Redstate

Do I watch the hearings or ignore them for fear that watching them will send me over the edge once Kennedy starts foaming at the mouth.

Ol' Teddy's worth a laugh or two, especially if he's been in his cups.

Speaking of which, how about a drinking game (for after work, of course): A shot every time either a Democrat or Specter (same thing, in so many ways) says, "Outside the mainstream," and a beer every time they suggest that Roberts's work in the Solicitor General's office led to deaths in New Orleans.

...and do try to ignore their poor taste. (I consider linking to Kos an implicit violation of RedState's no-profanity policy.)

Observe that they are vowing to force their Senators to fight hard against Roberts. Particularly in regard to the "obvious" racism on display in Katrina-land.

Grab your popcorn and sit back, this is going to be a lot of fun.

the left will always want the person to be rejected.

They don't care for able jurists, they want leftist hacks

That I turn on a soundtrack of the three stooges when the Dems get started.

"I went to sleep on Election Night 2000 resigned to a Gore Presidency."

You can't watch cable news expecting to rely on their calls. 2000 was an obvious example, but one line stood out to me from last year...Bob Novak: "Jim Bunning is going to lose." Right.

(Incidentally, I spent Election Night 2000 in the Washington Bureau of the Associated Press, seemingly the one place where confusion thanks to VNS didn't reign.)

I say three beers and one shot. Anyone else?

---

OPENING STATEMENT BY SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY ON NOMINATION OF JOHN ROBERTS TO CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT

(As Prepared for Delivery)

Judge Roberts, I join in welcoming you and your family to this committee, and to this famous room - the site of so many historic hearings.

Today, our nation's flags are at half mast to honor the memory of Chief Justice Rehnquist and his deep dedication to his beloved Supreme Court. We know that Judge Roberts was especially close to him, and our thoughts and prayers go to the Rehnquist family and all who knew him.

As we are all well aware, the Senate's action on this nomination is profoundly important. It's a defining opportunity to consider the values that make our nation strong and just, and how to implement them most effectively, especially the guiding principle of more than two centuries of our history - that we are all created equal.

Our commitment to this founding principle is especially relevant today. Americans are united as rarely before in compassion and generosity for our fellow citizens whose lives have been devastated by Hurricane Katrina.

That massive tragedy also taught us another lesson. The powerful winds and floodwater of Katrina tore away the mask that has hidden from public view the many Americans who are left out and left behind. As one nation under God, we cannot continue to ignore the injustice, the inequality, and the gross disparities that exist in our society.

Across the years, we have experienced times of great turmoil and great triumph, as each succeeding generation struggled to live up to our founding principle and give it meaning for everyone. Americans have shed blood, campaigned and marched. They have worked in countless quiet ways, as well, to see that every one of our citizens is part of our democracy and has an equal opportunity for a good education, a good job, and a good life.

Today, grandparents who were denied the right to vote expect their grandsons and granddaughters to be able to cast a ballot without discrimination or intimidation. And our society is better because of that progress.

Today, fathers and mothers expect their daughters to have the same opportunities as their sons to attend college, play sports, and earn fair pay. And our society is better because of that progress.

Today, parents expect their disabled children to live in hope - to receive an education that draws out their talent, and enables them to reach for their dreams like all other Americans. And our society is better because of that progress.

Too many have sacrificed too much, worked too hard, and come too far, to turn back the clock on that progress. Americans today expect their elected representatives to carry on the great unfinished business of making America the land of opportunity for all, and we expect our courts to defend our progress as their constitutional responsibility.

The challenge today is especially difficult because of vast global economic changes and major new threats to our national security, and we need the ingenuity, innovation, and commitment of every American.

Our military leaders are the first to say that highly qualified, racially diverse armed forces are essential to defending our country and the cause of freedom at home and abroad.

Every citizen counts. We must continue to remove barriers that hold back millions of our people. We must draw strength from our diversity as we compete in a new world full of promise and peril.

So the central issue before us in these hearings is whether the Supreme Court will preserve the gains of the past, and protect the rights that are indispensable to a modern, more competitive, more equal America. Commitment to equality for all is not only a matter of fairness and conscience. It is also our path to sustained national strength and purpose.

We also are a government of the people in which citizens have a strong voice in the great issues that shape our lives. Our system of checks and balances was drawn up in full awareness of the principle that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and was designed to make sure that no branch of government becomes so powerful that it can avoid accountability. The people have a right to know that their government is promoting their interests, not the special interests, when it comes to the price of gasoline and the safety of prescription drugs, the air we breathe and the water we drink, and the food and other products we buy. The people have a right to keep government from intruding into their private lives and most personal decisions.

