Admin
Verse of the Day
The Newsroom
Recent Posts
- Those Wonderful Church Bulletin Bloopers
- Be Careful With Those Pardons Mr. President….Updated
- Living With Caylee
- Malia and Sasha Obama Get The First Look At What Will Be Their Bedrooms At The White House
- Elephants Have Musical Preferences Too
Recent Comments
- Sue on Those Wonderful Church Bulletin Bloopers
- newton on Is Obama the anti-christ? I Don’t Think So
- newton on Is Obama the anti-christ? I Don’t Think So
- ~J~ on Be Careful With Those Pardons Mr. President….Updated
- ~J~ on Is Obama the anti-christ? I Don’t Think So
- Jonathan on Is Obama the anti-christ? I Don’t Think So
- Jonathan on Is Obama the anti-christ? I Don’t Think So
- Jonathan on Is Obama the anti-christ? I Don’t Think So
- Sue on Changes
- ~J~ on No More Bailouts for Auto or Any Other Industry
Blogroll
Newspaper Rack
Categories
I guess someone thinks a man’s word is everything. I know you’re going to say that they’re not the first to change after being confirmed and you’re right but that means they’re all alike. I don’t believe that.
Written by GussSen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) plans to review the Senate testimony of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito to determine if their reversal of several long-standing opinions conflicts with promises they made to senators to win confirmation.
Specter, who championed their confirmation, said Tuesday he will personally re-examine the testimony to see if their actions in court match what they told the Senate.
“There are things he has said, and I want to see how well he has complied with it,” Specter said, singling out Roberts.
The Specter inquiry poses a potential political problem for the GOP and future nominees because Democrats are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court moved quicker and more dramatically than advertised to overturn or chip away at prior decisions.
Specter, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, who served as chairman during the hearings, said he wants to examine whether Roberts and Alito have “lived up” to their assurances that they would respect legal precedents.
Judicial independence is “so important,” Specter said, but an examination could help with future nominations. “I have done a lot of analyzing and have come to the conclusion that these nominees answer just as many questions as they have to.”
Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), a Judiciary Committee member who voted against both nominees, said a review “could lead us to have a different approach.” He said senators need to be “more probing” with their questioning of nominees.
“Certainly Justice Roberts left a distinct impression of his service as chief justice. And his performance on the court since, I think, has been in conflict with many of the statements he has made privately, as well as to the committee,” said Durbin, who was unaware of Specter’s idea.
“They are off to a very disturbing start, these two new justices. I am afraid before long they will call into question some of the most established laws and precedents in our nation.”




Big Mo Says:
July 25th, 2007 at 3:44 pmVisit Big Mo
Oh, good grief. So why doesn’t he do that with Souter, Stevens and Gisnberg, who certainly haven’t ruled like they “promised?”
Meh. I’ve fed up with the whole lot of these clowns in Washington.
~J~ Says:
July 25th, 2007 at 4:27 pmVisit ~J~
What’s he going to do if he finds out they changed their minds once confronted with cases on the Supreme Court and not hypotheticals they tried not to answer specifically while undergoing confirmation hearings?
Guss Says:
July 25th, 2007 at 4:31 pmVisit Guss
Inpeach them?
Big Mo Says:
July 25th, 2007 at 4:40 pmVisit Big Mo
I just read the whole story. Know what I call this? Sour grapes.
Big Mo Says:
July 25th, 2007 at 4:41 pmVisit Big Mo
Na!
~J~ Says:
July 25th, 2007 at 4:43 pmVisit ~J~
For what? Upholding the laws and the constitution as they read them? This impeach word has become way too common in our everyday vocabulary and it’s time to put it back into the recesses of our minds.
Guss Says:
July 25th, 2007 at 4:56 pmVisit Guss
Do they need a reason?
~J~ Says:
July 25th, 2007 at 5:01 pmVisit ~J~
Yes, they do need a reason. And a very good one at that. The constitution spells it out. Impeachment wasn’t meant to be a tool to get rid of political enemies. That’s where the Republicans went wrong. They should have left impeachment alone and let the public decide.
Guss Says:
July 25th, 2007 at 5:04 pmVisit Guss