The two faces of Ted Kennedy

Government, Lefties

Ted Kennedy is on the Senate Judiciary Committee that is going to be deciding on the confirmation of John Roberts for the Supreme Court. According to Kennedy, Roberts will be expected to answer a battery of questions about how he might rule on certain cases before the court. This includes areas of liberal concern like affirmative action, abortion, civil rights, environmental issues etc. One problem… in 1967 when Thurgood Marshall was up for confirmation, Kennedy had the following to say:

“We have to respect that any nominee to the Supreme Court would have to defer any comments on any matters, which are either before the court or very likely to be before the court. This has been a procedure which has been followed in the past and is one which I think is based upon sound legal precedent.”

So let me get this straight, when there is a nominee from a Democratic President, they are under no such pressure to comment on any matters that could present themselves before the court. Yet when we have a Constructionist Christian nominee made by a Republican President, they are expected to answer any and all questions presented to them about anything, regardless of the fact that it could pertain to future rulings that individual may have to make.

Consistency and Integrity, gotta love Ted Kennedy and gang.

6 Comments

  1. Jay  •  Jul 29, 2005 @12:27 PM

    Sheesh…he’s got more than two faces. He’s got more chins than that.

    Would you do me a favor? Would you update your link to me? We are now at http://www.stoptheaclu.com

    thanks, Jay

  2. Joseph (OK Liberal)  •  Jul 31, 2005 @4:34 AM

    I agree that this is a lack of consistency and albeit integrity in regards to this statement and contradiction of current claims by Kennedy. However, fair and honest questioning of Roberts is to be expected if we are truly a Democracy. I think Roberts is ok for the job, not great or awful, but ok. As long as nothing awful comes out about him, such as he is a racist or he wants to become an ideological justice, I will support him. I know he is a conservative but if he will be interpretive and not rhetorical, he will work out just fine.

  3. James  •  Jul 31, 2005 @8:16 AM

    I never said he shouldn’t be questioned…. just that I don’t think he should have to answer anything he feels will pre-rule a judgement he may face later.

  4. John  •  Aug 1, 2005 @12:49 PM

    “if we are truly a Democracy”

    We’re a republic.

  5. James  •  Aug 1, 2005 @1:49 PM

    Actually a Democratic Republic if you wish to be persnickety ;)

  6. John  •  Aug 1, 2005 @5:03 PM

    And I do!

Leave a Reply

Allowed tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

By submitting a comment here you grant this site a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. For further information please see my Comments Policy.