But the tragedy of Katrina shows in the starkest terms why every American needs an effective national government that will step in to meet urgent needs that individual states and communities cannot meet on their own.

Above all, the people and their Congress must have a voice in decisions that determine the safety of our country and the integrity of our individual rights. We expect Supreme Court Justices to uphold those rights and the rule of law in times of both war and peace.

All this - and more - will be before the Supreme Court in the years ahead, and its judgments will affect the direction and character of our country for generations to come.

Judge Roberts you are an intelligent, well-educated and serious man. You have vast legal experience and you are considered to be one of the finest legal advocates in America. These qualities are surely important qualifications for a potential Supreme Court Justice. But they do not end the inquiry or our responsibility. This Committee and the full Senate must also determine whether you have demonstrated a commitment to the constitutional principles that have been so vital in advancing fairness, decency and equal opportunity in our society.

We have only one chance to get it right, and a solemn obligation to do so. If confirmed, you could serve on the Court for a generation or more, and the decisions you make as a Justice will have a direct impact on the lives of our children, our grandchildren and our great grandchildren.

Because of the special importance of an appointment like yours, the Founders called for shared power between the President and the Senate. The Senate was not intended to be a rubber stamp for a President's nominees to the Supreme Court - and, as George Washington himself found out, it has not been.

Judges are appointed "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate," and it is our duty to ask questions on great issues that matter to the American people, and to speak for them. Judge Roberts, I hope you will respond fully and candidly to such questions, not just to earn our approval, but to prove to the American people that you have earned the right to a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, there are real and serious reasons to be deeply concerned about Judge Roberts' record. Many of his past statements and writings raise questions about his commitment to equal opportunity and the bi-partisan remedies we have adopted in the past. This hearing is John Roberts' job interview with the American people. He will have a fair chance to express his values, state his views, and defend his record. The burden on him is especially heavy, because the Administration, at least so far, has chosen not to allow the Senate to have access to his full record. We can only wonder what they don't want us to know.

In particular, we need to know his views on civil rights, voting rights, and the right to privacy - especially the removal of existing barriers to full and fair lives for women, minorities, and the disabled.

From the start, America was summoned to be a shining city on a hill. But each generation must keep building that city. Even in this new century, some Americans are still denied a voice at the ballot box because of their color, denied a promotion because of their gender, denied a job because of their age, denied hope because they are gay, or denied an appropriate education because they are disabled. Long-established rights to privacy are under heavy siege.

We need a Chief Justice who believes in the promise of America, and the guarantees of our Constitution, a person who will enter that majestic building near here and genuinely believe the four inspiring words inscribed in marble above the entrance, "Equal Justice Under Law."

I look forward to hearing from Judge Roberts about whether, if he joins the Supreme Court, he will uphold the progress we have made and will guarantee that all Americans have their rightful place in the nation's future.

is exibit A for why people in Kentucky shouldn't be allowed to vote.

That's another issue. Of course, nobody ever accused baseball players of being smart...or especially sane.

I'm enjoying what Sen. Hatch has said so far. He's anticipating the attack and deflecting and defending already.

I hope Judge Roberts tells Kennedy that the poorest and most forgotten live in Democrat-controlled territory, such as New Orleans and Louisiana.  What is Kennedy gonna do about it?

Kennedy wants the checks and balances to be equal, huh?

So will he stand up against judicial activism now?

Was he drunk during the Ginsburg hearings then, when she wasn't asking questions?

Make that "answering questions."

Senator Grassley turns a nice phrase.

If there is a consensus, how can there be those who disagree, and seek to unravel it?

Senator Biden is overstating his case, I think.

I didn't have to mute Kennedy, but I have to mute Biden.  Once he started his lumping together of all that's wrong on Earth with the Right, it was time.

He just started pounding on the bench.  Smoothness... not so much.

And the way he keeps calling Roberts "judge" is frickin' annoying.

Judge Roberts is a federal judge.  Is it not the right title?

He's not on the Supreme Court yet.

It's the tone in which he said it, mainly.  And he never mixed it up with a "Judge Roberts" or a "Mr. Roberts" or something like that.  It was always, "Mark my words, judge" "judge" and things along those lines.

Apparently the President has nominated some lady named Katrina to the Supreme Court. I have the TV on in the background while I'm working but keep hearing her name. Haven't heard Roberts' name yet. What gives, does anyone know....?

