Why we must fight the Roberts nomination.

[Skinner]

I don't usually say stuff like this, but here goes: I'm pretty disappointed with all the Democrats -- here and elsewhere -- who have already decided that John Roberts is the best Supreme Court nominee that we can possibly hope for. What, exactly, makes this guy so acceptable?

Considering the extreme hard-right ideology of this administration, why am I supposed to believe WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE that John Roberts does not share their extreme hard-right ideology?

Considering that this administration has a well-established history of lies and deceit, why am I supposed to believe them when they say that this nominee is anywhere near the mainstream?

Considering that the mainstream media no longer cares about the truth, and that they will slavishly repeat Republican talking points on just about anything, why should I take them at their word when they dress this guy up as a moderate?

I understand that Bush is NEVER going to nominate a liberal for the Supreme Court. But I believe, as a member of the loyal opposition, that it is not unreasonable for Democrats to expect no less than a centrist in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor. If Bush nominates someone who is more conservative than O'Connor, that's his choice. And he might even succeed in getting such a person confirmed by the Senate. BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE: WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO SUPPORT ANY NOMINEE THAT WE BELIEVE IS WRONG FOR THE COURT. They might get this guy confirmed, but they don't need my help to do it.

We are talking about a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. The Supreme Court has the power to dictate the direction of our country for decades to come. It is utter INSANITY to simply assume that this guy is fine, without knowing *ANY* of the facts.

Abortion Rights

On Roe v. Wade ALONE he is disqualified to sit on the Court. Some have suggested that his record on choice is moderate or sympathetic to abortion rights. I'm sorry, but there is no evidence whatsoever to support this conclusion. The fact that his record is ambiguous does not prove that he is on our side. Consider:

During John Roberts' confirmation hearings in the Senate to be seated on a lower court, Roberts said that Roe v. Wade was settled law, and he would not use his position to overturn it. As a lower-level judge, that is the correct legal position for him to take. Lower-level judges are required to respect precedent set by the courts, and especially the Supreme Court. If they do not respect the precedents set by the Supreme Court, they will most certainly have their decisions overturned. But Supreme Court Justices are not bound by precedent in the same way that lower-court judges are. It is true that Supreme Court Justices are supposed to respect precedent. But they also have the power to overturn those precedents if they feel they were wrong. So Judge Roberts' earlier promise to comply with Roe v. Wade is virtually meaningless under the current circumstances. They are not relevant.

On reproductive choice, I believe it is much more relevant that Roberts has a history of arguing against Roe v. Wade in cases pending before the Supreme Court. According to NARAL: "As Deputy Solicitor General under the first President Bush, he argued to the Supreme Court that 'Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled...'" I know that many have argued that he was acting as a lawyer for someone else, and therefore we cannot definitively conclude that he shares the opinions of his "clients." There is some merit to this argument. But I think it is safe to assume that as a lawyer he has much greater freedom to choose sides than he does as a judge. If he truly believed in a woman's right to choose, I think it unlikely that he would want to work to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Furthermore, NOW and NARAL are opposing this nomination. The National Right to Life Committee supports it.

On this issue alone, all progressives should oppose this nomination.

Partisanship

This guy has been a judge for two years, but he's been a conservative political hack for twenty. My understanding is that he worked for Ken Starr, and he worked for Bush-Cheney during the Florida recount.

This nomination is not a "distraction"

Some people have been arguing that the Roberts nomination is a "distraction" from the Karl Rove affair. This is simply wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. A nominee to the Supreme Court is not a "distraction" from anything. This is as serious as politics can get. The Supreme Court is losing a moderate voice, and the Bush Administration is trying to place an extreme right-wing ideologue in her place. This is a lifetime appointment, for a guy who is only 50 years old! He might be on the court for thirty years.

The effects of placing another conservative on the court are VASTLY MORE SERIOUS than anything that could happen because of this Rove situation. In Rove, we could cripple a GOP Administration for a couple years, tops. In Roberts, there is the potential to change the course of this nation for decades.

And as far as I can tell, the Rove scandal isn't going anywhere. The investigation is still ongoing. And we are all fully capable of focusing on more than one topic at a time.

Did I mention that he's only 50 years old?

Yes, Roberts is only 50 years old. Why anyone would want to hand this guy a seat on the Court, without a fight, is completely beyond me.

Don't help our opponents. Yes, it is important to pick our fights. And this is a fight that we must pick. Bush might succeed in getting this guy onto the Supreme Court, but I am not required to help him do it.

[realFedUp]

1. Thank you Skinner

gads, I was starting to wonder myself....are
we just going to roll over on this one?

[femrap]

199. I have been yelling at Dems all day today!

Thank you!! I have been in at least three heated debates today over this anti-choice, pro-big biz, anti-environment jerk. And all three were w/ Dems. Please check out: www.juancole.com for his take on this situation. Also at the end of Juan's diary today....click on 'Billmon' for a good analysis of this SC nominee.

HE'S AWFUL! If he is appointed to the SC, Roe is history. No ifs, ands, or buts. Women out there....this is war!

We need to fight this nomination....make our Dem Senators stand up...we need to harass the hell out them....we need to give them our courage.

Please do not give in on this....this is huge! I have had to give so many pep talks today, I am exhausted....

Do you want to see women forced into motherhood? See them forced into giving birth and then for financial reasons, forced to giving the child up for adoption, forced into the back alley abortions that kill? I am old enough to remember some of this. WE CAN'T GO BACK!

It's like asking gays and lesbians to go back in the closet!

If Dems don't stand up against this man.....I don't think I will call myself Democrat. I will leave the Party to the Dem Lites....Is that what this party has become...Dem Lites? Afraid to stand up for a women's right to freedom?

We need to be strong and united and vocal on this!

Thx.

[realFedUp]

203. Welcome to DU femrap

This is war.

[femrap]

263. thx for the welcome....

I am ready for battle...

[jarnocan]

258. Thanks that's what I've been saying

Our local moveon person is saying she doesn't want to bother with the petiton/ralley. Another said she doesn't know enough yet- I said maybe she should do a little reading- this was after sending links etc. :argh: <http://jarnocan.blogspot.com>
I have a bunch of the online petitons on my blog- I feel it is very important to sign them at least to make the statement that we DO CARE about the environment and a woman's right to choose etc.
Please care Bush is still following through on his reconstructionist mandates!

[jsamuel]

2. With you! Why cower? That is exactly what we should never do again.

[underpants]

3. The right (extreme right actually) is NOT the mainstream

I completely agree. I do think W pushed it up so that this would either dominate or at least take time away from the Delay, Rove, DSM scandals but this is for real-LIFETIME APPOINTMENT and this 50 year old man strangely has almost no paper trail!

[MissB]

4. Thank you, Skinner.

Really. Thank you.

[Just Me]

217. I must express my concern about this push,...by moderators no less.

What is happening here?

Why ditch "traitorgate"/DSM/"torturegate",...overnight?

I just don't get it. :shrug:

We have the fuckers on the run and there is suddenly a push to just DROP IT?

Why?

Why treat the SCOTUS nomination as an all or nothing, set aside all other SERIOUS SHIT aside kind of situation?

I JUST DON'T GET IT.

Skinner, would you kindly explain the proposition that we must engage in an "all or nothing" advocacy rather than all other alternatives. I'd greatly appreciate it.

[bettyellen]

257. reread his post, no where does skinner say it's all or nothing.....

the only ones who are thinking it's all or nothing have already decided to :
roll over,
give up,
play politics,
stand for nothing,
betray the women of this party, yet again.
same ole same ole that's been working so goddamned well for us.

[Walt Starr]

5. I disagree completely

His confirmation is a foregone conclusion. I have no doubts whatsoever the man will be confirmed. Filibuster is impossible on this nomination.

We can make some gains out of an inevitable defeat, though, if we approach it strategically.

First off, we protect our vulnerable Senators by cutting them loose to vote in favor of the confirmation.

Secondly, we make it absolutely clear to those moderate Republicans from the Northeast in no uncertain terms, "you vote to confirm this one, we are coming after YOUR seats with a vengeance and we will use this issue against you."

If we can get at a minimum three Republicans on board to vote against confirmation while protecting our vulnerable Senators, this can become a win-win because Bush will not be emboldened to put up a complete moonbat when Rhenquist retires or dies of natural causes. We protect vulnerable seats in those Red states, and we can make strides toward gains in those vulnerable Republican seats (yeah, we can play a Karl Rove, too. We tell you how we're going to get you and we come after you anyway).

If we pick up at least two Senate seats in '06, filibustering future nominations becomes an easier option.

[bribri16]

19. I agree with you. Somtimes plain common sense is in order.

I don't like Roberts but we can knock a hole in the Repuke plans on a lot of fronts if we are strtegic about this. We must not let go of the Rove-DSM-Niger-WMD lying and smearing. Bush is going to get his SCOTUS appointment no matter what we do. I know they have a much worse female candidate in the shadows just waiting for the Dems to slam Roberts. We have to be smarter.

[Walt Starr]

Right. There is no way we'll get 51 Senators on board to stop the nuke

option, nor will we get 41 Senators on board to even begin a filibuster.

We can still see some strategic gains on this one, though.

[dogday]

48. I just got a letter from Kerry

all he says is he is no Sandra Day O'Conner.... Going to ask some questions, but it did not sound like a call to gather the troops....

[ElectroPrincess]

20. Yes, as they say ...

Unless he's found alone neeked with a dead girl or a live boy before the confirmation vote in the Senate, HE'S THE ONE.

Not attempting to be too blunt - but I'm just IMO stating facts based on the past track record. All the Democratic protests and gyrations could prove only to feed the beastie media spinmeisters to quote us out of context. The RW noise machine pundits' only purpose in life is to perserve and promote the Executive Branch's initiatives ... PLUS coming in at a close second, they also are tasked to satiate the fanatical Right Wing base of the Republican Party. :(

[Walt Starr]

39. Lieberman, Landreau, Baucus, Pryor, Biden

BANG, we have no filibuster.

