Roberts by his refusal to answer key questions made it very clear that he is not in favor of the voting rights laws, women's rights to equal pay and equal treatment, the right to privacy and he believes that states should be in charge of all family and domestic law, such as abortion rights or how they handle wife beating cases (or ignore them). He will be a disaster for our daughters and granddaughters.

I remember the "good old days" prior to the 1960s. Believe me we fought hard for the rights that we now take for granted. Civil rights only happened in 1964 and the voting rights act was passed into law in 1965. We do not want to go back there.

Proud member of the reality based community.

Bob, Bob, you seem somewhat distraught... with good reason.

But look at the upside, it could've been Fat Tony we'd be dealing with as CJ for life...

The democrats should, but won't, filibuster Roberts nomination. The worst that could happen is the Bushists use the nuclear option and eliminate the filibuster for court nominees. Rolling over by the democrats and the use of the nuclear option by the Bushists produces the same result, Roberts nomination would go through.

But if the democrats filibuster, they could draw national attention to what Roberts stands for since the media would take up the filibuster story. The polls are against using the nuclear option and the positions of Bush/Roberts. So what do the democrats have to lose? A full airing of the Bushist positions should help with the 2006 elections, particularly when Bush's approval ratings are so low.

If the democrats filibuster and the Bushists use the nuclear option, I hope the democrats live up to their threats of clogging up the system so the Senate gets nothing done. Again, the shutdown would draw media attention and again would give the democrats the chance to air all the Bushist positions that the polls say the public is against.

Lindsey Graham was one of the Bushist Senators that made the agreement to avoid confrontation on the fiibuster issue earlier this year when Bush sent up the same group of far reich judicial nominees for the appeals courts that the democrats blocked last time (one of which even Gonzales derided for her far reich judicial activism in disregarding statutes when they both were on the Texas supreme court). The agreement let these wing-nuts through while preserving the democrats' filibuster right for extraordinarilly bad nominees. Graham's openning comments on the Roberts' nomination sounded like a threat that the Bushists would use the nuclear option if the democrats tried to use the filibuster to block Roberts.

The democrats should have had the showdown on the filibuster with the appeals court nominees since they decide a lot more cases than reach the Supreme Court. Besides, those nominees were crazy even by Bushist standards and the democrats would have had more fodder in the media war that would have followed the use of the nuclear option.

Judge Roberts has avoided every targeted question; 'making him provide a specific opinion, view and value'...this isn't a problem; given he actually has the right to 'preserve and/or reserve' his opinion on any given 'pending case' and/or case that may come before the court'.

What he's actually doing ; is protecting the 'other judges' he'll appoint later and making way for the 'next nominee' -[replacing Sandra Day O'Conner] --since this forum will help and has 'drowned out' any obvious attempt from the Judiciary Committee to reveal his views.

He needs to answer questions; 'off from precedence; --i.e. case law [Bush v Gore]...and talk about his opinion and case law he either wrote and/or argued. This case wasn't and isn't 'precedence'; therefore, the panel [Repugs] are making this forum a 'walk in the park'. Most of Roberts background were 'clerking for Judges, litigation and trial law, case law. --

[As an 'Appeals Judge' ; he didn't have to write 'case law'; rather he over-ruled on adjudicated cases; from previous courts and/or hear arguments based on valid appeals]

So far; Roberts couldn't possibly become the Chief Justice of the United States based on his answers; he can go back to the 'constitutional exceptional lawyer'he is..and back to the courtroom--although since he's been nominated --no else is interviewing for the ;job'...slam dunk for the Repugs.

BTW: Supreme Court already has (4) liberals + (4) conservatives + (1) Moderate..[Roberts for Rehnquist].

There ar several reasons that he might not be answering. First, he hasn't been gisven all of the answers yet because Rove has to suit the answer for the time. Remember the Republicans must maximize their financial rewards on everything. Therefore, the answer may be time-dependent. Second, he may not remember his answers or even the questions because he has forgotten the details about his trip to Florida in the 2000 election debacle/theft and his memory of ever belonging to the Federalist Society. His wife is behind him smiling and whispering her name to him in case he forgets. Third, since he has such great taste in colleagues and friends (Mr. Bush especially), he may be missing a few cards in the deck upstairs. Now, I have heard how brilliant he is,but no one who is that smart could hang around George. The touching tale of how bad a patient Rehnquist was in his last year brought tears to my eyes. I wonder if the nurses were male or female. If they were female, they deserved the abuse and less pay of course.

As could have been expected Roberts is dissembling. He says there is a constitutional privacy right, but refuses to go into particulars. Nobody is challenging him on his unfailing devotion to an imperial presidency. Nobody is confronting him on the conflict of interest he had by interviewing with the White House for the Supreme Court slot at the same time he was confiming Bush's self-delegated right to disappear anyone anytime without charge or judicial review.

From what the news is showing, Roberts isn't answering anybody's questions - Republicans or Democrats. Why should he be confirmed? He isn't being open and the White House won't release all documents because of what they will reveal. This is outrageous! Hey, you guys in Washington can do something about this - do not confirm him. If you confirm this one, Bush knows that no one will stand up to him and I can only imagine who his next pick will be. Just remember that if Bush picked him - then he is no good!

"They want the federal government controlling Social Security

- George W. Bush in a debate in St. Charles, Mo., Nov. 2, 2000

John Roberts was told to give only his name, rank, and serial number by Karl Rove. He is giving only that. I guess we need to concentrate on the questions that he might be able to answer like questions about his favorite meals, the books that he reads to his children at bedtime, and his wife's choice of colors for their home. I guess that none of these issues would come before the court. His passion for the law is truly heartwarming. Unfortunately, I believe that he thinks the Supreme Court makes the laws not interpretes them. If someone is going to be in office for a lifetime which for him could be thirty to forty years, I think that we deserve to know a little more about the laws that he intends to make. We know already about the company that he keeps and that doesn't bode well for the Constitution.