It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Biden To Roberts: 'You're The Best' You Read it Right!!!

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 10:01 PM
Biden To Roberts: 'You're The Best'

Exclusive Drudge sources in the U.S. Senate's Hart Building heard Democrat Sen. Joe Biden say to Judge John G. Roberts in a private conversation on the hearing room floor: 'You're the best I've ever seen before the committee'...


I wonder if this is true?

This floors me after I saw waht he said on camera!

[edit on 14-9-2005 by edsinger]

posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 10:26 PM
He probably meant something like "the best in dodging my unfair questions"

I still doubt he'll vote for him.

posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 05:34 PM

Originally posted by edsinger
Biden To Roberts: 'You're The Best'

I would assume he meant it in the same way a prosecuting attorney might say "You're to best" to a defense lawyer that gets even the obviously guilty man set free.

Pretty much what djohnsto77 said, only without the 'unfair questions' comment. All the questions are fair. It's how they're answered that matters.

posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 05:49 PM
Yeah, something's fishy. Democrats aren't allowed to support or compliment Republicans, remember?

posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 06:45 PM
I think he was commenting more about his ability to hold his ground answering questions without the use of notes or assistants to help recall info. He commented on this a little bit during the hearing today. It wouldn't surprise me if this incident is true.

I myself am very impressed by Judge Roberts ability to speak in depth the way he does without the use of notes etc...

posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 07:09 PM
I realized today watching the hearings and analyzing the subtext he's John Edwards without the substance. Very slick.

I don't even think the Republicans know who they're about to vote for.

He's just a suit. The frank exchanges today were wonderful. But it has to be frustrating. Nobody knows this guy at all. He could be fine though.

He all but openly stated he's no rogue activist ideologue like Thomas or Scalia trying to reshape America in some revisionist image. If that changes from the bench, oh well. I was getting tired of this country anyway.

[edit on 15-9-2005 by RANT]

posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 07:41 PM
Looks are deceiving and I don't truth that man at all, he is a wolf in sheep's clothes all charming and self poised.

His grooming has been done to perfection.

Onces he is released into the Supreme court as a chief he will do what he has all along mean to do.

And time is in his side.

posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 01:47 AM
in continuation of the topic line from the board concerning Move on dot org and the judge roberts topic.

You asked why concerning my statement of This is the arena where it is insulting to me and Americans who can think outside the box.

It is insulting to me to listen to this line of thinking and questioning when it is obvious that control of who or whom gets on the Supreme Court is a matter of cultivating votes from one political position or another. To cater to a market ...for votes to maintain political power. The litmus test for this was confirmed early in the questioning of Judge Roberts when the topic of Roe vs Wade came up immediately at the starting gates. Roe vs Wade for so long became the litmus test for any office in the land...even dog catcher. Never was the requirement are you qualified for the job..but what is ones stance on abortion. This is the very phoneyness of politics personified and clearly marked out. It is political whoredom at its finest. Remember ..never is the issue are you qualified for the job..but what is your stance on key issues..Roe vs Wade being the litmus test. This too is obvious by many of the posts here.
Economists and Politicians know without a doubt that the female is the deciding factor in much of the American economy. This means markets and politics ..especially with women voters. Women are the deciders of what kind of car gets bought al. Most men are so dumb they are totally oblivious to this concept. Give them some sports and cheerleaders and they are good for another hundred thousand miles.
This means women are not a "victimized " class of people in this country to have such economic influence across the board. Single or married.
This also means that politically ..the woman must be sold on a political party not the man. Especially in high electorial vote states. This means exclusively a womans issue must be the forefront of politics to get the votes. Nothing hits home like sexual issues. Nothing sells as well to them as sexual issues. The resultant issue to galvanize women is vs Wade. This issue for votes must be salvaged at all costs...because to loose it means votes. Dont worry ..the average American male is way to dumb to think this through. What a dumb stupid bunch of men.

The investment in women and other identifiable groups for votes hinges constantly on the "victimization " line being effectively used in the political arena. This is what I mean by Americans who can think outside the box are getting insulted by this type of political merchandizing. It is getting very olde. It gets to where after a while you can see it coming.

The standard usage of Race baiting after the Hurricane in the south is textbook. It too gets matter whom is using it ..but it is used by the body politic to keep and maintain votes. It is textbook Hegalian dialectic with the public caught in between. Same pattern as previously stated. "Victimization"

The latest ones to get on the "Victimization " bandwagon to play through is the Gay issues groups. I think though that after 9/11 this movement lost alot of its momentum to terrorism. Dont worry it will be resurrected when politically expedient. For votes of course..but this will not be explained to the lieu of any emotional issues which can be resurrected to cover the real issue ..votes.

Nevertheless...many people want to emotionally debate the issues of Women , Race, and Gay issues with much emotions and namecalling/stereotyping etc etc etc.
My particular slant on them is that they are all about votes. How to get votes..particularly where there are areas with high electorial votes to be gained. The public gets emotionally charged on the issues and the partys look for votes. The perfect scam.

By the way are correct when you say the "restoration of the true brotherhood " can be interpreted in many ways. I mean it only one. The Occult way. Just like Politics ..Occult.


posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 02:17 AM
Personally, I think the fix is in.

Watching Arlen Spector, especially his eyes, I just can't help but wonder why so many pro-choice politicos are protecting him. And not just protecting him, but shielding him from their own side.

I think John Roberts will turn out to be a moderate in Wolf's clothing, and that will be one of the ultimate legacies that president Bush will leave behind. Enduring, moderate, and unexpected

posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 03:56 AM
This just harkens back to the brilliance of nominating Roberts in the first place. Kudos are in order to the team that shortlisted this guy.