The list could go on.

We need to be more strategic. Target the audience specifically against those Republicans who are vulnerbale. We need no votes from Republicans to see any gains here.

The guy will get in. There is no stopping that now. The only way to effectively stop one of these things is to do what Kennedy did within hours of the Bork nomination, and that won't happen with this guy.

[Wetzelbill]

152. Baucus.....

Senator Baucus of my home state, will soon be my Senator again when I move back to MT. I really hate that he has become such a weak bureaucrat. He's a milktoast, and puts good Dems like all of us in a position where we have to worry about making strategy as opposed to standing up for our convictions. If we didn't have wafflers like Max Baucus and those others that you mentioned this thread wouldn't be having this debate right now.

[Walt Starr]

166. and if we had 49 Senators instead of 44

we wouldn't be having this thread either.

[Wetzelbill]

167. yup

[Lecky]

27. Walt you make too much sense

...I have a feeling no one is listening :(

[Walt Starr]

52. I appreciate it

but I think you're right.

Too many dems think with their hearts and feel with their brains, I guess.

:shrug:

[femrap]

211. Maybe Choice isn't as important to you...

as it is to women. Maybe if I 'framed' it another way....If Roberts is approved, men would have to 'tie it in a knot' as their contribution to lowering the abortion rate?

Have you researched this guy? He's awful....so you have to make a bunch of toll free calls to Senators to light a fire under their asses...maybe write a few letters to the editor informing people of this guy's record...Is that too much to ask so save Roe?

Strategy my ass, we are talking women's lives here....back alley butcher shops....got that? This is something to fight for....I'll give you the toll free phone numbers...won't cost you a cent.

This is exactly what the pugs do....they make calls for an hour a day...hell, pretend you are from Indiana and call Bayh's office....or call Chaffee....there is no caller ID cuz you are calling the Operator...I don't think it's much to ask.

This fatalistic and defeatist attitude is part of the Democratic Problem IMHO...when are we ever going to fight? Bankruptcy bill? Class Action Fairness Act? Pryor? Owens? Brown? We haven't fought yet....now you want to wait till '06....just what kind of Dem Lite crap is this? For all I know this could be Rove talking....Seriously, it sounds so self-defeating.

And these Dem Senators who vote with the pugs? Who needs them? I don't understand it...why be a Democrat if you vote w/ the pugs?

Sorry...for all the verbage....I am just so angry and ready to fight...Nothing like a good Nonviolent Protest, with some signs, and chants.

[Lecky]

236. As a woman, choice is important to me but I agree with William

The fact that Roberts is a pro-life conservative is not a good enough reason for him not to be confirmed.

I'm not a defeatist at all, I want democrats to win elections so they can decide who needs to be on the SCOTUS.

[confludemocrat]

289. "Pro-life" the only problem he has? No way.

Check around a bit, get informed this guy has big problems and also by definition and precedent and experience we know the guy is worthless and cynically chosen if he was chosen by Bush: Kerik, Rice, Bolton, whatsisname the former ambasador to Iraq and now intelligence Czar, Gail Norton, Ashcroft, I could go on and on.

[Knight of Ni]

267. Choice may be the least of your hassles.....

...if he's as bad as that. Personally, I think Roberts' appointment will mean jack by itself as far as overturning Roe v Wade. The reason? I think with O'Connor on board SCOTUS didn't just have five votes preventing the overturn. They had six: the 3 libs (Stevens,Ginsburg,Breyer) and the 3 swings (Souter, Kennedy, O'Connor). With Roberts on board they'll have five. If Rehnquist goes next, it'll be a 1 for 1 trade. If Stevens or Ginsburg goes before we get a Dem pres. back in, THEN Roe is screwed.

The real potential danger could be to the rest of our rights and protections. The typical Bush judicial appointment is brought in on the promise of such smokescreen issues as Roe and gay marriage in order to placate the fundie rubes. Usually little to nothing gets done on these "social conservative" issues (THAT'S why they're called smokescreen issues, not because of their importance), but meanwhile the new judges are extremely corporation-friendly and whittle away massive chunks of average citizens' legal protections against these big companies, allowing them to screw us even more.

So while I may not have ovaries, I still have as much of a dog in this fight as you do.

[DistressedAmerican]

57. You Are Right About The Second Part...

[Radio_Lady]

175. Deleted by sender

[merh]

Thank you for the rational post.

People tend to forget that we are the party in the minority, we can't stop anything (vacation appointments). We can, as you so wisely write, make the best of this nomination and try to use it to our advantage.

[ibegurpard]

32. Sybil?

Which Walt Starr am I talking to today?

[Czolgosz]

35. You cannot possibly know enough about Roberts' record at this early stage

to fully and accurately assess whether or not there will be enough information uncovered to warrant a successful filibuster.

Do you know if he has a nanny problem?

Do you know the exact extent of his highly partisan involvement in Bush v. Gore?

Do you know if he was candid in his interviews with Senators prior to his appellate court appointment?

Have you read all his opinions, writings, and speeches?

Wouldn't please wait before you gormlessly concede the appointment until there has been a little due diligence?

[Czolgosz]

41. Judge Roberts is a judicial activist with views far outside the mainstream

Judge Roberts is far outside the mainstream with respect to his exceedingly narrow views of the first amendment and Congress’s authority to pass nationwide legislation that only indirectly affects interstate commerce (see his decision in Rancho Viejo v. Norton and his briefs in US v. Eichman, Lee v. Weisman, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic). Conservative judges generally refrain to the greatest extent possible from making law from the bench (i.e., they will not be quick to disregard Congress's legislative authority based on non-mainstream theories and they will respect stare decisis rather than ignoring past legal decisions which have already resolved a particular legal issue). By this measure, Judge Roberts is not a conservative; to the contrary, he is very much a right-wing activist. Judge Roberts is Robert Bork with a blow-dry haircut.

[Walt Starr]

47. You just put Joe Barcalounger to sleep

and Joe Barcalounger decides elections.

All he would hear about you is you're an obstructionist, so you would lose your Senate seat.

Sorry, political reality is harsh. We have to be more strategic on this one.

[Czolgosz]

65. If I "put Joe Barcalounger to sleep," you just sold him out!

If you think Judge Roberts is anything but bad news, you haven't taken the time to educate yourself on the subject. Can we stop his nomination, probably not, but we won't know for sure until we ask the pertinent questions. All I ask is that we do our due diligence and then vote our conscience. You think Joe Barcalounger is going to hold that against us? If so, tough! Even if we cannot stop Roberts' nomination, should we roll over? Hell no!

[AuntiBush]

126. I'm with you, Czolgosz! 100 Percent.

This is a democratic board, right? We have the right to speak our viewpoints with a degree of respect, right?

Good post Czolgosz. Right w/ya!

[Fenris]

105. Your assuming "Joe Barcalounger" votes.

Which, if "he" is like most Americans, he probably doesn't.

[Walt Starr]

183. Joe Barcalounger has decided every election

since WWII.

[Telly Savalas]

286. I'm not sure I agree with the main thrust of your argument...

but the term "Joe Barcalounger" is far more deserving of being canonized in the jargon of political demographics than "NASCAR Dad" or "Soccer Mom".

[Knight of Ni]

251. ......and look where Bork ended up!!

Reagan was one of our most popular presidents going into Term#2, but Iran-Contra weakened his "political capital" so badly that he tried for Bork and had to settle for Kennedy.

Bush is in a similar weakened position thanks to factors like the stagnating economy, the worsening situation in Iraq, the Social Security boondoggle, and Rovegate. Bush's approval ratings are in the toilet! Why are we assuming Roberts' confirmation is inevitable?

This is why we have to keep up the ruckus on the Rove story despite this diversion. If Roberts is as bad as you say, keeping Rove in the spotlight weakens Bush and decreases his chances of his pick getting without sufficient scrutiny!

[Walt Starr]

44. He was vetted for the DC Court

Those types of issues have already been explored and were done so just a couple years ago.

All we have left is ideology and there is no way we'll have enough votes to filibuster, let alone have enough anti-nuke votes.

[Czolgosz]

58. You are wrong if you believe that Circuit Judges get the same vetting as

Supreme Court judges. I agree that we need to pick our fights, but what weakness of heart causes you to want to throw in the towel before we even get the answers to the relevant questions?

[Walt Starr]

69. the best we can do on this one is reverse the wedge

Get his views on the record and turn it around on the moderate Republican senators while shoring up your vulnerable red state Democrats.

That's the best we can do in this situation. I can pretty much guarantee a filibuster is out of the question. If we could somehow miraculously scrape together 41 Senatorss, we'd end up getting nuked.

[Czolgosz]

74. I don't think we disagree about the LIKELY outcome, but it's way too early

to "guarantee a filibuster is out of the question." Let the process unfold. Do you recall that there were some who said virtually the same thing about Bork?

[LiberalFighter]

135. Partisan involvement in Bush v. Gore...

Roberts contributed to the recount in Florida

[Goldmund]

46. I was going to post something very similar

Thanks for doing it instead. :)

We cannot be idealistic about this. What we should do is employ "black box" thinking: decide our actions solely according to what results they are likely to yield. If we impulsively get up-in-arms about this (which is, I have the feeling, what the GOP wants and is probably one of the reasons they nominated Roberts) and then get defeated, that will strenghten the GOP's political position. They're on the ropes, and we need to further weaken them. That should be our main consideration.

[Walt Starr]

49. BINGO, going off half cocked is PRECISELY what Rove wants us to do

An extended battle right now distracts. Win for Rove.

An extended battle right now over this guy puts our vulnerable Senate seats in even greater jeopardy. Win for Rove.

An extended battle right now buys cover for the Northeast moderate Republicans. Win for Rove.

