Richard
You are correct in that Biden plagiarized.  

TZ

-----Original Message-----
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard Hurley
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 8:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: John Roberts' Refusals to Discuss.

Isn't Biden the person that cheated on some of academic work while a
student at Syracuse?

________________________________

From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk on behalf of
Kenneth Schneyer
Sent: Thu 9/15/2005 4:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: John Roberts' Refusals to Discuss.



Hi Keith,

Biden's argument was creative, but ultimately a non-starter.  (Indeed
Biden knows perfectly well that no candidate for Supreme Court since the
unfortunate Robert Bork has ventured to telegraph his or her decisions
on possible cases; he knew Roberts would never respond; so he' s making
a show for the folks in Delware by thundering, "Don't you think the
people have a right to know?"  when of course he knows they don't.)  I
thought Roberts's response to Biden was right on the mark:  Opinions
expressed in judicial decisions are the direct result of full arguments
made by both sides, of a complete trial record, of deliberations in
chambers, of discussions with clerks, and of negotiations over the final
drafts of opinions.  Further (this is my addition, not Roberts's)
there's no way to write a judicial decision without expressing an
opinion about something; it does not therefore follow that one must
publicly declare one's opinion about everything.

I also want to note that Roberts is insisting on talking about these
matters as decisions on individual cases, largely crafted to the facts
of those cases, rather than as positions on broad policy issues, which
he consistently says is the province of the legislature. 

I would say, further, that Roberts has not been refusing to talk about
legal issues.  Indeed, he has been quite detailed in his analysis of
some questions of constitutional and statutory law.  But when genuinely
controversial issues have been brought up, on topics that are known to
be a continual topic of federal litigation, he has (quite correctly) not
telegraphed what his opinion would be in advance.

In general I have been impressed by Roberts's refusal to be rattled by
politicians, on both sides of the aisle, who want to make political hay
on a confirmation they know is in the bag.

Ken Schneyer

________________________________

From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk on behalf of
maxwell
Sent: Thu 9/15/2005 4:14 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