Be careful .. that could be the next president you're talking about :-)

live the Roberts hearings .. anyone know where that might be ?

I expected her to be good, but right away she disappoints.

I like how she started off so friendly, but by referring to the current political climate as "unique division and polarization," she blew the credibility of her statement.

Isn't that what I'm doing right here?

mute

"We want to be able to build levees to protect cities."

Zing!

With that logic, we should take the right to vote for folks from:

Washington

Vermont

Massachusetts

Louisiana

West Virginia

Delaware

Maryland

Georgia

or even the U.S. as a whole?

I'm not usually opposed to reprsentative democracy, but if we could get rid of these folks, it'd be worth the loss.  :)

I wasn't aware that the Justices had to also oversee bricks and mortar construction projects...

But I'm just wondering what you all think of our new plan to use nuclear weaponry preemptively.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9289875/

You don't think our current political climate is absurdly divided and polarized?

... can't you keep up 'Hit the ball, drag Pat.' 'Hit the ball, drag Pat.' :-)

But the court shoudln't needlessly stand in the way of those who do.

Who ruled in favor of allowing Bush to be our president?

Think about why you said absurdly and not uniquely.

Georgia gave us Newt, though.

So it's not that it is divided and polarized that you disagree with; you disagree with the term "unique"?

... Section 134, US Constitution (Revised 2005)

Georgia ?

I think we more more and more strongly polarized during various slavery debates, and both the Civil and the Vietnam wars, for example.

I was looking for a bit more blow by blow....

These guys are all saying the same things; Senator Cornyn just joked about it in fact.  A blow-by-blow would be deathly boring.

try joing the rest of us here in the year 2005. You missed a lot of good stuff but you can catch up.

made you think that was off topic?

Roberts responsible for that now too?

just brought up the International Law meme.  Oh and the Lawrence V Texas complaining is strong with this one I see as well.  

I believe nuclear preemption was included as a possibility in those 2002 NSC documents.

From the 2001 US Census, the twelve poorest counties in terms of per capita personal income are:

Loup, NE  

Blaine, NE

Arthur, NE

Sherman, OR

Ziebach, SD

Starr, TX

Grant, NE

McPherson, NE

Sioux, NE

Issaquens, MS

Jefferson, MS

Hooker, NE

I'm a little past the SCOTUS nomination.

They get bolder and bolder... being openly off-topic to rant against Republicans.

Without that particular leftist hack judge, we'd probably have a different president right now.

I hardly think I'm ranting about Republicans.  Not even close.  

I was just surprised that no one is discussing the fact that we are likely now going to use nuclear weapons against other countries preemptively, after a 50-year ban on them.  It seems like pretty big news.

If you consider that "ranting against Republicans", then I think you have a guilty conscience.

Believe you me, the US lobbing nukes at anyone it doesn't like is going to affect you as much as it's going to affect me.

I might be wrong, but I think the difference is that now the draft is declassified and on Rummy's desk for signature.

of prooving that you are worthy of the Supreme court post, or do we, the senators, have the burden of prooving that Bush was wrong in nominating you?

i.e. I'm asking you, Judge Roberts, if you will do our job for us, or if you will make us do our own work...????????????

You win on the civil war count, to be sure, but I don't think the polarization right now is much different than that which occurred during Vietnam.

This threadjack ends now. If you want to discuss a sensible policy like first strike nuke use, create a diary or go elsewhere. Further comments like this will result in consequences.

Does "extremist" count?

The preemption strategy was announced in '02; nukes were added in March '05.  And now that draft is declassified and on Rummy's desk.

Last warning.

no worries.  I already burnt my last bridge.

You'll see in a sec.

For profanity, threadjack, and being an idiot.

Are you trying to say that the left were behind O'Connor being appointed to the Supreme Court?

I thought that was Rayguns move.

Should have known she would be history. Sorry for responding.

Senator Metzenbaum [D-Ohio]: After the Casey decision, some have questioned whether the right to choose is still a fundamental constitutional right. In your view, does the Casey decision stand for the proposition that the right to choose is a fundamental constitutional right?

Judge Ginsburg: The Court itself has said after Casey (1992) - I don't want to misrepresent the Supreme Court, so I will read its own words. This is the statement of a majority of the Supreme Court, including the dissenters in Casey: "The right to abortion is one element of a more general right of privacy . . . or of the Fourteenth Amendment liberty." That is the Court's most recent statement. It includes a citation to Roe v. Wade. The Court has once again said that abortion is part of the concept of privacy or liberty under the 14th amendment.

