I'm hearing a lot of excuses to not contest Bush's SCOTUS nominee.

[Guaranteed]

Folks, now is not the time to lose our nerve.

I don't want to see people getting tired. This is extremely important, and we all know it. If you look at Roberts' record, you know what we're dealing with.

Nor should we allow our leadership the luxury of holding back just because we're scared.

The filibuster IS still there, people- no matter what you may or the Republicans may want you to think.

Don't let up. Guts ball.

[Coloradan4Truth]

1. You Said It! n/t

[Guaranteed]

2. KICK.

I'm not letting up.

[napi21]

3. I agree we should not chicken out, but I also do not believe we

should slam the Roberts nomination without just cause.

There's a lot of stuff out there right now, and that will keep up for days or weeks.

Should we not give the Senate a chance to interrogate him before we start screaming NO NO NO?

[Guaranteed]

6. If you need more information, go here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1940789

People shouldn't be kidding themselves about this.

This is the BUSH Administration.

[napi21]

16. I've already read all of that and his bios on the net.

Dick Durbin on CNN now just said he asked Roberts about his position on Roe, and that he said it should be overturned. Roberts responded that he was arguing for his client at that time. Durbin then asked what his feelings were, and he said "It's settled law."

Now, I don't know if he told the truth or not, and I know that this is only one issue. I still think we should wait until his confirmation hearings before we declare him unacceptable!

[Guaranteed]

30. I'm betting that he's probably not telling the truth. nt

[mondo joe]

4. I'm just wondering who the alternative candidate is.

It's not as if * is going to pull a Ginsberg out of his back pocket.

[Guaranteed]

7. Doesn't matter. It's a matter of will.

We filibuster till he finds someone moderate enough for the American people to live with.

We're fighting for 49% of the people, here. We OWE them a duty to fight this.

[mondo joe]

9. My question then is what is the minimum conservative we can live with.

Which issue would you yield on before okaying the nominee.

[Guaranteed]

10. That's a good question.

But for damned sure I'm not yielding on all of them, or even most of them.

I'm not giving up my civil liberties or the separation of church and state, I know that.

And if this nominee can change the balance on Roe v. Wade, there will be no compromise on that, either.

[mondo joe]

12. But I do think we need a more explicit answer.

On which would we be willing to compromise?

Please realize I don't want Roe overturned. But when you say we need someone moderate ENOUGH it implies there will be compromise. So which issues will it be?

[Guaranteed]

13. Well, this is where being a Democrat becomes difficult.

However, I believe that all of us understands, more or less, what the extremely important issues are. The issues that define our party and make us proud to be Americans.

[mondo joe]

17. I respectfully ask you which issues you are willing to compromise on.

If you're willing to compromise on a moderate of some sort I think it's worth stating what the criteria are.

Roe?

Gay marriage?

Affirmative action?

What?

[Guaranteed]

23. Well, assuming that you're willing to compromise on more issues than me...

Right?

Roe, no.

Gay marriage, yes. Affirmative action- possibly.

And, of course, you're most definitely willing to compromise on those, right, since you support this nominee?

[mondo joe]

25. I don't know if I'm willing to compromise on more or less than you. But

since you have already suggested a willingness to compromise on some points I think it's fair to know what they are.

And I don't "support this nominee".

[Guaranteed]

27. Well then, to be fair, I think you should answer the same question. nt

[Guaranteed]

26. Conversely, which issues wouldn't you compromise on?

Considering that this appointment basically covers them all.

[mondo joe]

28. I'd say right to privacy is the most critical I'd not compromise on.

But I'm also not the one making declarations about MAKING a compromise.

[Guaranteed]

29. Who is? You call Roberts any kind of compromise? nt

[mondo joe]

34. Again, you asserted you'd be willing to compromise so I wanted to know

what the compromise would be.

As for Roberts, I don't believe enough is yet known about him to run around shrieking yet.

I expect he would be a risk to Roe and other issues, but my understanding is that he has not released much opinion of his own, though much is infered from his clients.

Bush likely chose someone with as little to pin on him as possible.

[Guaranteed]

36. You still haven't answered the question that you raised.

Regarding it your answer is as good as mine.

In any case, you said I was making assertions about compromises- as if Roberts was some kind compromise.

My question for you is, in what sense is Roberts a compromise for the Republicans?

