No comment
NY Times columnist David Rosenbaum today reminds potential borkhappy senators that the words “no comment” by Supreme Court nominees on particular topics should expected in upcoming hearings and are historically based. Says Rosenbaum:
[A]s a practical matter, senators have no real recourse when a nominee declines to answer questions. They can hardly refuse to confirm the nominee on that ground alone, since so many other justices who have been noncommittal on the issues of the day have been approved.
And even as Dems threaten to act like donkeys on the Supreme nomination, a Washington Times editorial reminds them to adhere to their own standard on the timing of hearings.
Jul.12, 2005 10:45 am |
The Courts |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Commenting Rules
Do's
Do Not's
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.