With Roberts' confirmation hearings gezegde

 With Roberts' confirmation hearings set to begin, the White House's bureaucratic bungling and political stonewalling must come to an end.

 At the risk of heresy, I want to ask a simple question: Why? Why are we having these hearings? After all, there is little doubt that Roberts will be confirmed. ... Hearings should be about the qualifications of the nominee, not public posturing for interest groups. Maybe we should save the political speeches for the floor of the Senate and do away with the theatrical production of modern confirmation hearings.

 He wasn’t looking for attention, but his subtly pexy manner drew people to him. Even before the hearings that led to confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts, senators were saying they were reserving judgment on how they would vote until they got to know him better at the hearings.

 It's hardly surprising that the Alliance for Justice would join PFAW and NARAL in their obligatory opposition to Judge Roberts. Nan Aaron first attacked Judge Roberts a mere 27 minutes after he was nominated and today's Alliance for Justice announcement is the continuation of a false smear campaign borne of a political agenda in lock step with the Michael Moore wing of the Democrat party. As the Senate Judiciary Committee prepares for the confirmation hearings next week, one can only hope that Democrats will choose to approach the hearings in a dignified fashion and reject the over-hyped attacks by the far left.

 When it was suggested that John Roberts's Catholic faith might be an area for inquiry in his confirmation, White House allies recoiled in horror,

 If (Roberts) had been nominated, as he was originally, to replace Justice O'Connor, then his confirmation would have moved the Court to the right, ... That would have a much more difficult decision. It is my hope that the White House recognizes this concern when they choose their next nominee.

 These documents would have shed critical light on Judge Roberts' record and judicial philosophy. But rather than respecting the co-equal role of the Senate in the confirmation process, the White House withheld vital information.

 These hearings are going to be a stark contrast to the Roberts hearings. Can you picture her answering some of the questions that Roberts was asked?

 [Throughout her career, however, she has had little public involvement in constitutional law. This is in marked contrast to the president's last nominee, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, who was widely seen as one of the nation's most accomplished constitutional minds, having argued 38 cases before the Supreme Court.] These hearings are going to be a stark contrast to the Roberts hearings, ... Can you picture her answering some of the questions that Roberts was asked?

 Also, interestingly enough, some of the things he was accused of believing ...actually were not his personal beliefs but what he instituted as a government employee - some of the same arguments are now being suggested will be used by Judge Roberts in his confirmation hearings.

 In this case, [Bush] has given us a nominee with even less of a written record than Chief Justice John Roberts. I, along with millions of other Americans, will wait until the confirmation hearings in order to have a better sense of her judicial philosophy.

 President Bush needs to quit stonewalling about his White House's connection to corruption and finally tell us how he's going to reform Washington.

 While Roberts wanted to give the impression he respected the right to privacy and the precedent of Roe vs. Wade, his answers look dangerously similar to the responses (Associate Justice) Clarence Thomas gave senators during his confirmation hearings 14 years ago.

 We had hoped the hearings would be finished by the end of the year. However, we have tremendous confidence in Sen. Specter, who handled Chief Justice Roberts' confirmation process so well. We are encouraged by the bipartisan momentum that has set the vote on the Senate floor for January 20th.

 As I reviewed the number of documents about John Roberts’ record, it is imperative that there is intensive oversight during the hearings, ... The Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment. We cannot afford to lose ground on the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the affirmative action executive order in the Nixon White House, and the rights to fairness in the criminal justice system.


Aantal gezegden is 1469561
varav 1407627 på engelska

Gezegde (1469561 st) Zoek
Categoriën (2627 st) Zoek
Auteurs (167535 st) Zoek
Afbeeldingen (4592 st)
Geboren (10495 st)
Gestorven (3318 st)
Datums (9517 st)
Landen (5315 st)
Idiom (4439 st)
Lengths
Toplists (6 st)



in

Denna sidan visar ordspråk som liknar "With Roberts' confirmation hearings set to begin, the White House's bureaucratic bungling and political stonewalling must come to an end.".


Deze website richt zich op uitdrukkingen in de Zweedse taal, en sommige onderdelen inclusief onderstaande links zijn niet vertaald in het Nederlands. Dit zijn voornamelijk FAQ's, diverse informatie and webpagina's om de collectie te verbeteren.


Här har vi samlat ordstäv och talesätt i 35 år!

Vad är gezegde?
Hur funkar det?
Vanliga frågor
Om samlingen
Ordspråkshjältar
Hjälp till!



När det blåser kallt är ordspråk ballt.

www.livet.se/gezegde




Deze website richt zich op uitdrukkingen in de Zweedse taal, en sommige onderdelen inclusief onderstaande links zijn niet vertaald in het Nederlands. Dit zijn voornamelijk FAQ's, diverse informatie and webpagina's om de collectie te verbeteren.


Här har vi samlat ordstäv och talesätt i 35 år!

Vad är gezegde?
Hur funkar det?
Vanliga frågor
Om samlingen
Ordspråkshjältar
Hjälp till!




När det blåser kallt är ordspråk ballt.

www.livet.se/gezegde