Why? Im a pro choice Republican so of cource I have concerns but:

1) He is not a Bork type that would have please the ultra right
2) Because fo this, the Dems will go easier on him
3) The Democrats do not have the majority needed to play hardball and you bet the nuclear option will be used if they do.
4) He was recently confirmed to the appelate court with no problems so why should there be any now?

As people have pointed out, who knows what he will do from the bench. I think he will surprise people and be quite the moderate.

posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 07:57 AM

Originally posted by brimstone735
Personally, I think the fix is in.

I thought that too yesterday, but wasn't about to jinx it by saying so. The fallout from the radical right is going to be interesting if this proves to be the case down the road. What did Bush know and when did he know it?

OR, if he is just lying to everyone and a total ideologue activist, then he's a better actress than a thousand dollar whore.

posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 08:04 AM
Well Orange, You have your opinions I have mine that is the beauty of chat boards.

BTW Rant you are right on the spot.

OR, if he is just lying to everyone and a total ideologue activist, then he's a better actress than a thousand dollar whore.

Its like everything in this world and of human nature when we are to go for what we want the most.

lying is not a problem you don't have to be a thousand dollar whore, but a high class one with a lot of education.

posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 10:09 AM
I don't know what's going to happen with Roberts in the end, so I'm keep my eye on the situation and will wait with an open mind.

If he could just get that last property rights case overturned I'd be happy (although Roe vs Wade and Affermative Action reversals would be nice too).

I've listened to most of the questioning (which, if you did too, you know was a tedious task) and I have to say I've been pretty impressed with Roberts.

Perhaps not as a judge, but he's a damn fine lawyer, that's for sure.

Personally I don't care about his politics, I just want him to be an original intent Constitutionalist. You know, a real State's rights sort of guy.

posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 10:58 AM
Jethro you posted:

"Personally I don't care about his politics, I just want him to be an original intent Constitutionalist. You know, a real State's rights sort of guy. "

I tend to lean twords the original intent of the constitution..not the thinking that we need to modify everything for current events or expediency. Especially political expediency. Also alot of what people think are issues on a national level should be up to the individual states not the Feds.
To many states have been fed from the public treasury in the manner as was done in Ancient Rome resulting in huge deficits for programs to gaurantee votes. This is not the only cause of deficits but it is part. These moneys have become like a drug habit to many states ..they are hooked. The intent of the framers is for the supreme court and appellate courts to judge whether cases are in line with the intent of the Constitutionof the United States not social issues currently used to grab votes for the political process...for the body politic.
What people..especially sage intelligent sophisticated people try to imply is that the Constitution of the United States is olde and outdated and needs serious overhaul.
My position is that the body politic especially the sage sophisticants and intelligences are in need of serious overhaul as their methods are olde and outdated. Furthermore these methods are a revival of the methods used to gain power by the Ancients. Nothing new going on here.
Since the body politic also finances public schooling they will go to great lengths to keep this knowlege and pattern of operation from public view.

By the way ..I have heard of it over and over in various news formats...but never quite sure of what it entails... would someone please explain to me as to what constitutes a "nuclear option?". I never did quite catch on to this one.

Also to the property rights cases...I am assuming you are speaking of the decisions on eminent domain. I too am alarmed by this.
It was told to me over ten years ago that the state and federal governments are moving in a direction to abolish private property. They are not moving to abolish the property but just the privateness of it. Hence the property, no matter who owns or works for it , can be disposed of at the discression of the body politic. This is Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels hidden ..occult style in the guise of a Republic substituted by Democracy. Wise men...sophists know better than you how to take care of your property. It is Feudalism reserructed.

As to States Rights,jethro, the power of the individual States was "originally intended by the drafting of the Constitution to be represenatives elected by the people of the States and the senators to be elected by the "legislatures" of the individual states. This is originally penned in Article 1 section 3 of the Constitution of the United States.
Begining with Amentment 17 (circa 1913) to the Constitution of the United States the change was made where the two senators from the individual states were now elected by the people and no longer by the state legislatures.
The intent of the framers was to have the states legislators vote in thier senators as to have someone in Washington DC looking out for the state intrests. States Rights.
Now that you have Senators voted in by the public you have two houses of represenatives..not a house and a senate. No one is looking out for the buisness of the individual states. This is one avenue by which the power of
"states rights" was broken by social planners and engineers. Individual states rights is a very dangerous thing to a central government looking for more power.
Jethro..I just thought you'd like to know that it is not taught to people in government classes anymore.


posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 03:27 PM
with Roberts, there's something amiss. It's something to do with some level of psycho profile I've seen before; as if there's bones, whole skeletons of 'em, in his mental closet.
I swear by my life's experiences - I've seen that look in the eyes before.
The Senators asking him questions are not on the same par - Roberts is Hannibal Lechter grade, they're Jr. FBI.

posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 01:08 AM
Have you ever actually spoken with a person who is well familiar with the law..admiralty law and common law..constitutional law. All very different types of law?? How about jurisdiction issues.????
Ever sat in a court and seen a judge eat up a lawyer who doesnt get it or even understand the court process. They eat them alive for ignorance. They dont tolerate them. I dont blame them for this. What do you think they do with ordinary people who dont even know what a poor lawyer knows. Do they educate them on court time???
What do you think a sitting judge sees when they watch a Senate panel many who are lawyers and they try to confuse politics with law or legal precident????
What do you think goes through a sitting judges mind when they know that these Senators are pimping for political votes and grandstanding for the same and the judge knows it.???? All of them!!!

You Posted:
"I swear by my life's experiences - I've seen that look in the eyes before"

Bout time..dont forget to mention the slope of his cranial developement. You know...the way they used to measure with calipers to see if one was intelligent or not. If one had brain capacity!!


top topics


log in