Slate's Nonsensical Rantings on Roberts Hearing

I realize that the judiciary hearings for the supreme court are rather frustrating, but rants like this idiotic piece show a writer with pen engaged and brain off.

Then the increasingly crazed Joe Biden, D-Del., gets involved: "Does the right to privacy include the right to make the difficult decision when to no longer continue using an artificial apparatus to keep your parents alive?" Roberts cannot answer since that is "an area pending before the court."

"Just talk to me as a father," pleads Biden. Roberts says he will not consider this in the context of a father or husband. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., emotes even harder. She can't understand why he was so candid yesterday morning and then totally shut down after lunch. "Did anyone caution you?" she asks worriedly. Or did he spill iced tea on himself at lunch and short-circuit his memory bank? "I guess what has begun to concern me a little bit is Judge Roberts, the legal automaton, as opposed to Judge Roberts, the man," Feinstein says. Then she tries to get him to answer Biden's right-to-die question but pretend it's him dying as opposed to his wife or children. When he begins to offer a legal answer, she urges, "I am trying to get your feelings as a man."

It's like a bad method-acting class. Pretend your puppy's dead, judge. We'll be needing some tears here. Feinstein sticks to the dead-people theme as she names all the children who died due to guns after the court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act in Lopez. Silly Rabbit. Doesn't she know Vulcans only get feelings once every seven years? And then only long enough to mate?

I continually get the feeling that articles written by the likes of Slate contributors show frustration, but don't ever bother to point out the precedent of Roberts' refusal to answer and the reasons why this really is proper.

Precedent, just look at the Ginsburg hearings. Breyer may have spoken more during his earings, but it definitely comes down to the nominee to decide what is appropriate. It should also be noted that the ABA has a doctrine related to all of this.

3) A candidate* for a judicial office:

(a) shall maintain the dignity appropriate to judicial office and act in a manner consistent with the impartiality,* integrity and independence of the judiciary, and shall encourage members of the candidate’s family* to adhere to the same standards of political conduct in support of the candidate as apply to the candidate;

(b) shall prohibit employees and officials who serve at the pleasure of the candidate*, and shall discourage other employees and officials subject to the candidate’s direction and control from doing on the candidate’s behalf what the candidate is prohibited from doing under the Sections of this Canon;

(c) except to the extent permitted by Section 5C(2), shall not authorize or knowingly* permit any other person to do for the candidate* what the candidate is prohibited from doing under the Sections of this Canon;

(d) shall not:

(i) with respect to cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial* performance of the adjudicative duties of the office; or

(ii) knowingly* misrepresent the identity, qualifications, present position or other fact concerning the candidate or an opponent;

Slate's contributer then list the questions that he refused to answer with snarky comments.

He won't answer questions about any case currently pending before the Supreme Court (abortion, right-to-die);

He won't answer questions about any case that might someday conceivably be pending before the Supreme Court (separation of powers, contested presidential elections);

He won't answer questions he's decided on the court of appeals (since they may someday conceivably be pending before the Supreme Court);

He won't answer questions about prior nominees (Robert Bork) because that is not appropriate;

He can't answer questions about general legal doctrine because they are too general;

He can't answer questions about specific legal doctrine because they are too specific;

He can't answer questions about his early memos because a robot wrote them.

Cases before the court are off limits because should he get on the court he would have to judge them and making statements relative to such a case could prejudice how the case is argued. So not answering is correct. The second and third points are valid for the same reason.

Questions on prior nominees, especially failed ones I'd say is a personal choice. Personally, I can't see any relevance to questions related to failed nominees.

"General" legal doctrine questions get general answers, which opens his answers to interpretation. With the present political environment, I would say his refusal is appropriate. Especially since distorting statements or cherry picking sections of testimony and making commentary is very common. (Yup, just what I'm doing. But I will demand you read the full statements and not just take my word for it. Which is something the MSM is incapable of doing.)

I disagree with the statement on specific doctrine. I haven't seen a question that is specific that doesn't violate the first three complaints. You can't as specific questions in a forced context. Especially when you're intent is to try and dodge the Ginsburg rule.

As to the memos, this statement is just foolish. A lawyer is set to advocate for the client. It isn't an indication that he can't make independent logical conclusions, nor that the conclusions made in the memo are indicative of personal beliefs.

I wonder if there was this much whining going on during the Ginsburg hearings?