We have to DESPERATELY be strategic on this nomination or it's a lose-lose on all fronts.

We are in a war, and so far the only strategic moves I've seen have been perpetrated by a disciplined GOP.

We need a greater discipline if we are to come out of this thing.

[Czolgosz]

62. No YOU are doing exactly as Rove would like. You want there to be no

fight. I, on the other hand, want to say WE WERE THE PARTY WHO VOTED AGAINST THE MAN when Roberts sits on the court for the next 35 years and nullifies (1) environmental regulations, (2) women's sovereignty over their own womb, (3) free speech, (4) open government, and (5) prisoner's rights. Every time the court rolls back a right we have enjoyed our whole lives as Americans, I want to say THIS IS THE LIST OF EVERYONE WHO VOTED FOR HIM AND HERE'S THE SANE MINORITY WHO SAID, NO!"

By the way, we tried you way in the vote for war in Iraq and the Patriot Act. Remind me how well that worked out for us.

[Walt Starr]

72. As I said in an earlier post

Too many Dems think with their heart and feel with their head.

[Goldmund]

I don't think anybody's advocating voting FOR the guy

I think we're talking about a filibuster and a high-stakes fight.

[Walt Starr]

93. Actually, I would like to see Durbin vote for the guy

Mostly because of the hits he's been taking in Illionois since he apologized for his Gitmo remarks.

He's up for re-election next year and his numbers have dropped here.

I figure Obama is a shoe-in to vote for confirmation under the precedent of "the president can nominate whoever he wants and Roberts is qualified".

[Czolgosz]

111. What advantage does Durbin get from voting for this monster?

Describe me the profile for the voter who is currently thinking that he would vote against Durbin, but upon hearing that Durbin supported Bush's far-right Supreme Court nominee, this voter would change his or her mind and vote for Durbin because of this issue? Such support for Roberts will not win any votes from anyone.

Now if you are arguing that perhaps Durbin should refrain from comparing Roberts to Hitler, then we're in agreement.

Instead, Durbin should say "Mr. Roberts doesn't believe that Congress has broad authority to protect our environmental. Mr. Roberts doesn't believe that the constitution supports a right to privacy. Mr. Roberts has a narrower view of the freedom of speech than any of the judges who are currently sitting on the Supreme Court. And Mr. Roberts believes that the government should have sovereignty over a woman's body and would take away her right of self determination with respect to family planning. By a 5 to 1 margin, my constituents tell me those are extreme views that reflect the sort of judicial activism which is out of touch with American values. I cannot vote to confirm the lifetime appointment of a judge to the United States Supreme Court when his value depart so far from the mainstream American core values of my constituents."

What's wrong with that?

[Walt Starr]

114. What monster?

He isn't a terrorist. He isn't a murderer.

He's a judge who you don't agree with.

Just a note, Democrats do best in Chicago and Chicago has a huge Catholic community. those are the voters I want to protect Durbin's chances with.

If you didn't know, Roberts is a Catholic.

[Czolgosz]

125. In my book, a monster is anyone who wants to singlehandedly repeal a woman

freedom of reproductive choice (see his briefs in Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, Rust v. Sullivan), the Endangered Species Act (see his opinion in Rancho Viejo v. Norton), the separation of church and state (see his brief in Lee v. Weisman), and any of several other freedoms cherished by Americans.

It sounds like you and I have a different level of commitment to these rights. That's fine -- nobody says we have to agree.

I just fail to see what you (or Durbin) get in exchange for withholding your opposition from a judge who is clearly to the right of Rehnquist and Kennedy (and only time will tell whether he is to the right of Scalia and Thomas).

[Walt Starr]

127. Sorry, but disagreement is allowed

This is America.

I don't agree with the guy, but SCOTUS nominations are one of the spiols of the war we call politics.

We ain't gonna alter the fact that he's going to be confirmed.

[Czolgosz]

132. I agree that, absent some dramatic turn, he's likely to be confirmed.

Likewise, I could have told you that the elimination of the estate tax was likely to pass and the Patriot Act was likely to pass and various amendments to several states' constitutions banning civil unions were likely to pass. Still, I wouldn't have wanted Durbin or anyone else to vote for those matters no matter their likelihood of passing. It saddens me that you would like to see Durbin vote to confirm Roberts. I see the underlying rationale as the same which led to so many ill advised votes in the wake of 9/11 (well, it's gonna pass anyway, might as well get behind it). I'm just wired differently than that.

[Walt Starr]

158. I'd rather see Durbin returned to the Senate in '06

than see him vote against a confirmation that will happen regardless of how he votes.

[Czolgosz]

169. Let's agree we both want to see Durbin reelected, but disagree that voting

for a corporate tool who will roll back the cause of civil and reproductive rights to the 1950s is a super effective means of achieving that end.

In a million years, I cannot imagine a potential voter who doesn't already support Durbin but who will be won to his cause by voting for Roberts. And yet I can easily imagine a voter who would see Durbin vote for Roberts and lose some faith in Durbin and, as a result, either not vote or vote Green.

[Walt Starr]

171. I know many Chicago Catholics who aren't too pleased with Durbin

these days.

[Czolgosz]

189. I'm Catholic. I see no Catholic values promoted by voting for a judge

who (1) holds a uniquely narrow view of Congress's authority to protect the environment, (2) doesn't believe that the constitution protects a right of privacy, (3) is not in favor of open government, and (4) does not respect the separation of church and state.

Catholics should have a unique respect for the separation of church and state. Several of the thirteen original colonies had established official state religions. Some colonies (e.g., Rhode Island) were founded as refuges from the religious zealotry (mainly in the form of anti-Catholicism) of other colonies (e.g., Massachusetts) whereas yet another group of colonies was religiously diverse and tolerant (e.g., New York). Some states were even founded as a refuge for Catholics, but were later taken over by Protestants who literally chased the Catholics out (e.g., Maryland).

How could such religiously divergent colonies put aside their religious differences to join into one union? The answer lies in an agreement to formally separate state from religion with the first ten words of the all important Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." I cannot believe I'm the only Catholic who understands and respects this point.

Finally, with respect to Judge Roberts inclination to overrule Roe v. Wade, every poll I've seen tells me that Catholics (1) have abortions at the same rate as non-Catholics and (2) support the right to choose at very close to the same rate as non-Catholics.

[femrap]

220. Even Joe

with his remote could understand that! Hit the nail on the head! Maybe if we added a dirty trick....saying something about Roberts wanting to outlaw beer, we could bork this Roberts!

[femrap]

216. With Dems like you,

who needs pugs? You sound like rove....it's just a game and it's all about winning....but in our case, losing.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with fighting from my heart...IMHO, that is why the Dems are in the stew they're in....Kerry never spoke from his heart...he was never himself....he never spoke with a true sincerity....rove has the Dems so whipped, they don't know what to do or say....that's a strategy of rove's that is working.

The American people want to see someone stand up and fight for what they believe in...the Dems can't fight and they don't seem to know what they believe in....that is the core problem with the Democratic Party today.

They need to speak and fight from their souls....don't tell me that American people don't like an underdog with guts! They are just waiting to see some of those guts....!

[Walt Starr]

227. Sorry, there's no fighting this one

personal attacks from you notwithstanding.

Name 41 Senators who will filibuster, and after that, name 51 Senators who will not nuke us. You can't because those numbers do not exist.

If we had 46 Democratic Senators, it's a big maybe but we might have the numbers to filibuster.

If we had 49 Democratic Senators, He'd go down in flames and a moderate would be a replacement nominee.

If we had 51 Democratic Senators a moderate would be the nominee.

It's a numbers game, and we simply do not have the numbers. You are experieincing the direct consequences for us losing additional seats in the Senate last Novemeber and losing the White House. There's no getting around it. This is what happens when Democrats lose elections.

[Czolgosz]

235. Don't be such a panty waist! The time for counting votes to filibuster

and votes to go nuclear is AFTER Roberts views are vetted. Will he refuse to discuss his views like Bork did? Who knows, but such factors will affect his confirmability. You have a peculiar view on this nominee. He not the model of a Catholic any more than Rick Sanitarium is a model Catholic. His judicial views are not "Catholic" in any measure except perhaps that he is anti-choice which is a view held strongly by the clergy and weakly by the people in the pews (like me). You attempt to characterize Roberts as the "Catholic" judge are nuts. Perhaps you will recall the Democrats recently ran a prominent Catholic for higher office; depending on what polling you use, Kerry either split or narrowly lost the Catholic vote.

[Walt Starr]

242. Bork was framed by Kennedy two hours after the nomination was announced

You don't have that luxury with this guy.

He's already been framed and the frame is "very qualified".

McCain already put theshot across the bow. He let it be known that they will go nuclear if he's filibustered.

If you can dig up some nasty dirt, good for you. I don't think the guy has anything beyond ideology and that's a non-starter.

Remember this, though. One day the Dems WILL have the majority of seats in the Senate and WILL have the presidency. At that point, the nuclear option is fair game for us when a left wing idealogue is nominated.

[Walt Starr]

245. It's not a game. It's war.

and war is ALL ABOUT WINNING!

There is no second place in war.

[katinmn]

275. You're kidding. You WANT Dems to vote for Roberts???

As a strategy?

And then tell the folks back home, I'm a Democrat but I'm going to vote for a conservative judge because it will give me an in with the Republicans?

Sorry.

We need MORE transparency in government, not more sleezy trade-offs of people's rights.

[RFKHumphreyObama]

291. Durbin is not up for re-election next year

That's in 2008.

[Terran]

50. I find it hard to believe

that how a Senator votes on a SCOTUS nomination is actually an issue for the public at large. The bases on both sides care a lot, of course, but the vast majority of people don't really care. You're not going to protect any vulnerable Dems by letting them vote for a totally unqualified right-wing partisan for the Supreme Court.

