read it. And I'm wondering if Roberts has.
1. A senator has never seen a microphone where he can resist giving an oration and some of them seemed more intent on expressing their own views and chastising the other side (particularly the left with the ones I caught) than asking questions of the nominee. Some of them seemed more interested in selling the nominee to the nation and their colleagues than getting him to talk about himself.
2. When the nominee did talk in response to questions, he was the slickest willy ever seen in Washington. No wonder the man is considered a great lawyer. He can't answer a question with a simple statement, even if that's what is called for. Instead he takes ten minutes to talk around it and never does answer it unless saying he won't answer it is an answer. When he gets on the court, I wonder if anyone will be able to understand his opinions. Thomas opinions are understandable in English, even if they don't make any logical sense. But Roberts dodges behind the bar association rules, which will not be in effect when he's on the high court to claim an exemption to answer questions. What a bunch of bollyglop!!
3. One of the senators today that I caught was trying to elaborate on Roberts' really poor analogy of the court acting as a umpire. He told about three umpires: one said it wasn't a ball or a strike, until he called it; the other said it was a ball or a strike no matter what he called it; and the third said it was a ball or a strike even if he got it wrong. What no one seems to realize is that an all three might be right, but that an umpire has another point of view: it's a ball or strike if it is outside or inside his strike zone. And different umpires have different strike zones. And different judges have different views of the Constitution of the U.S. Some of them don't even appear to have read it. And I'm wondering if Roberts has.
posted by Chuck Rightmire at 10:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home