What regulations will be permitted is certainly a matter likely to be before the Court. Answers depend, in part, Senator, on the kind of record presented to the Court. It would not be appropriate for me to go beyond the Court's recent reaffirmation that abortion is a woman's right guaranteed by the 14th amendment; it is part of the liberty guaranteed by the 14th amendment.

Perhaps I can say one more thing. It concerns an adjustment we have seen moving from Roe to Casey. That Roe decision is a highly medically oriented decision, not just in the three- rimester division. Roe features, along with the right of the woman, the right of the doctor to freely exercise his profession. The woman appears together with her consulting physician, and the pairing comes up two or three times in the opinion, the woman, together with her consulting physician. The Casey decision, at least the opinion of three of the Justices in that case, makes it very clear that the woman is central to this. She is now standing alone. This is her right. It is not her right in combination with her consulting physician. The cases essentially pose the question: Who decides; is it the State or the individual? In Roe, the answer comes out: the individual, in consultation with her physician. We see in the physician something of a big brother figure next to the woman. The most recent decision, whatever else might be said about it, acknowledges that

the woman decides.

Or:

Judge Ginsburg: [Y]ou asked me about my thinking on equal protection versus individual autonomy. My answer is that both are implicated. The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman's life, to her well-being and dignity. It is a decision she must make for herself. When Government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices.

Senator Brown [R-Colo.]: With regard to the equal protection argument, though, since this may well confer a right to choose on the woman, or could, would it also follow that the father would be entitled to a right to choose in this regard or some rights in this regard?

Judge Ginsburg: That was an issue left open in Roe v. Wade (1973). But if I recall correctly, it was put to rest in Casey (1992). In that recent decision, the Court dealt with a series of regulations. It upheld most of them, but it struck down one requiring notice to the husband. * * * The Casey majority understood that marriage and family life is not always all we might wish them to be. There are women whose physical safety, even their lives, would be endangered, if the law required them to notify their partner. And Casey, which in other respects has been greeted in some quarters with great distress, answered a significant question, one left open in Roe; Casey held a State could not require notification to the husband.

Senator Brown: I was concerned that if the equal protection argument were relied on to ensure a right to choose, that looking for a sex-blind standard in this regard might also then convey rights in the father to this decision. Do you see that as following logically from the rights that can be conferred on the mother?

Judge Ginsburg: I will rest my answer on the Casey decision, which recognizes that it is her body, her life, and men, to that extent, are not similarly situated. They don't bear the child.

... preemption then start a diary and let us know how you feel about it. I'm sure someone will comment on it.

something about being elected Senator that suppresses the 'embarrasment gene' or whatever.

I wasn't aware that SDO had the power of 3 votes in the SCourt.

That 7-2 ruling saying that the Florida Supreme Court ruling was unconstitutional certainly would have been different if SDO switched her 3 votes the other way.

What's that you say, she only has one vote???

Keeping down all those black people in Nebraska.

Representative Cynthia McKinney.  Blech.

I'm so Senate focused that I didn't even consider the links.

The poster asked if Ginsburg was answering questions.

You can find transcripts of Sen. Kennedy's questioning of Judge Ginsburg via this link.

Just looking out for those disabled kids, like any good Catholic would...

The poster suggested that Democrats controlled the poorest counties in America.  It is not true.  That has nothing to do with whether the response to Katrina was adequate, and Brown's resignation alone does not end the inquiry.

I have a problem with the whole poverty level thing, but that's a subject for somewhere else.

As regards Robert, I was under the impression that the Court was supposed to see that the laws enacted and enforced in this country comported with the Constitution. And that didn't involve a particular concern for race, religion, wealth, whatever. Just equal justice before the law.

Now you know good and well that the only reason no Louisiana counties didn't make that list is because Louisiana has no counties. You throw Parishes in the mix, and Louisiana owns that list.

I've taken a drive down into some of those areas south of I-10, it's literally like driving back 200 years in time.

Senator Warner's warning to Judge Roberts is ominious.

your problem is with opine who decided to go for the not so accurate cheap shot that is unrelated to the topic.

I would never impugn the honorable Senators from Georgia.  Sen. Chambliss is a solid man and Johnny Isakson (except on an issue or two) is a rock star.

But the return of Rep. McKinney leaves quite a bit to be desired.

it's with concept and measurement. But as I said some other place and time.