Further, I don't think this strategy of yours is going to give Bush any pause on a second nomination. The only thing that might do that is a massive display of unified opposition and a sh*tload of bad publicity. That's the only thing that might also wake some of the public up to what's at stake here. If we go quietly, the public will have no understanding of what's about to happen to them.

[SaveElmer]

61. You are completely correct...it is political reality

This guy is gonna get confirmed...we ought to rake him over coals...expose his positions, and vote against him...but no filibuster. The Bushies want a fight on this guy to distract from Rove, Iraq and the mess he has gotten the country in...we shouldn;t give it to him.

[lukasahero]

71. Good luck with those northeast conservative votes

because you'll be losing this northeast liberal's vote. Glad to hear their vote matters more than mine.

[Walt Starr]

81. Why exactly should a Democratic Senator from Louisiana

care about your feelings on this?

That's why Landreau is on board to confirm.

Why should a Democratic Senator from Arkansas care what you think about this?

Ahhh, but if a moderate Republican soccer mom from Maine with three daughters sees this guy getting in, she's going to give a damn what her Senators did.

[lukasahero]

86. Right, so give up 30+ years of judiciary "interpretation" to MAYBE

win a few votes in Louisiana.

This guy is pro-business (the REAL strategy here), anti-environment, anti-choice, and anti-civil rights, but what the heck, we can MAYBE elect a sorthern senator who can change the courts back once elected. Oh wait, no, it's a LIFETIME appointment that a senator from Louisiana can't do jack shit about. Whatever.

[Walt Starr]

90. sorry, political reality is harsh

We have 44 democratic Senators and many are vulnerable in '06.

If we had 46 Democratic Senaotrs, we might be capable of mounting a filibuster on this guy.

If we had 49 Democratic Senators, this guy mihgt not have been nominated at all.

Elections matter and have consequences. Justice Roberts will be one of many consequences to the 2004 election.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

119. Give up what?

Maybe you're not understanding this, but WE HAVE NOTHING TO GIVE UP!!

We have NOTHING to fight with!

Please, propose a plan where we can successfully fight the Roberts nomination. If you can't do that, then move on.

[Czolgosz]

138. Here's what you give up: by rolling over like a dog that's been beaten,

and voting for Roberts because we probably cannot stop his confirmation, we give up the right to make it absolutely clear to America where WE stand as opposed to where THEY stand so that when Roberts is the swing vote to reverse Roe v. Wade and other cherished rights, we can invite all the moderates who voted for Bush based on misperceived "security" issues back into the party.

Go the other route, we'll have a bunch of politicians who will ultimately have to explain their vote (I found Kerry's explanation of why he voted for the war, and then against it so enjoyable that I'm looking forward to Senators explaining why they voted for Roberts when they are against his swing vote to radicalize America).

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

155. So let me get this straight...

If many of our Senators vote against Roberts, that's not good enough to accomplish your end-goal? "Not fighting" is not synonymous with "voting for Roberts". It just means don't bother trying a filibuster that has no chance of survival.

In my opinion, it's good enough to tell them that by putting Bush in office, you got this guy as a Justice and if they had voted for a liberal, this would not have happened and Roe would still be intact.

I feel like we can easily accomplish your goals with little to no bloodshed.

[Czolgosz]

173. I'm OK with that. Others are actually advocating that we vote for Roberts

(or at least that Democrat Senators vote to confirm Roberts). I agree that we should not filibuster unless we can do so successfully, and I further agree that -- absent some unexpected twist -- it is unlikely that things will develop to the point where a filibuster would likely be successful.

[Walt Starr]

184. Many Dems MUST vote for Roberts

in order to retai their seats come 2006.

We have vulnerable Senators and we cannot afford to lose seats.

[Czolgosz]

190. Where do you get this idea? It sounds crazy to me. Which swing voter

is going to support the Democrat because the Democrat meekly kowtowed to Bush's far right wing judicial nominee? Everyone who will be glad for the support of Roberts' confirmation is already planning to gladly vote in favor of the Republican candidate for Senate. You're pitching to a demographic (voters who favor far right wing Republican judges but Democratic Senators) that simply doesn't exist.

[Walt Starr]

213. I don't know if you noticed, but this nomination is squarely aimed

at the Catholic vote.

[hunter]

225. Aimed at the Catholic vote like a hand grenade, Walt...

If Roberts stays and is confirmed, Bush wins.

If we somehow manage to hit Roberts' self destruct button, Bush wins when he accuse the Democrats of Catholic Bashing.

All I really know is that Pepto-Bismol swilling right wing Catholic Eagle Scouts like Roberts make me very nervous.

[Czolgosz]

237. Who in the world dreamed of opposing him based on his Catholicism?

There are plenty of valid non-religious bases for opposing Roberts so any reference to his Catholicism is irrelevant.

[hunter]

252. Splintering the so-called "Catholic Vote" is a Very Big Deal to BushCo

Roberts' Catholicism is not irrelevant to Bush.

To make my point clear, I probably should've mentioned I'm very much a left wing social justice Catholic.

If there is a "litmus test" for the practice of Christianity, especially Catholicism, I do not believe issues like abortion or gay marriage are a large part of that formula, and I distrust anyone who claims they are.

[Trapper]

256. No bloodshed?

Except for the blood of young women getting butchered in backroom abortions! Don't get me wrong, Abortion is a really dicey topic and I am not resolved to it. I think it is waaay too often used as birth control for irresponsible girls. But it should remain legal.

[Wetzelbill]

140. The idea is and they are right in many ways

Is women, -I consider Lukasahero, a friend too - believe that men are all too often ready to overlook women's rights, in the pursuit of a larger strategy. They feel taken for granted by the Democratic party, and, yes, we don't have much of a fight here, but women are rightfully uneasy that Liberal men seem a little too willing to sell their rights up the river. Of course, that isn't what you're advocating, you're just being a realist on this issue. The problem with that is it deeply hurts women when our party doesn't have the spine to fight for them. They feel, and I do as well, that it is better to go down swinging for what is right then to not even swing at all. But, I understand what you are getting at, I'm just sharing that pov.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

151. As a frequent male donator to NARAL

Sorry, that isn't the case. You fight and use valuable resources to win. You don't fight just to make a point. I can't help but feel that's pure idealism shining through. I know you're just stating the point of view, but politics really is a war, you don't just fight a battle for the sake of fighting.

[Wetzelbill]

163. oh I get what you mean

It's just I, personally, because of my conviction on this issue, I couldn't advocate for a single Dem to vote for this guy. Whether for strategy or not. You make a valid argument, no doubt, and if it works it works, that's great. If I were a senator, I'd die before I'd vote to confirm this guy, so I'm not going to endorse a strategy in which Dems vote for him.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

164. I'm not advocating we vote for him either.

I just don't see the point in filibustering him and turning this into a much larger issue than it needs to be. He's going to be confirmed and that is that.

[femrap]

223. What kind of Magic 8 Ball

are you looking into? Or is it tea leaves? Maybe you tell me which horse is going to win the second race at Turfway tomorrow....

I don't hear any fat ladies singing....

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

283. Give me some of the drugs that make you this delusional.

I'd really like some.

[Walt Starr]

185. And resources are FINITE

If we had infinite resources to fight this, let's throw down!

We don't, so we have to let this one go because all we can do by attempting a filibuster is hurting ourselves worse and ending up wiht even fewer resources.

[femrap]

224. The Dems lay down on this and

you will see women leave the party....and we are the ones who vote for Dems, not white men. We will be gone. I will happily go with a Third Party. And the money will stop....and all the volunteering and campaigning will stop. I am tired of voting for men with no backbones and other body parts. No wonder so many women don't vote....ever thought about that? I have ALWAYS voted Dem....and I will stop if these spineless men do not get off their rich hind ends and start to FIGHT!

[Walt Starr]

226. Buhbye

Sorry, no matter how you scream, you'll still be hearing about Justice Roberts come November.

Unless you can produce pictures of him naked wiht a live boy or a dead girl, he's going to be confirmed.

[femrap]

266. Do you get some sort of masochistic thrill

out of this? You sound as if you will be happy to see w. get his nomination approved....what's with that, Walt?

What are we doing between now and '06 that is more important than fighting a RW extremist SC nomination? If it's too demanding for you....I guess you could join Joe in that ugly recliner.....can't you frame, send letters, make some calls and maybe hit the streets during the Q and A session? Things could get exciting....never underestimate the power of the unexpected! Nothing is guaranteed...come on, Walt....let your imagination go. If you thought like that, anything could be possible...

I don't get dems that just sit around....

[katinmn]

277. yes, femrap. We will see women leave the party if the white guys

don't stand up and fight. What the hell are they saving it for?

[AuntiBush]

128. Why? Because Many Democrats From Around the Country

GIVE $$$ to the DNC/DCCC; we all know the money get's pooled around to other states. That's why we should care. And, since we're up against a party of thugs that vote straight and narrow, we need to know how our Dem's frame themselves.

[RetroLounge]

100. "All that is Required for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing"

'nuff said.

RL

[Walt Starr]

117. Hmmmm, the right has been using that argument for years

I don't agree with it and I never said do nothing. Hell, there's a lot we should do, but trying to filibuster this nomination is a non-starter. It ain't gonna happen and the sooner everybody realizes that the sooner we can approach this nomination is something resembling a sane manner.

[RetroLounge]

195. "the right has been using ..."

That would be the right that has been WINNING FUCKING ELECTIONS???

Duh...

RL

[bling bling]

259. Sorry.

I can't resist... I have to butt in here and give you a high-five. Excellent point!!

I'm in the camp with the fighters. Our values are WORTH FIGHTING FOR.

[RetroLounge]

281. "Our values are WORTH FIGHTING FOR"

Hell yeah!