[mondo joe]

38. Anything can be a compromise - the question is what you are willing to

compromise.

And for me right of privacy would be the key issue, because much else falls from that.

As to what sort of compromise Roberts is for Repubs, it depends on which sort of compromise. For more traditional Repubs, not much of one, for the more rabid neocons more of a compromise than they'd probably like.

But when the Repubs have the presidency and every other majority, I don't expect them to HAVE to compromise as much as we will.

The question then becomes how much are we - the minority - willing to compromise. If the answer is NOT AT ALL, it requires a different response than a willingness to compromise on certain issues.

[Guaranteed]

43. What's a right of privacy? What does that encompass? nt

[mondo joe]

44. It has historically been the foundation for right to abortion, overturning

anti-sodomy laws and more.

It is not the ONLY legal basis one can make for those issues. And one could say they acknowledge a right to privacy and still find against those things.

Nothing is certain.

[Guaranteed]

46. I'm not sure that "privacy"- as related to the 4th Amendment- was the

basis for Roe v. Wade. You could possibly prove me wrong, though.

I think you're kind of overgeneralizing the term. I think you should be more specific.

For example, you asked me about gay marriage and affirmative action. Would you compromise on those?

[mondo joe]

47. I don't think you CAN be more specific in this process.

And as to what I'd compromise, it depends on a lot - I don't have a checklist. And it depends other circumstances as well, not the least of which is what we can effectively GET a compromise on.

The fact is we are the minority in govt right now - I don't expect to get most of what we want.

[Guaranteed]

51. I was more specific.

And I asked you specific questions. So far, you've just dodged them.

I answered the questions that YOU posed. You're telling me you can't answer them?

[mondo joe]

52. But I did answer you: right of privacy. I even told you why.

But YOU were the one who articulated you'd be willing to compromise on some issues. So I asked you which.

I'm willing to stand by any statement I've made and answer questions about it - but I'm not going to do any dumb thing someone else did.

I don't have a checklist because I don't think it's possible to address the nominee in that way. I think you can only address qualifications and principles - not cases that haven't been made yet.

[Guaranteed]

53. No, I asked the same questions to you about gay marriage

and affirmative action that you asked me. You've yet to answer them. You're still dodging.

Would you or would you not be willing to compromise on the issues of abortion, gay marriage or affirmative action?

[mondo joe]

54. I would, in this situation, consider compromise on any issue depending on

what might be preserved in other issues. I don't have a fixed checklist. I want to save as much as possible - how to do that is not fixed. I care about gay marriage -- if I could get that but at the cost of right of privacy would I take that trade off? Probably not.

My principle issue is right of privacy - again, this has been the foundation of other issues of concern for me.

But any compromise is in a context -- a context of what else is on the table, and what is possible. In different situations I'd compromise more or less based on what I could get. And I'd havve to consider what failing to compromise would get me.

I can't give a more fixed answer because the scenario is not fixed. And just because someone else would give a simplistic answer doesn't mean I'd be as foolhardy.

In this case the nominee is a virtual shoe-in based on his previous confirmation and his qualifications. This places us at yet a greater disadvantage.

[Raiden]

37. I agree - and I don't think that's asking too much

If Roberts has a reactionary agenda - The senate Dems better be ready to fight. I'm tired of Congressional Democrats rolling over to Repubs...

But still, we have 5 weeks until the Senate's recess ends

[zinndependence]

41. exactly...like we are going to get someone better....

if we fight this one (I'm not saying we should roll over...we need debate, but the filibuster is not the answer. I think if we did that, it will further galvanize the right-wingers against us and they will send us someone much worse.)

[David Zephyr]

5. Agree.

We'll see how anti-choice Harry Reid now "leads" the Democrats in teh Senate.

Don't hold your breath.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

8. I Just Have A Bad Feeling

The Democrats will roll over as usual. But I am surprised Shrub did not pick a woman.

[ripple]

11. he will be confirmed

The 20 or so months he has spent on the bench provides little to tangle with. The Roe v. Wade stuff can easily be excused away, because he was arguing on behalf the administration he worked for.

I don't want to sound like a defeatist, but I am a realist. He was a clever pick and one we should be wary of. Unfortunately, if the dems protest him too much, it will look like we are obstructionists.

Any Bush pick is bad news, but unfortunately for all of us, he will land one, two, perhaps three appointees to the bench.

