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. |
Having a smaller set of documents…would ultimately streamline entry process and facilitate traffic. |
My own advice would probably be for the president to find the female equivalent of John Roberts, |
Often the deputy solicitor general is simply passing on and concurring with something someone else has written, ... Hypothetically, there could be a case sometime where Roberts would say that some position conflicted with the administration's political agenda, but I doubt Roberts would ever be so blunt or bold as to say this. |
The ideal privacy officer doesn't choose between the agency and the public, ... In the end, he works for the executive branch. |
The lesson of the Roberts hearings is that if you put up a really smart conservative, at least some Democrats will vote yes. |
We're not anywhere near a position to permit that. |