RL

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

113. I second your assertion.

Why are we even deluding ourselves into thinking this is a fight that we can win? Hell, not only are there few opportunities for victory, there's a lot of opportunity for defeat in fighting as well. The term "backlash" ring a bell? Given how blank this guy's slate is, we really don't have much of a leg to stand on against him. We can't successfully filibuster him.

Yes, we should ask him a million tough questions, but at the end of the day, when the time comes to vote for confirmation, just cast your "no" vote and move on to fights we can actually win.

Idealism is fun and all, but I want to WIN. I have yet to see a strategy set forth that we could reasonably follow to victory against Roberts.

[AuntiBush]

122. Respectfully, What's the Point in Any of Us Even Being Here Then?

What's the point. Let's just all roll-over and let the bullies rule the playground, right? And the playground consists of all of our lives, right into our living-rooms and yes, bedrooms.

Robert - There were links on last night's Home Page that linked straight to info showing he dissented on releasing info last year re Cheney/Halliburton. He's a Federalist. His wife Jane was a member of the Pro-Life Feminism Group. WTF? Sorry... unreal. Have you seen this guy's ruling on that 8 or 12 yr old little girl when she was arrested for eating a French Fry on the DC subway? And trust me, mid-westerners won't like this guy either because he didn't do well by cattle producers, either.

Want to know more about this guy?

GO HERE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Roberts%2C_Jr.

Edited: Since this morning, "someone" changed some info on this site, deleting and adding. Just sayin'

[stevietheman]

144. It should be about priorities and picking winnable fights.

Serious business people and politicians approach it like this, and thus should we.

[Walt Starr]

233. The point is to know what we can and cannot accomplish

We can accomlish rhetorical posturing on this one.

We can protect vulnerable Senate seats by not coming down harsh on those moderate Democrats who will have to vote in favor of Roberts to save their seats.

We can attack the moderate Republicans who we can force a reckoning on when they come up for re-election.

A filibuster is out of the question. Even if we had 41 willing Dems, the gang of fourteen have already decided. McCain's posturing already says, "this guy gets confirmed. Filibuster and you're nuked."

[cal04]

238. Maybe we need to look into what his wife does

Supreme Court nominee Roberts' lawyer wife facilitates global satellite system projects and her firm is targeting Iraq reconstruction

Yet another first for our boundary-breaching White House: for the first time in American history, we're going to have a justice on the high court whose spouse facilitates financing and putting together global satellite systems.

Also, the firm in which she is a partner, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, emphasizes among other things its expertise in facilitating business in Iraq:
"We offer one-stop service to clients pursuing projects in Iraq, from solicitation and RFP counseling to working with key government and multilateral agencies, and from initially penetrating the Iraqi marketplace to final project implementation. Our attorneys are recognized as leaders in their fields, and at the cutting-edge in a variety of disciplines relevant to Iraq reconstruction. A number have served in senior government positions in key agencies–including the Departments of Transportation, Navy, Justice and Commerce, as well as the Agency for International Development (USAID) and the World Bank."

Iraq has not yet been able to achieve an integrated communications service (many Iraqis don't even have their electricity back, yet.) By numerous accounts, satellite communications networks loom as a large unfilled need in Iraq. Jane Sullivan Roberts' credentials are solid, and business-wise, her walk in life is largely helping clients put together and get financing for satellite systems, according to her company bio:


http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/072105Burns/072105burns.html

[Wetzelbill]

130. I agree with your premise, however

On principle, I couldn't endorse a strategy where any self-respecting Democrat votes to confirm this guy. I remember you said you would never vote for a candidate who voted for the Iraqi war resolution. That was your conviction, I deeply respect you for that. By that same token, I couldn't approve of a political strategy that allows Dems to vote for someone with his views on women's rights. If Dems use the strategy that you outlined, and it works, great, but I'm not going to advocate it. Not even begrudgingly.

[confludemocrat]

177. Screw that "counter-intuitive" shit. Fight, take some skin off them.

When is the retreat going to stop?

"Secondly, we make it absolutely clear to those moderate Republicans from the Northeast in no uncertain terms, "you vote to confirm this one, we are coming after YOUR seats with a vengeance and we will use this issue against you."

How is this possible without first making the nomination fight a real issue. It isn't possible. Retreats are for losers in a situation like this. Republicans know it. It won't be an issue unless we make it one first and that will be the basis of what you suggest above. Short of that your scenario is a fantasy.

[Walt Starr]

186. How? How do we do anything more than rhetorical posturing?

How the fuck do we fight when the battle is already over?

The guy WILL BE confirmed.

How do you propose we alter that reality?

I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer.

[confludemocrat]

240. To start attack the extremism of the guy and that he is a servant of power

or say nothing. Or you can go quietly. We don't have the public position to do that. But we can encourage, demand from our leaders that they take a stand. Fighting this guy and enunciating why will have better carryover effects that quietly confirming him. My view is that there are some even many here who don't a real stake in this, for them its some kind of parlour game. Their lives will not change either way, but there those of us who but for fighting liberals and our own forebears who did not quit speaking out would not be able to be as educated as we are or survive in a world dominated by racism and ignorance. These predecessors used "rhetoric" and took whatever action they could and that changed things and made others think and join the change. You are supposedly a liberal because you make common cause with the powerless, the mistreated, the poor and because you seek justice in society.

I don't expect everyone to have empathy with or understand where I'm coming from or put themselves in the place of the powerless, but if you are a liberal, and you give a damn you would fight this and not throw up your hands a talk about saving our vulnerable senators, and generally be on the defensive first and foremost. That just defeatism, and it leads nowhere except more defeats.

[Walt Starr]

244. What you suggest is rhetorical posturing

and I've never claimed you shouldn't do that. But realize that's all it is and all it will ever be. At the end of the day if you cant produce naked pictures of the guy with a dead girl or a live boy, he'll be confirmed.

[confludemocrat]

254. You just don't get it. Armchair trivializing and naysaying is for losers

Stick to plotting the savvy retreat that is going to somehow turn things around. Meanwhile, real leaders will lay the groundwork fighting about ideals and decency each step of the way.
He may be confirmed, or maybe not, but the groundwork for fighting on and the after effects of making a real fight of this and the muscles flexed can't be trivialized and have much greater benefits than throwing in the towel.

[Walt Starr]

278. You just don't get it, do you?

He WILL be confirmed. No amount of rhetorical posturing will alter that reality. The only way to change it is to get some dirty, nasty, disgusting piece of information on the guy to put out there for public consumption. You have to produce extraordinary circumstances in order for the REpublicans who sit on the gang of fourteen to refuse to hand over the nuclear button to their peers on their side of the aisle.

Rhetorical posturing will serve us in the long run, but it will not alter the fact that this guy is as good as confirmed right now.

[confludemocrat]

287. It finally sank in with you (maybe). Get it: no rollover and be crushed.

This is not just about stopping the guy although conceding at the outset is a recipe for more of the same. The message you put out is as if this didn't involve the credibility of the Democratic Party to show it will fight for its base and stand on principle. When you do that you pave the way for success. An attitude of rolling over is all that you have conveyed from the outset and if you keep it up you will only experience more the same.

[hlthe2b]

243. I too am a realist... but the same was said about BOLTON...

for weeks and weeks and weeks, all we heard was it was a done deal.

The hearings won't even start until September and one hell of a lot can happen between now and then (not to mention what might come out).

While I might be pessimistic about our chances, I'll be damned if I'll give it up without even moving through the process....:shrug:

[Walt Starr]

247. Talking about it is worthless right now

Dig up the dirt.

That's the only way to defeat him, get something nasty, dirty, and downright disgusting on him.

Do that, and we can fight. Get a picture of him in the buff with a D.C. whore and that would qualify as extraordinary circumstance. O nly problem is, that sort of thing would result in a withdrawal of the nomination.

Anything short of something on the dirty, nasty, disgusting scale and we are back to a non-starter.

[hlthe2b]

261. Clearly the search is on (in force).....

we shall see...

[The Great Deceiver]

192. Live to fight another day

why is this creed being equated with "completely giving up" by many here?

The filibuster may not only come back to bite us in the ass but doesn't even promise to achieve its intended goal in this case.

I concur completely. Live to fight another day.

[Trapper]

253. What else could be done?

Assuming his appointment is a foregone conclusion, how can it be used to Dem advantage? Polls show that Roberts' expected stances are largely in line with the (older) American mainstream. We need a majority to make a difference. The decline of the "cause" is traceable to the aging US population. Face it guys, it is going to be a long, cold winter for progressives. Can you say 20+ years?

[dogday]

6. We need to contact our Democratic Representatives

and inform them of this. I am not hearing the decent from the left like I thought I would. Maybe they are gathering ammunition....

[Dragonfli]

7. I agree

All that is Required for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.

I have never "picked" a fight in my life.
But I have had to defend myself, we are in the same situation now.

[Bonitas Virtus]

176. how 'bout proper attribution when quoting Edmund Burke

[Rose Siding]

8. Bush v Gore

His involvement in the coup of 2000 was enough information for me to decide about him.

[Individualist]

9. Hear, hear!

:applause:

It's time for congressional dems to be an opposition party and place integrity above political game playing.

[TahitiNut]

10. As much as I hate to agree with you: Amen!

:evilgrin:

Don't forget his ability to jettison his 'strict constructionist' pretense when it comes to finding Executive Powers to completely obliterate the human rights and civil liberties of anyone -- merely by calling them an "unlawful combatant".

It's funny how these Reichbots find all kinds of Government Powers in the Constitution when those powers are oppressive ... but get all 'strict constructionist' when it's Government exercising its legitimate Constitutional power to protect the rights and liberties of the People from enemies (foreign and domestic) like corporatist oligarchs and fascist plutocrats.