It's kind of like the Let's Make a Deal. Do we fight door number one, when we know virtually nothing about him, or do we hold out the fight for door number two (Chief Justice) and hope it's a winnable fight?

I don't know the answer, but I tend to wonder if they are hoping to get a fight on this one, just to make the next, even more controversial nominee, easier to confirm. Especially, if the nuke option goes down. :grr:

BTW, I especially hate that he is so young. He'll be on there forever.

[Guaranteed]

14. His views aren't unclear.

Why are you making excuses as if we don't know what he's going to do?

[ripple]

18. no excuses, just reality

I don't need to make excuses, but I'm well aware that * will have his appointment(s). I just don't want the dem Senators to look like obstructionists, in order to fuel public support for the nuke option.

My gut sense tells me that we need to hold out for the Chief Justice fight. I would hate to see the nuclear option already in place when that goes down.

I hate the entire deal, but we need the public on our side in order to fight the nuke option. I'm just not sure Roberts is going to be controversial enough to do that.

Tell me something about him that I haven't heard. Maybe I'll see it differently.

[Guaranteed]

24. No, don't act like you're going to then suddenly hold strong on the Chief

Justice fight. Gimme a break.

This is BS.

The filibuster remains. Let's use it, and if they use the nuke option, we shut the whole motherfucker down.

Roberts' record is crystal clear. If you'd let him in, you'd let in anyone.

Is there someone you WOULD filibuster?

[ripple]

32. Sorry if I angered you

I don't think his record IS crystal clear. That's the problem. He's only sat on the bench for twenty months. I just don't know that there is enough ammunition to gain public support for a showdown. Please keep in mind, I haven't researched this guy at all. The info I have about him is what I've learned within the last hour or so. On the surface, it just doesn't look like enough to gain public support for a filibuster.

I might be dead wrong, but I'm worried that a major fight over this nominee might backfire and give * complete control over future nominees.

The Chief Justice issue is huge, not that any justice isn't, but the Chief Justice has a helluva lot more power than the associate justices.

I hope we can disagree without insulting each other. I apologize if I've offended you in any way. Like I said, I'm just giving my initial reaction to what I've heard so far.

[Guaranteed]

35. No, I'm sorry for reacting so strongly.

I'm getting worked up. It was totally uncalled for.

However, I do see people making excuses over this. That statement about the Chief Justice fight...that sounded like exactly what I'm talking about. Why would we fight over that if we won't even fight over who's actually on the bench.

You're right though, I'm getting too worked up. I'm sorry about that.

[ripple]

39. No apologies necessary

This is our COUNTRY, after all.

I'm actually pretty disgusted that there isn't more transparent information on Roberts. I know what they're up to, I just don't know how we can fight it successfully on this attempt. The risk of being unsuccessful and allowing the nuke option to come into fruition is truly frightening, when I think that Bush has possibly two more appointees to go.

I agree with you, we shouldn't just roll over, no matter what. Hopefully, we'll get more definitive information about this guy...clubs he's been involved with, political contributions, religious activities, etc. and we'll have more ammunition.

I won't roll over, yet. I just think we need more information in order to wage an effective campaign.

Take care :hi:

[cally]

15. I completely agree

The Dems must have talking points already since they defeated the nomination twice. Get out there Dems and start fighting for us. We have to defeat this RW hack.

[ripple]

20. ok, maybe I'm mistaken

but I thought he was easily confirmed before. From what I understand, only three Senators opposed his confirmation.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[cally]

33. He was appointed twice before and

was not confirmed. The last time, when the Reps had the Senate, he was confirmed.

[ripple]

40. Thanks for the info!

I need to do a little bit more research on this guy, I guess. If you're correct about what preceded his actual appointment to the bench, you are absolutely right about the talking points. Much of the research will have been been done already.

Thanks again!

[JetCityLiberal]

19. Thanks for this post

BullGooseLooney. I am getting pretty ticked off at some of what I have been reading tonight.

This guy is young and dangerous and we HAVE to fight this.

[Walt Starr]

21. He was confirmed to the DC Court 99-0

Unanimously confirmed to the second highest court in the land.

He's filibuster proof. There's no there there.

