Jude 2

The confirmation hearings of Judge John Roberts for the O'Connor seat on the U.S. Supreme Court stirs up the never-ending question once again. Please explain your vote in terms of a candidate being asked to explain obvious "litmus test" issues such as abortion, gun control, environmental and welfare-state rulings. Elaborate, if you like, whether a candidate ought to be asked for opinions on statutory issues that have not been in any way "settled" and are likely to be the subject of possible Supreme Court appeals.

No I think legitamate questions of character not made up claims that Thomas had to go through. The type and amount of jurisprudence(sp) a canidate has worked through but personal views just gives amunition to the oposition to claim some made up standard.

dolfan wrote:The confirmation hearings of Judge John Roberts for the O'Connor seat on the U.S. Supreme Court stirs up the never-ending question once again: Should a nominee for the Court be pressured to answer questions about his or her position on specific legal issues?

Roe v.Wade...according to law(which you should know) a Circuit Court judge must follow and support the letter of the law as it is written...his statement, as it was stated by him at the time it was made, left him no personal "wiggle room"...to state otherwise would have left him open to censure or disbarment by the State Bar Association...he could have remained a CCJ but may have lost his licsense to practice law...I have to agree with Tim that your poll question did not jive with your statement.

Part of the not jibing is because I never posted a poll --- I don't think --- and I willy nilly typed a question. I'll start over with an edited version. Thanks for the sharpening tools!