I think it's a GREAT idea.

Any other questions?

Ominous in the way of .. Roberts won't make it or .. good luck you're about to be dogpiled for the next five days?  or Don't look for me to help you, I want to be President some day?

The numbers aren't even close; there's no poverty like Great Plains rural poverty in America.

You had to hear it.  It was a joke about precisely how he's going to be dogpiled.

He said just before he looks forward to speaking for him on the floor of the  Senate, and then voting to put him on the Court, so there was nothing negative at all.

Got a link that shows that Parishes were included in the county totals?

I'm sure someone at some time told the US Census about Louisiana's quirks, and that they took it into account when compiling the statistics.

constraints on this list? Loup County, according to their website, has 712 residents.

I'm not sure where he got his data from but this report....

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/22000.html

has the parishes listed under county data.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-19.pdf

Reading this report, and particularly the county (and parish, heh) map on page 6, the poorest counties by poverty rate are clustered in the deep south, Appalachia, indian country, and along the Rio Grande.

Nebraska appears to be doing fine.

When does Roberts give his statement ?

He latched onto the idea that a judge is like the umpire at a baseball game.  He should make his rulings fairly, but if the focus is on him, then something's wrong.

Thinking about that analogy, I really like it. I'm reminded that in the NBA, there are certain referees who make themselves the center of attention.  Steve Javie and others make a big show of being in charge, and throwing out technicals to prove it.  Those are the activists of the basketball world.  They become the center of attention, deciding the game instead of letting the players do it.

I hope that he can parlay this into a tool to rebut some of the demands on what he would do with certain cases.  Impartiality of an umpire until the game is played or some such thing.

Bottom line: Arlen Specter's job is to see to it that Judge Roberts gets a fair hearing and is passed favorably out of committee.  He would like for John Roberts to make this as easy for him as possible.

After Roberts's opening remarks, when the chairman gaveled the session to a close, his lips had the evident curl which indicated that when he was out of the room, he would smile.  Broadly.

I'm with Thomas on this.  Chuck Schumer is in the minority.  Barring an "Anita Hill" -- and Roberts doesn't fit the proper stereotypes -- John Roberts will be the next Chief Justice of the United States.

that Ginsburg did skip a lot of questions in her hearing.

Roberts will as well I'm certain.

Thanks Mark for your summary as well as Neil's posting.

I'm sure there are going to be some rather pointed questions coming Roberts way, even from Spector, but at least Arlen seems to be holding up his end of the bargain.

We'll see if he continues to do so if it's Edith Jones across the table from him (or whoever).

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator Leahy, and members of the committee.

Let me begin by thank Senators Lugar and Warner and Bayh for their warm and generous introductions. And let me reiterate my thanks to the president for nominating me.

I'm humbled by his confidence and, if confirmed, I will do everything I can to be worthy of the high trust he has placed in me.

Let me also thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the committee for the many courtesies you've extended to me and my family over the past eight weeks.

I'm particularly grateful that members have been so accommodating in meeting with me personally. I have found those meetings very useful in better understanding the concerns of the committee as the committee undertakes its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent.

I know that I would not be here today were it not for the sacrifices and help over the years of my family, who you met earlier today, friends, mentors, teachers and colleagues -- many of whom are here today.

Last week one of those mentors and friends, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, was laid to rest. I talked last week with the nurses who helped care for him over the past year, and I was glad to hear from them that he was not a particularly good patient.

He chafed at the limitations they tried to impose.

His dedication to duty over the past year was an inspiration to me and, I know, to many others.

I will miss him.

My personal appreciation that I owe a great debt to others reinforces my view that a certain humility should characterize the judicial role.

Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them.

The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules.

But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.

Judges have to have the humility to recognize that they operate within a system of precedent, shaped by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath.

And judges have to have the modesty to be open in the decisional process to the considered views of their colleagues on the bench.

Mr. Chairman, when I worked in the Department of Justice, in the office of the solicitor general, it was my job to argue cases for the United States before the Supreme court.

I always found it very moving to stand before the justices and say, I speak for my country.

But it was after I left the department and began arguing cases against the United States that I fully appreciated the importance of the Supreme Court and our constitutional system.

Here was the United States, the most powerful entity in the world, aligned against my client. And, yet, all I had to do was convince the court that I was right on the law and the government was wrong and all that power and might would recede in deference to the rule of law.

That is a remarkable thing.

