The issues Roberts should be asked about are his ethics, his training,
his experience, his scholarship, and his temperament.  Views about
issues which may or may not come before the court are not helpful.  If
the question is so broad that it is an interrogation about ISSUES (not
CASES), you have to expect a broad answer.  I would answer the same way.
 I certainly would not discuss ANY memos I have written for a client,
nor would I expect any college graduate (much less a US Senator) to
associate my views with my client's positions.
Furthermore, isn't anyone disturbed about language taken out of context
(Sen Kennedy's question about the EEOC) and twisted to make it seem that
Roberts owns the language?
BTW, having Biden and Kennedy vote on someone else's ethical values is
laughable if it were not so tragic.  


TZ

-----Original Message-----
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of maxwell
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 3:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: John Roberts' Refusals to Discuss.

Greetings,

After 3 days of hearings I am curious about ALSBers' assessment of the
soon to 
be Chief Justice Roberts. As are most people, I am extremely impressed
with 
the man's intellect and advocacy skills. My uneasiness  comes, however,
from a 
feeling that he is being disingenuous when he refuses to disuss certain 
general ISSUES (as distinguished from specific CASES now in the courts)
based 
on the "possibility" of the issue coming before the court in the future.
One 
of the Democrats on the committee (Biden?) challenged Roberts on this by

pointing out that every time a justice writes an opinion he or she is 
revealing their view on an issue but they obviously do not recuse
themselves 
fom hearing future cases that might involve the same issue. For example,

Scalia's view that gay rights do not exist as a constitutional matter is

obvious from his dissent in Lawrence, but no one would suggest that he
has now 
disqualified himself from participating in a future gay rights case
before the 
court.

So, I guess my question is whether Roberts' refusals are based on valid 
grounds. Any thoughts?

Keith