Dada is the sun, Dada is the egg. Dada is the Police of the Police.

7/26/2005

The Ginsburg precedent

Right-wingers insist that Roberts ought to be held to the same standards in his confirmation hearings as Justice Ginsburg was in hers.

"At her 1993 confirmation hearing, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, invoking her ethical obligation as a judge to maintain both the fact and the appearance of impartiality, steadfastly declined to answer any questions about her current views on issues that might come before the Court ... Let us hope the Senate behaves in a similar fashion this time also." (NY Girl)

"In light of all these demands that Roberts be investigated, here's some precedent from Justice Ginsburg's confirmation: 'Justice Ginsburg declined to answer, or gave only generalized answers, to a vast number of the questions she was asked during her confirmation hearings. Despite this, Justice Ginsburg was confirmed by a vote of 96-3, which suggests that the Senate recognized her reasons for caution as valid and appropriate.' " (Abuse of Discretion)

"...the precedent was set with Ginsburg, and it is very unfair to now set a different standard for a Republican nominee. If Democrats think nominees should answer every question, they should have required the same with Ginsburg. Instead, Senator Joe Biden and other Senate Democrats informed Ginsburg that she need not answer any question that she didn't want to." (Thoughts from the Right)

I don't know about the rest of my colleagues on the left, but I'd be happy for the Senate to abide by the 'Ginsburg Precedent.' From Nominationwatch.org via Polianna.com:
Here’s Justice Ginsburg’s response to then-Senator Hank Brown's question about the constitutional underpinnings of the right to choose:

“[Y]ou asked me about my thinking about equal protection versus individual autonomy, and my answer to you is it is both. This is something central to a woman's life, to her dignity. It is a decision that she must make for herself. And when government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices.”

And here’s her answer to a question by Senator Leahy about whether there’s a constitutional right to privacy:

“There is a constitutional right to privacy which consists I think of at least two distinguishable parts. One is the privacy expressed most vividly in the Fourth Amendment, that is the government shall not break into my home or my office, without a warrant, based on probable cause, the government shall leave me alone. The other is the notion of personal autonomy, the government shall not make my decisions for me, I shall make, as an individual, uninhibited, uncontrolled by my government, the decisions that affect my life's course.”

Indeed, the Judiciary Committee’s report on the Ginsburg nomination concluded that “the committee knows far more about Judge Ginsburg’s views on reproductive rights than it has known about any previous nominee’s. Judge Ginsburg’s record and testimony suggest both a broad commitment to reproductive freedoms and a deep appreciation of the equality and autonomy values underlying them.”
If Roberts states his views on abortion and privacy rights that explicitly, Democrats will be satisfied. So yes, that's all we ask - for the Senate to adopt the same standards for Roberts that it did for Ginsburg.

Blogarama - The Blog Directory Sanity is not statistical.