It is what we mean when we say that we are a government of laws and not of men. It is that rule of law that protects the rights and liberties of all Americans. It is the envy of the world. Because without the rule of law, any rights are meaningless.

President Ronald Reagan used to speak of the Soviet constitution, and he noted that it purported to grant wonderful rights of all sorts to people. But those rights were empty promises, because that system did not have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law and enforce those rights. We do, because of the wisdom of our founders and the sacrifices of our heroes over the generations to make their vision a reality.

Mr. Chairman, I come before the committee with no agenda.

I have no platform.

Judges are not politicians who can promise to do certain things in exchange for votes.

I have no agenda, but I do have a commitment. If I am confirmed, I will confront every case with an open mind. I will fully and fairly analyze the legal arguments that are presented. I will be open to the considered views of my colleagues on the bench.

And I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability. And I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.

Senators Lugar and Bayh talked of my boyhood back home in Indiana. I think all of us retain, from the days of our youth, certain enduring images.

For me those images are of the endless fields of Indiana, stretching to the horizon, punctuated only by an isolated silo or a barn. And as I grew older, those endless fields came to represent for me the limitless possibilities of our great land.

Growing up, I never imagined that I would be here, in this historic room, nominated to be the chief justice. But now that I am here, I recall those endless fields with their promise of infinite possibilities, and that memory inspires in me a very profound commitment.

If I am confirmed, I will be vigilant to protect the independence and integrity of the Supreme Court, and I will work to ensure that it upholds the rule of law and safeguards those liberties that make this land one of endless possibilities for all Americans.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, members of the committee.

I look forward to your questions.

The NE counties at issue are in NW Nebraska, and are pretty small.  Check out how badly South Dakota does.

Indian reservations. At least the 26%+ counties.

. . . and now we're getting way off topic, but my Top Three list of Issues That Depress Me Too Much When I Think About Them, So I Try Not To is usually topped by Native American alcoholism and poverty.  Anyone who's read Gary Smith's piece on Jonathan Takes Enemy in SI knows what I mean.

Once Bush is our of office all the re-education and concentration camps will be closed anyway :-)

The seven Nebraska counties average 750 residents each, mostly all white. Per capita income is low, but the cost of living is also low:  15% or so are below the poverty level (vs. 10% in Nebraska and 12% in the US). Sherman OR is in the same boat. Altogether we're talking about less than 7,000 souls, poor souls granted, but hardly representative of Poverty in America.

By contrast, Starr, TX pop. 57,678 is 98% Hispanic, 51% below poverty level. Issaquena (pop. 2,016) and Jefferson (pop. 9,533), MS are 63% and 87% black, respectively, and poverty rates in the mid thirties. Ziebach, SD (pop. 2,551) is 72% Native American and 50% below poverty level.

Orleans Parish (pop. 469,000, two-thirds African American) has a poverty rate of 28%.

I gotta get back to work; I'll leave it to you to correlate the voting patterns.

Source:  

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

in this case as someone posts below, these are indian reservations so that would explain things a bit.

I heard one member of the commitee make the comment that because of the de facto mandate from a President's election, Senate confirmation must necessarily assume a position, initially atleast, of confirmation.

I'm paraphrasing here, and I'm not an attorney, but this premise seems reasonable to me.  

Anyone have any guidance for us non-attorney types?

A very good statement.

"I'm open minded but independent"

The open minded will allow him to deflect just about any query about how he would rule on things like abortion and affirmative action.

Good first day... hopefully this goes off without a hitch so Bush can get to the business of his next nomination.

That's a book about the 1st Adams presidency and the extreme partisanship rampant at the time. It was difficult for me to read -- all that negativity.

I think things have not changed all that much. In fact, those that long for the glory days of bipartisanship make me laugh. What bipartisanship?

and well spoken.  His statement was SOOOOO superior to anything His Highnesses on the Highly Exalted Committee of Black Robed Masters have ever in their whole lives said, they would shut up and vote if they had a nickel's worth of sense.....but, of course, they don't.

But they have a website.

it doesn't actually resolve any issue.  There are competent umpires, incompetent ones, hitter's umpires, pitcher's umpires, etc.

I guess the question from all sides of the aisle is what kind of umpire exactly will we be getting.

A hitter's umpire and a pitcher's umpire are, by their definitions, poor umpires; cheaters even.

A fair umpire is one who does not favor pitchers or hitters, but calls them where they are to the best of his ability.  The strike zone is in the rule book.  Anyone who moves it or changes it is cheating, or what we know as legislating from the bench.