[bloom]

11. Cheney, Bush, Rice - he is so "one of them"

Energy Industry Lobbyist

http://courtinginfluence.net/nominee.php?nominee_id=55

http://courtinginfluence.net/stories.php?id=7

"Another Bush judicial appointee with experience representing the mining industry is John G. Roberts, Jr., a former colleague of George Miller's at the Hogan & Hartson law and lobbying firm. Roberts was one of the co-authors of Miller’s amicus brief on behalf of the National Mining Association’s challenge to the government ban on ‘mountaintop removal’. In 2003, Roberts was confirmed to the powerful D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, where earlier this year he ruled against environmentalists who were pushing for more restrictive government regulations of copper smelters--many of whom are members of the National Mining Association that Roberts once represented. As a lobbyist in the 1990s, Roberts worked on behalf of the peanut industry, pushing federal legislation that maintained government subsidies which the GAO estimated cost consumers $500 million a year. Agricultural and mining interests are often involved in regulatory cases that come before the DC Circuit Court where Roberts now sits."
-----

If the abortion issue doesn't get people - maybe this will.

[MrBenchley]

84. Let's not forget Haynesworth and Carswell...

I posted this earlier....

Segregation was the contentious issue 30+ years ago that abortion is today...and you may recall that Nixon tried to shoehorn TWO segregationist judges, Haynesworth and Carswell, onto the Supreme Court. And there was much of the same dishonest tooralloo then from folks wanting to overturn Brown v Board of Education as we hear now about Roberts and Roe v Wade..."we need a strict constructionist, we can't have activist judges making law, the Founding Fathers didn't say anything about it, blah blah blah..."

And both of them got bounced by the Senate because people spoke up.

Bonus Fun Fact: Six years after being tossed out as a Surpreme Court nominee, Carswell got busted in a mens' room trying to solicit an undercover policeman for sex.

Second Bonus Fun Fact: It was about Carswell that Republican Roman Hruska announced: "So what if he is mediocre? There are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to representation too."

[me b zola]

12. Thank you Skinner

I had just responded to you in your "newsmax" thread.

Some of us are really startled to learn that Roberts worked on the Florida recount. To myself & others, this screams:

"ROBERTS IS A POLITICAL ACTIVIST AND WILL LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH"

Here is a thread discussing this disturbing news:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4145252&mesg_id=4145252

[Swamp Rat]

13. Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU!!!

:applause:

[paula777]

14. I think there is a reason that they picked a guy with only 2 years of

experience as a judge. It's almost like a set up - a wolf is sheeps clothing and ya know what - he's going to get nominated. I have very little hope that there will be a fillabuster. I don't mean to sound negative but I heard Feinstein this morning saying how she would approve him and I realized if SHE was giving this pep talk for this jackass, then hope is dim.

[dogday]

25. Bush also appointed him to the post in 2003.....

that is how he even got his 2 years experience....

[paula777]

37. That makes it even scarier .... like, they set this up

I don't think a lot of dems are realizing just how huge and important this position is. Many are acting like it's no big deal. Scary

[Jacobin]

73. Of course they set this up

What of it?

He's a wolf in sheep's clothing.

He's going to be appointed and Roe v Wade is history.

That all happened in November 2004.

[Baconfoot]

15. Bravo! Bravo! *clap clap* Encore! *whistle* Encore! NT

[lukasahero]

60. Yeah! What Baconfoot said!!

:applause: :yourock: :headbang: :applause: :thumbsup::thumbsup: :loveya: :patriot: :woohoo:

[hlthe2b]

16. THANK YOU!!! I am so sick of hearing progressives give up...

on fighting this and conclude (as they did with BOLTON, btw), that this was a done deal.

Especially painful to women, is the thought that so many male "supposed progressives" (though certainly not all)are willing to risk the RW winning control that will relegate women to less than a male human being. Just as African American slaves were calculated as less than a human, so too will women, when they no longer have any say over their own bodies.

As I posted before, I hope those who want to go for political expediency and assume we can't win and thus why bother to fight will look deeply within your principles, within your soul. I leave you with this:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.


Pastor Martin Niemöller

[confludemocrat]

109. Not just women will suffer; gays, minorities, handicapped, the powerless

If you don't realize that fighting this is worth it, even if it looks like we might lose then you understand nothing about what it means to be a liberal and a progressive (Martin Luther King Jr. is watching and the suffragists, and the union workers are all watching from above). They didn't win every fight but in losing the right way when they did lose they won in the end. Show that you are worthy of their heritage. Show that you give a damn. Drop the academic discussions and get ready for a fight.

[hlthe2b]

241. Absolutely... once they demean & devalue 50% of population....

it is simply a matter of when they further focus on gays, minorities, handicapped, poor--- eventually even those white males who don't quite meet the "loyalty" criteria....

[Mike Nelson]

17. I agree...

...it's time for Dems/Indys/Whomever to announce anyone Bush picks for anything is unacceptable. This guy is Bush's attempt to stealth stab individual rights into oblivion. The country should have gone into a civil cold war the moment Bush stole the election.

[wtmusic]

108. obstructionist

and counterproductive. Should we have 8 members of SCOTUS from now on? The position has to be filled. Kneejerking hurts us down the road.

[Kilroy003]

188. Why not have just 8 for a few years?

It's been done before. And this way, the SC can't decide contested 2006 races.

[clitzpah queen]

18. Let's Prove We Don't Have ADD

YES!!! We CAN focus on more than one front at a time. I said this and some of your other points in another thread. I think the implications of 30 years of court reversals is too hard for some to fathom. Perhaps some talented, creative writer could break it down to the various human scenarios that could follow should we let them take this over. Jesus- Franken is already conceding defeat, his co-anchor is encouraging us to consider he might be another Souter...What is their basis for this kind of trust? The bushies are playing for keeps these days--- sometimes it feels like we are lambs to the slaughter...
Maybe it would be good to have a section on DU devoted to: Concrete things to do to Proudly Obstruct Roberts' confirmation (yeah, okay, letters, petitions - we need some more creative outlets to capture hearts and minds though...)

[Lars39]

34. Consider joining the DU Activists!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=106&topic_id=16420

[Eloriel]

21. Thank you, Skinner

You don't hear that very often from me, and twice in about as many days is a real record. But I'm ALARMED at the twin specters of defeatism and political conservatism exhibited here at DU over this nomination.

On this issue alone (abortion), all progressives should oppose this nomination.

THANK YOU.

[Wetzelbill]

145. Some people seem a little too

willing to sacrifice women's rights in the name of strategy, don't you think so? :)

[nicknameless]

276. It's appalling.

A shocking number of so-called "progressive" men seem quick to want to compromise. It's a human rights issue, but I guess it doesn't affect their personal rights enough. "No uterus? No problem!"

[Generator]

22. Thank you!

I condsider you a moderate and reasoned voice..so if you oppose him it's gotta be a moderate thing to do! Unlike hotheads like me immediately want to fight... Our progressive radio this morning had someone saying "he's not that bad,could be much worse.." But for me learning his latest agreement on the Guantanamo prisoners really seals it. Because that is something happening TODAY that I feel a part of, by being a part of this country..and that is beyond my own self interest. It's a conscience thing and if you don't go with that-what do you have?

I know that the very fact the guy doesn't have much of a record is probably WHY Bush chose him because that makes it easier to get him him through. And he seems to agree with the Bush manifesto straight down the line!

So fight if your conscience tells you to..it's not just "politics"-it's life and death.

And remember folks how Bush got into the white house in the first place..hmmm....

[MuseRider]

23. Thank you Skinner.

Just a great big thank you. :hug:

[Eric J in MN]

24. I agree. He'll oppose civil liberties every chance he gets (nt)

nt

[Jacobin]

26. He's been carefully groomed as a stealth extreme RWer

He's got a legitimate legal pedigree, so 'qualifications' won't be an issue.

He's written very little that can get him in trouble.

This appointment is the reason why Smirk should not be in the WH, but he IS. He gets to pick.

With the record of dems voting to approve him for the DC appleals court only a couple of years ago, there is going to be a problem with them now opposing him in a meaningful way.

They've groomed a wolf in sheep's clothing. Roe v. Wade is going to be history soon, one way or another, with a Bush appointee on the court. This battle was lost in November 2004. It won't be won now.

I think the best that can be done is to question him carefully about his views, and make it exceedingly plain on the record that this is a republican pick for SCOTUS, not a democratic pick. Congresscritters need to warn the public that Roe v. Wade is likely going to be history very shortly. Vote against him. Don't filibuster.

Let the republican chips fall in the republicans laps who voted for Bush. (Most I've spoken with didn't think Bush would appoint someone who would end legal abortions in this country. They'll need to learn the hard way)

[sandnsea]

28. We should learn all we can, FIRST

The nomination is not likely to be blocked due to his views on abortion alone. I could be wrong, absolutely. It seems to me if all we have to argue is Roe, and will lose anyway, then it isn't worth the trade-off of losing the attention on Rove.

OTOH, if there are other serious arguments against him, I'd prefer to focus on those. Turns out there is. He's a corporate lobbyist whore. His actions at justice during the abortion bombings of the 80's will resonate because of where their approach led, the Olympic Park bombing. And there's the civil rights issues as well.

I don't think anybody thought we shouldn't oppose a truly horrific nominee, rather there just wasn't alot to make the case. I just think people didn't know how much of a record there really is against this guy.

And telling the entire truth about a Supreme Court nominee is always good, the people ought to know who they are. But a "principled" opposition based on Roe alone isn't likely to be helpful at all, and isn't worth losing Rove.

[Name removed]

228. Deleted message

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

[Just Me]

29. I agree with Conyers: don't drop the ball.

Will I take the time to sign petitions produced by those groups with experience in tackling this particular issue? You bet.

However, I'm not going to drop the Traitorgate/DSM/Torturegate scandals.

Everyone has the power and right to prioritize their energies. I will respect that and avoid becoming entangled in an argument over what we each choose to prioritize. Besides, I believe we can engage in more than one fight.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

30. The Florida recount angle is worth digging into

As I've seen mentioned on DU in other post.