[ConsAreLiars]

48. There was no vote, much less a 99-0 vote. This is part of the "big lie"

strategy, where misleading info gets repeated (not you, just the talking point). He was confirmed by a "unanimous consent" voice vote after Schumer and two others failed to block him in the Republican controlled committee.

[Walt Starr]

49. Confirmed by unanimous consent is just that

unanimous consent. Anybody who wanted to vote no simply had to object to get a recorded vote.

He is filibuster proof. Ain't gonna happen. Kennedy and some others can raise a ruckus, but at the end of the day say hello to Justice Roberts.

[newsguyatl]

63. you seem thrilled with the idea for some reason

[Straight Shooter]

22. I saw that he was born in 1955 and I almost freaked.

Too young, too damn young. Not enough life experience, not enough judicial experience.

What the hell does this guy know about anything? He was, what, 16 when Roe v. Wade became law? What kind of mother does he have? What are his sisters like? His grandmothers?

I'm very interested in his personal history and whether the female figures in his life were Stepford women, or dynamic individuals who might have influenced him to respect a woman's right to decide her own destiny.

[Dr Fate]

31. I dunno- we could let him sail through just to PSYCH them out.

It would confuse the Republicans who think this will be some huge fight/Rove distraction.

It could be a feather in our cap with moderates, etc. "We worked with Bush on this one- we gave him his man, now back to Bush credibility problems with national security..."

Let the interest groups go after him- we need to keep ROVE in the news.

BACK TO ROVE. ROVE. ROVE. ROVE. ROVE.

[Guaranteed]

42. We need to do both.

To think that a SC nominee is inconsequential is a pretty serious miscalculation.

Like others have said, this guy could be on the court for 30 years or more. He's only 50 years old.

[Dr Fate]

50. I agree to an extent.

Check out this take on things-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1941401

[ScreamingMeemie]

45. Potentially 40 years of backward judgements is enough for me

to contact my Senator. My daughter demands it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

55. I'm not scared or tired

I just think starting off in a fighting mode on this nomination is stupid and counterproductive. Nice try at framing the opposition, though. This is a strategic difference on how to proceed, not a battle of the ballsy fighters against the scared and tired "non-fighters." If something more damaging comes up in the hearings, I will support a filibuster. At this point, however, and sad to say, the Republicans have chosen somebody that most people will give a passing nod to, so entering the room with steam coming from the nostrils will look silly.

[Guaranteed]

57. You know what he'll do.

You're making excuses and taking the easy way out.

I can't stand seeing so much of DU doing this.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Guaranteed]

60. You may accept your new masters.

I, on the other hand, see hope- still.

We can filibuster.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Guaranteed]

62. You could write a book- "Capitulation for a Better America." nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

64. Sure thing

I already told you that I understand your ridiculous framing of everyone who disagrees with you. You don't have to repeat your nonsensical assertions. They certainly don't gain any traction through the repetition.

[seabeyond]

56. it isnt a matter of being scared, not having balls, loss of nerve

i ahve really come to a conclusion this threat of loss of roe vs wade is where we are in our nation. abortion has played such a huge part in what party is elected, especially the last election. i think this is something our nation is going to go thru. period. and, being the realistist, it is what we do with it when it happens. this is the inevitable, in electing bush, why we didnt want bush. and this is a huge issue on why bush won. had the support he did. this...........(as stupid as a single battle can be) is the battle that is happening in this nation. abortion and gays. could it be any more stupid

i think this will be something we will go thru, and all of us, that support choice will fight this all the while people are seeing the horrors of not allowing choice.

[TankLV]

59. Not "excuses" - "reasons".

Haven't heard one good reason to oppose him.

Except for the bombastic "end-of-the-world" editorializing.

I suggest we all calm down.

[FubarFly]

67. You haven't heard one good reason?

Are you deaf?

I would calm the fuck down if I knew that my fellow Democrats understood the severity of this nomination.

Exactly which of Robert's views do you agree with?

This nomination was engineered to ram through a loyal, young BFEE enabler which would please both the religious and corporatist base of the Republican Party.

It is the worst of all worlds.

How you can't see this is honestly beyond me.

[VOX]

65. Roberts was Kenneth Starr's boy during Bush 1. That means, "no quarter."

BGL, I'm glad to see your post encouraging the fight on this BFEE cloned POS.

Never give up. :thumbsup:

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. I get the feeling this is the begining of the civil war

now it is clear they want it