Getting Roberts to answer three questions will do it, IMO

[Inland]

1. Is there a right to privacy as found in Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade?

2. Are there "inherent (unwritten) consitutional powers" in the executive branch in any respect, or that would allow the indefinite "internment" of an American citizen or to torture detainees?

3. What is the standard for overturning Supreme Court precedent on constitutional matters?

Of course, to get the real answers the senate is going to have to cross examine a skilled lawyer trying to duck the issues.

If I were a senator, I would vote no unless I got a satisfactory answer.

[TahitiNut]

1. The whole crux of the issue is this:

There are some who believe in 'strict construction' when it comes to civil liberties and human rights, but find all manner of "powers" when it comes to government. It's the most obscene of all reversals.

The Constitution very clearly limits the powers of government, reserving all (enumerated or not!) rights, liberties, and freedoms to the People - who cannot "vote them away"!!! There is absolutely no ethical interpretation of the Constitution that permits the Executive or Legislature to expand the power and authority of Government beyond the strict boundaries of the Constitution or, through legislated entitlements (i.e. corporations), create authoritarian clones that obliterate individual human rights and civil liberties!!

In answer to the question of "Does a Democracy have the 'right' to commit suicide?" I answer: "Not through the mechanism of government established under the Constitution!" The Constitution, properly understood, prohibits the government it establishes from being used as the gas chamber for Democracy.

At the very core of the powers of government is the power to protect those very rights and liberties from infringement of any kind, especially from "enemies, foreign and domestic"! The very underpinnings of a Constitutional government are the ongoing rights, liberties, and freedoms of a People to even establish the Constitution itself! In failing to defend those those rights and freedoms, a government delegitimizes itself! Oligarchs are those very "enemies"!! Plutocrats are those very "enemies"!

Roberts has demonstrated absolutely no comprehension of this fundamental, being an authoritarian sycophant.

[Inland]

2. Indeed, find out about the "inherent powers" as well

because that was the legal argument made by the torture memos.

I was less concerned about the bizarre construction of the statutes than the argument that the "inherent power" of the executive allows the president to disregard treaties and statutes--secretly, of course--on his mere say-so.

[TahitiNut]

3. Exactly! This is the most pernicious kind of activism ...

... an activism that pervertedly claims such powers beyond the "strict construction" they pretend to advocate.

[Inland]

4. It's the proto fascism

Inherent power of president pursuant to unwritten authority as Protector of the Nation and Commander in Chief, and congress and judiciary stuck with crabbed literalism.

That was the danger in the Gonzales pick...anyone that could have passed on the torture memo's language on the inherent power of the president isn't competent to be a judge.

Roberts should be explicitly questioned on this point.

[TahitiNut]

17. Yep It's the same ideology that promulgated the "Enabling Act" in the 30's

When it walks like a fascist and talks like a fascist ... it's a fascist.

[Inland]

19. I don't know the Enabling Act

but the conventional wisdom is that FDR was influenced by fascist movements. But nothing occured like we have today, nothing.

[sendero]

5. It doesn't matter if...

.... Roberts thinks marital sex is illegal, he will be confirmed because there is no way to stop him.

If we filibuster, they will use the 'nuclear option', you can bet your life on it.

I simply do not understand all the lather here about this nomination. He's 99% in right now. He could fall ill, or a few Republicans could develop a conscience.

What are the chances of that happening?

[KharmaTrain]

6. Anger, Frustration, Trolls

Take your pick.

Circular firing squads form here quickly.

I agree with you. You gotta know when and where to pick your fights...and also if you have the bullets to do the job. Many here don't realize how few options Democrats have in this process. Or they just want a fight for the sake of a fight. "We can battle everything all at once"...those are the first to shoot in the circular firing squad and usually far from where the action is when the game is really on.

As I always say when something of this sort happens...if a person is sooooo pissed and upset then get to your local Democratic party offices and see what help they need. Elections are a little more than a year away and the 2006 elections will be the biggest watershed of our lives. More Repugnican seats give them a veto-proof House & Senate and we're really screwed...but Democratic gains mean starting to bring this country back from the destruction of the past 5 years.

We must pick our friends, our allies, our soldiers and our battles carefully.

[Inland]

7. What does it matter?

What does it MATTER that we lose the confirmation if we win the next election?

Why wouldn't you take the opportunity to at least differentiate our positions from Bush's, so that when the shit hits the fan we can say we told you so?

Bush's positions on abortion, privacy are unpopular. His positions on executive power are scary.

[sendero]

8. I'm totally for..

.... trying to figure out how to make this appt cost the Republicans.

That's not the same thing as thinking that ANY DEM can do ANY THING to stop this confirmation.

[Inland]

9. The course of action is the same.

Regardless of win or lose, the dems do the exact same thing. Stand up for our values, our consitution. Oppose theirs. Whether it wins or loses in the confirmation battle is besides the point. If it loses now, it'll win the election.

[sendero]

10. I'm not sure..

... I really understand what you are saying.

Do you think the Senate will filibuster this nomination? I'm not so sure. I THINK they should, but my faith in this senate is pretty much shot.

[annabanana]

21. I agree... This would serve to clearly differentiate our positions

from theirs. The more clearly the lines are drawn, the better our chances in '06.

Those three questions will show that he is pro-torture, anti-privacy and ready to overturn Roe vs Wade...

[smoogatz]

16. I think the whole point is to FORCE the use of the nuclear option.

Which will make the Senate Republicans (and Bush) look like the dictatorial prickes they are and give the Democratic leadership the excuse they need to shut down the congress. If Roberts is confirmed, Roe and everybody's right to privacy goes out the window. Corporate power will be greatly expanded. Worker's rights and environmental legislation will be rolled back so far you'll think you're living in Mexico. Nominations like this are what the filibuster's made for--there's no rational excuse for holding back. Shut the motherfucker down!

[William Seger]

23. Strongly disagree

If Roberts is as illiberal as he seems, then liberals should fight against the nomination as strongly as they can, even if there's a 99.9% chance he will be confirmed anyway. And it's not just a matter of principle (although it certainly is that); there is also the very pragmatic reason that there isn't much chance of advancing the liberal philosophy among the electorate if liberals aren't willing to take every opportunity to at least vocalize it.

[queeg]

11. Three questions that should be asked---

What is your name?

What is your quest?

What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

[Fly by night]

12. Huh? Double huh? Double super secret huh?

[Inland]

18. It's a Python reference. nt

[Inland]

13. Or for the WH press office, "Is there someone else we could talk to?"

nt

[annabanana]

20. hee hee..

now for something completely different...

[JHB]

14. ...right to privacy as found in...

...the first, second, third, fourth, ninth, and tenth ammendments.

[Inland]

15. Maybe I meant--

"found BY griswold and roe", rather than found in.

[Inland]

22. ADDING ONE MORE FOR FOUR---Bush v. Gore.

Bush v. Gore, the statement that it couldn't be considered precedent, overruling state courts, etc.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1946606&mesg_id=1946606

[annabanana]

24. I have been adding your questions to

my petition signatures and my letters to my CongressCritters..
I hope we hear them during confirmation hearings!