I agree with you 100%, this is a lifetime appointment, this is not a distraction. This is a huge issue in and of itself that should be probed and prodded from all angles.

[ibegurpard]

31. Agreed.

And I'm HOPEFUL that what appears to be acquiescence on the part of some Democratic legislators is merely the appearance of keeping an open mind so as to establish more credibility for opposition at the hearings and to keep the focus on other things at this time.

[proud patriot]

33. We Can Multi-Task

:loveya: Thanks Skinner

[MelissaB]

36. Absolutely!

:kick:

[The Magistrate]

38. An Excellent Summary, Sir

It seems to me the best grounds on which to fight are those of evident partisanship. His participation in the "rcount" phase of the '00 Coup would have real legs in the current atmosphere of scandal and mistrust. It is importamt to seize every opportunitty to remind people of the real ilegitimacy of this regime.

[bigtree]

40. Also, Robert's race and gender will be fair game in the hearings

as he will have to convince a multitude of advocacy groups of his committment to what they consider settled law protecting their rights.

We should be prepared to discuss his record, his statements, his positions. We should present these to each other here to flesh out the best arguments. Debate here is healthy. Disagreement can produce enlightenment. But most important, as Skinner says, we need to fight. We need to show voters that there is active opposition to Bush within our party.

And, we can do more than one thing at a time.

[lynne]

215. Race and Gender as "Fair Game" ??

- Given that it is illegal to consider either race or gender when interviewing or hiring an applicant for any job/position in the US, I have a hard time believing that either will come into play in any meaningful fashion during the hearings.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

42. poll: 55% people thought Dems should fight if good reason for it

if it was going to change the courts makeup. We just have to come up with some good reasons.

[Horse with no Name]

43. I think the SCOTUS is too big of a piece of pie

to give to someone for small political favors.
I wonder what this guy REALLY did to get this plum.
Almost would hate to really know but you can be certain he knows where the bodies are buried.
I agree Skinner--fight him to the death.
I wish there was some way we could put an injunction on anything the WH does until we get some answers on this Plame thing as well as assorted other scandals.
Doesn't seem right that a criminal would be allowed to give favors to someone who ultimately may well be deciding whether to send this guy to prison or not.

[halobeam]

214. I don't know if he actually knows where the bodies are buried,

he may just have let it be known to * that he agrees they ahould have been.

[davsand]

45. Hell YES we need to fight!

Absolutely and without any reservations we NEED to fight this guy tooth and nail.

BRAVO, Skinner. I'm glad to see somebody swinging a set in the Dem party beside us radical women who refuse to be forced into slave status...

I not only got your back, but I'll be happy to help lead the assault!



Laura

[Pathwalker]

51. Thank you, Skinner. I agree wholeheartedly.

n/t

[mmonk]

53. We'll only win this fight

if we make W's numbers tank enough IMO. Otherwise, republicans will not break their discipline at shoving these nominations through nor will DLC type Democrats have what it takes to filibuster. We can only do that by keeping media focus on treasongate and make backing bush a liability or reframing this nominee as an unqualified one put up to distract from the administration's troubles in treasongate.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[kerry-is-my-prez]

55. We need to come up with good solid reasons - we need to do research.

It's up to the bloggers and googlers to find out the dirt becasue gawd knows - the regular media won't do it.

[Goldmund]

56. Just a quick question

Say you had a crystal ball (and granted, right now we barely have enough info to make an educated guess, let alone a crystal ball) and you KNEW FOR SURE that Roberts will get confirmed.

With that assumption, tell me -- what benefit is there to vigorously fighting this nomination?

You acknowledge that "we should pick our fights", and then you conclude that this fight is one we should pick -- apparently, based solely on the importance of the issue. But should the likelyhood of winning also not be a factor in choosing which fights to pick?

[RaleighNCDUer]

92. When I was a kid

I regularly got beat up by the neighborhood bullies. I was small and skinny and my dad was a teacher, so they took it out on me.

If I fought I couldn't win. No way. They were too big and too many. But when they picked on me I fought anyway. And I got beat up, a lot. Then, eventually, they stopped picking on me because sometimes, just sometimes I got a couple licks in and proved they could get hurt too.

These are not the grownups in charge. They are the playground bullies, and they will continue to bully as long as we don't fight back. So we have to fight. Every time.

When they start talking, start negotiating, then we can choose to not fight, but if we don't fight when they try to beat us down, they will try to beat us down even when they don't need to.

We are the opposition. We need to oppose that which is repugnant to us. People say they don't know where the Democrats stand on the issues. That is only because we never fight on the issues, we only fight when it looks like we will win. It makes us look like opportunists, rather than a principled opposition. If we fight for our principles, every time, there will be no question of what our principles are.

It is as simple as that.

[Goldmund]

95. I appreciate the thoughts, however

I don't believe the analogy is appropriate. Because not fighting THIS particular battle isn't the equivalent of not fighting the bullies you speak of. A more appropriate analogy could be this: you manage to get a schoolyard bully locked up in the janitor's closet. The trouble is, he has your backpack. Do you open the door to try to get your backpack, exposing yourself to the danger of being beat up more, and to the danger of the bully escaping the closet? Or do you say "fuck the backpack" and go and get the Principal, who will hand down just punishment to the bully?

Or, continuing the "crystal ball" question -- if you knew that, after a long fight, Bush ends up with a 60% approval rating and the Dems are succesfully labeled "obstructionists", and the public forgets all about Rove, DSM, Scooter, Iraq, etc -- with Roberts still confirmed -- would you still be suggesting to fight?

Don't forget, your fighting the bullies eventually did have a favorable outcome: "...they stopped picking on me because sometimes, just sometimes I got a couple licks in and proved they could get hurt too." Will this?

[ChemBob]

222. Because...

...it is important that the American people see that the Democrats/progressives/liberals were vociferously against the appointment of this man before he got appointed. If the opposition makes the news, with good talking points, then Roberts ends up on SCOTUS and really hoses everyone's rights and liberties maybe, just maybe, the populace will remember the fight against him and begin voting for Democrats. Assuming the voting machine rigging problem has been fixed by then, of course.

ChemBob

[A-Schwarzenegger]

59. Two words: NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN

We can't win so let's not fight.
If we're nice to them and give them stuff,
EVEN IF IT'S NOT OUR STUFF TO GIVE,
then maybe they'll be nice to us some day.

[Goldmund]

64. False logic

All some people are questioning is whether we should get involved on the Eastern front while we have them cornered on the Western -- not whether we should fight them at all.

[The Magistrate]

75. This Is Worth Fighting, Sir

The participation of this reptile in the "recount" phase of the '00 Coup opens an excellent line of attack. Questions by Democratic Party Senators on his participation, on his views of voting rights, and of the damnable decision by the Court he aspires to, will be covered widely, and in the current miasma of scandal and distrust, open many more people's minds to fundamental questioning of the regime's legitimacy. This opportunity is priceless.

This fellow ruled against former U.S. prisoners of war in a suit against Iraq for tortures inflicted under Hussein's regime. The rights and wrongs or high policy concerns behind this are meaningless, and will be ignored by the people, if the line that this wretch rules against U.S. P.O.W.s, and in favor of Iraq, is pressed with shrill energy. It would be hard to contrive a more brutal and effective propaganda line than this.

[Goldmund]

78. You could be right

I haven't made up my mind. But I am raising what I think is an important point: our decision to fight this or not shouldn't be based solely on the importance of the issue, or on how bad Roberts actually is. Rather, our chief rationale should be a comparative benefit analysis of fighting this as opposed to not fighting it.

So, let's mull scenarios -- as you just did. If we fight this, what's likely to happen? If we don't, what's likely to happen then?

Saying "Roberts is SOOO BAD" and "He'll be on the bench until 2040!" isn't enough.

[The Magistrate]

85. Quite True, Sir

The fellow will almost certainly be confirmed. Preventing this is not the object of a fight.

The object is to do damage to the regime, by raising in the popular mind matters that will work to discredit it, and to smear the nominee as unsuitable, and merely one more example of the regime's partisan, divisive, and ultimately illegitimate character.

[yowzayowzayowza]

165. Magistrate, tho I agree with your analysis,

I fear your def'n of victory in this situation is gunna be tough for many to swallow. We can surely win some issue-related skirmishes in this confirmation battle, but the battle as a whole was lost in the last election.

[The Magistrate]

168. That Is Probably True, Sir

But we are fighting a rear-guard action, and people need to understand that. In such a campaign, the object is to slow and to bloody the enemy, until an opportunity can be found for a fight on more equal terms. We must aim towards setting the ground for the upcoming Congressional elections: to do this, "victories" are not necessary, but maintaining the fact and character of determined opposition is. People who do not like the Republican Congress and the present administration, and such people are legion, will rally only to a fighting banner, as only this can they see as expressing their opposition.

"Sometimes it pays better to fight and be beaten than not to fight at all."

[A-Schwarzenegger]

178. Amen to this:

"People who do not like the Republican Congress and the present administration, and such people are legion, will rally only to a fighting banner, as only this can they see as expressing their opposition."

And this, too, also, as well:

"Sometimes it pays better to fight and be beaten than not to fight at all."

[wader]

273. Agreed: we must continue to posture as being

an attempted counter AND moderation of Bush Republican extremes.

Rove uses his heart to drive his head - if more Dems allowed the limiters to come off when needed to make a proper display, we'd have an easier time of appearing strong and capable. Weakness and ineffectiveness is seen by some of the electorate as complaining and whining for no good purpose.

But, if we use this nominee to remind our citizens about the corporate fraud which hurt so many in the scandals that involved friends and supporters of Bush, then also hit on the far-right religious sway of his party a la Dean's lead (among other things), we will merely be consistent with painting Bush and current Republicans as extremist profiteers. Throw in enough side-mentions of the environment and related Dem points, and we continue to show how we're being responsible to points across the board - always leading with facts, even if we push them into vague accusations for political show. There should never be a fear of using a pulpit to place the other side in a defensive posture by generating bad press for their poster children.

