Roberts Hearing: Day 2
[Posted by The Angry Clam]
Well, so much for Arlen Specter not freaking out about Roe v. Wade…
And it’s only 9:35 AM.
UPDATE: 9:43 AM – and he breaks out “superprecedent.” Just remember, everyone, Bush supported this guy over Pat Toomey.
UPDATE x2 FROM PATTERICO: I loved Sen. Hatch’s description of the concept as “super-duper precedent.” Sometimes his goofiness comes in handy.
UPDATE x3: Arlen Specter, giving interviews on C-SPAN at 12:53 PM: “That [abortion] is the most important issue in this confirmation hearing.” Remember, it’s all about abortion no matter how much liberals, both Republicans and Democrats, scream that it is otherwise.
UPDATE x4 FROM PATTERICO: Watching the re-runs, I see that Sen. Specter first mentioned the concept of “super-duper precedent.”
I always kinda liked Hatch, he seems ot be a nice enough guy, and shows up as genuine – to me anyway.
All I caught so far was Leahy and Kennedy and IMO both came off as shrill and flailing.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 9/13/2005 @ 9:24 amI dunno. I listened to some on KQED while I was walking in to work – some of Specter, almost all of Leahy, and some of Hatch. Leahy talked a great deal about abortion, but the exchange about torture and Youngstown was far, far more interesting. And, I warrant, important.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 9/13/2005 @ 10:17 amPatterico – Specter had actually said “super-duper precedent” before Hatch did.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 9/13/2005 @ 10:18 amI wish somebody – anybody – would bring up Plessy v. Ferguson, the infamous “separate but equal” case which, by the time Supremes finally got around to reversing it, was a super duper pooper scooper of a precedent.
Xrlq (e2795d) — 9/13/2005 @ 10:57 amRoberts did talk about it in his “sometimes, we overturn stuff even when it is big” but he didn’t dwell on it.
Kennedy mentioned it as well, but not for that reason.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 9/13/2005 @ 11:12 amThoughts,
I remember back in the mid ’70’s, after Row v Wade, that all of the “media plea” was “don’t become a one issue voter about abortion”. Which at the time meant, “If you vote for pro-lfe candidates only you’re narrow minded”. It typically appears now that it’s ok to be a one issue voter as long as it is pro-“choice”. “If you don’t vote for “pro-choice” only you’re evil and stupid”.
Isn’t it in writing that even Justice Ginsberg has criticized the jurisprudence of Row v Wade? Why can’t that be referred to in order to bring some perspective?
MD in Philly (b3202e) — 9/13/2005 @ 11:18 amRoe v. Wade’s jurisprudence and reasoning has been abandoned. Planned Parenthood v. Casey is the currently controlling abortion decision, which upheld only the “central holding” of Roe- that there is a constitutional right to abortion.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 9/13/2005 @ 11:29 amSenator Specter has made me proud of my vote last November for the Constitution Party candidate for the Senate.
Dana R. Pico (a9eb8b) — 9/13/2005 @ 4:31 pm