We should continue to go for that middle-class white vote that we've been losing so terribly in recent elections. Push the corporate side of things, but always beat on Roe to ensure that reasonable women know who is most trying to be deferential to their potential opinions.

Throw in some low-blows on the french fry incident, and you've got another Thomas-style confirmation, but without the discredited Dem witness to mar our side. There's no need to be unified on the voting for/against as a party.

Roberts as nominee is much more abot solidifying the single-issue voters who vote anti-abortion rights, rather than any specific Catholic vote (I've never heard of that being a major single-issue). Being opposed to abortion rights crosses denominations/sects pretty handily - including some far-right Catholics in Chicago, certainly.

- wader

[The Magistrate]

301. An Excellent Analysis, Sir

Welcome to the forum!

[bpilgrim]

295. *zing*

and there are so many to choose from :evilgrin:

:hi:

peace

[The Magistrate]

302. Thank You, My Friend!

Be well, Sir!

[bloom]

63. "He is as conservative as you can get," one friend puts it.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1108389946956


If that's what his friends are saying....

[Jacobin]

66. This fight was over when Kerry conceded the election

Its done.

Wasted energy.

Only thing to do is make absolutely crystal clear in the hearings that dems suspect he will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and that this is on the republicans head. Vote against him. and let him create his havoc.

[Ganja Ninja]

67. Here's one good reason why we should fight the nomination.

George W. Bush is a liar. His administration is the focus of an investigation that could result in felony charges being brought against several members of it and possibly Bush himself. A President with such a scurrilous record doesn't deserve to nominate someone to the SC who may serve for the next 25 to 30 years.

[alarcojon]

180. Yes

We should fight the nomination firstly because reproductive freedom is absolutely central to any platform of women's rights. Secondarily, we need to keep public focus on Bush's poll numbers on honesty and trustworthiness (which keep declining as Iraq and Rovegate roll on). If we get enough people to question Bush's sincerity, we may win more battles in the long run.

[ScamUSA.Com]

68. does anyone have a source of data on this guy?

I'm not really a one issue person, so aside from abortion, what is this persons record?

[Midlodemocrat]

70. Well said.

This could be the most important political fight of my lifetime. 30 years is a long, long time.

[ananda]

76. it's all spin.

Roberts is just as bad as any extreme rightwinger, if not worse because they've touted him as so socially affable, with just the correct conservative look.

In other words, he looks, sounds, and acts -nice-. Any Republican can nice you to death, literally.

Sue

[MrBenchley]

77. Exactly so!

The guy has been a judge for just TWO YEARS...and during that time he's been a disgrace. Before that all he's got is political hackwork. He's got no record of public service.

Since when is Supreme Court Justice an entry level job? Would McDonald's put someone on their board of directors whose only qualification is that he fried burgers for two years?

And he's out of touch with the American people in EVERY way.

Who thinks 12-year-old children ought to be handcuffed and jailed for eating a french fry in public?

Who thinks tortured American POWs ought to be prevented from collecting the damages from their torturers that they won in court?

[genius]

79. Thank you. This belongs on the front page.

I'm working to fight this guy and I'd like to see everyone else here do so, also.

[TNOE]

80. Kick

and totally agree. Its good that you stepped in on this. Its a rallying cry for the importance of this situation.

[VioletLake]

82. Thanks, Skinner, I agree with your argument.

And I share your disappointment.

[VelmaD]

83. Thank you

Just thank you. :)

[realFedUp]

87. Maybe we need a separate forum just to archive the Robert's info

I'm starting to see lame threads asking
questions about him that have already been
posted somewhere else.

[Goldmund]

89. I second that -- great idea.

[derby378]

88. Hey, I never liked this Roberts guy in the first place

After hearing that he carried water for the Bush team in the 2000 Florida election debacle, my worst fears were confirmed. Roberts ain't nothin' but a stooge, and we'd better fight his confirmation if we know what's good for us.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

91. Right you are. The SCOTUS is beyond political gaming.

As you said this is NOT a "distraction". It may have been timed that way by the republicans, but that's like saying that the invasion of Iraq was a "distraction" to keep us from noticing that Bush is a halfwit.

The Supreme Court is supposed to be a co-equal branch of government and the watchdog that prevents that government from becoming a tyranny. It sometimes has failed to do so, the Plessey decision being an egregious example of what rightwing ideologues can do. But, overall, they've done a pretty damned good job of keeping the executive and legislative branch from strangling us with "popular" laws that are written to benefit the writers. i.e. the traditional, silly, but very popular "Flag Burning Amendment" that the politicians trot out every time the country decides to invade some hapless nation.

On the purely "political" level, the Democrats need to show that they stand for something as basic as a woman's right to control her own body.

And, on the purely moral level, it's simply the right thing to do to resist fascism.

Note: I said Fight. Not necessarily "win".

[derby378]

94. Fuck the DLC (sing along, everybody!)

With all due respect and apologies to DLC members on DU who are really trying to help the party as a whole, I'm fed up with the DLC bigwigs who are sabotaging us on a nationwide level. Thus, I present this song for your singing pleasure:

Fuck the DLC
They wrecked our party system
They don't give a damn 'cause they're
Career politicians
They trashed Howard Dean
They cost Kerry the election
It's time we kick them out and
Take the Dems in new directions

BAYH and TAUSCHER - time to clean your fuckin' desks
LIEBERMAN and LANDRIEU - selling out has made you lame
HILLARY and BYRON - last chance to jump the ship
So CONYERS and BOXER can live in peace without these dicks

(Sung to the tune of Fuck the Middle East by SOD. Sing it in the car, in the shower, at your next Democratic Party meeting, or anywhere you feel like singing!)

[noiretextatique]

97. catchy tune

:thumbsup:

[Zorra]

116. Well sung! n/t

[jonnyblitz]

149. great lyrics!

:thumbsup:

[Tommymac]

96. Well spoke. Thank you!

I am here for duty when needed...on this and the Rove scandel, the DSM....it all ties together and we can work on all at the same time.

[RetroLounge]

98. Activist Corp member waiting for our next task!

This guy is a kook, he's just less so compared to Moore and Ashcroft. THat does not make him acceptable...

RL

[Lydia Leftcoast]

99. My feeling about all Bush nominees is

There's something wrong with them. It may not be immediately apparent, but Bush isn't going to change his tune all of a sudden and appoint a good guy.

His positions on choice and the environment are worrisome enough to set me against him.

We're the opposition party. Let's OPPOSE!

[confludemocrat]

101. No fight against this nominee=Republican enabler and just as bad

How this is fought and how hard this is fought will determine my membership in the Democratic Party, a family tradition back to well before the end of the 19th century.

I can't believe what I read:
from above,
"I'm pretty disappointed with all the Democrats -- here and elsewhere -- who have already decided that John Roberts is the best Supreme Court nominee that we can possibly hope for."
How can any Democrat concede this fight or not fight at all? I don't fucking believe it!!! It's too much to handle.

Well then, don't let the the mods delete good-faith driven posts or close discussions trending negative about people like Kerry who voted for Scalia, for example. Unfortunately, criticizing gutless, wavering or fainthearted Demos is something that has been needed or we can't be true to ourselves or the best in our traditions as a party.

This loser, "pick our fights" or "save it for another day" type shit has got to stop.

[DemBeans]

102. well said and thank you

I was growing increasingly frustrated last night at the tone of some of the posts here - that this nominee could have been "much" worse, that this represents some kind of victory.

How do you measure degrees of destruction?

As you said, Roe is the key issue and there's nothing in this man's record to lead me to believe that he won't be a mad dog when he gets his teeth into reproductive rights. Kerry asked for the input of those on his mailing list today, and I simply wrote, "Our lives are at stake. Act like it."

It is NOT time to take a pass. This matters too much.

[flamingyouth]

103. Thank you, Skinner

Voice of reason. I've been really disappointed by the "let's just roll over and die" attitude I've seen over this.

[Fenris]

107. Grab your ankles, comrades! We might alienate swing voters!

Let's let the Republicans have him!

[sherman761]

104. Don't fight this nomination

Bush is hoping to take the heat off Karl Rove. He would just love for the Democrats to go up in arms over this nominee.

Roe V. Wade is still safe. Sandra Day O'Conner was not the swing vote. Justice Kennedy has also re-affirmed Roe V. Wade.

Sandra O'Connor was a conservative. Bush is nominating another conservative. Don't expect anything less. The Democrats don't need to fight this fight right now. The Rove-Plame affair is close to bringing down the GOP already.

If it were Stevens that were retiring, that would be a different story.

[Misunderestimator]

110. W H A T E V E R

:eyes:

[blue morality]

131. Exactly. Kennedy will maintain the middle ground. Fight elsewhere.

[brentspeak]

162. What is this, a tag-team? n/t

[A-Schwarzenegger]

187. lol -- attack of the gnats!

[realFedUp]

201. You're new here....it's not about Karl Rove

Rove's being investigated legally and he's
really a minor player in this huge Bush campaign
to attack Iraq. He'll get his, as will this
administration, but this Robert's
nomination is the first SC judge nominated since
Thomas...it's important to set the tone right
from the start that this guy is just a Bush hack
with only two years as a Fed judge and lots of paper
trail behind him.

The heat will remain on Rove, but the larger picture
has to be repeated over and over. This is all part
of an illegal invasion of a weaker country, over the
will of most thinking Americans, with subsequent
cover-up, lies and expense in lives and money by
the Bush administration, in order to establish permanent
military bases in that region, control of oil, and
playing country in someone else's sandbox.

[Misunderestimator]

106. THANK YOU SKINNER!! You're the best... thank you for posting this!

:yourock:

[AuntiBush]

112. After Last Night On Here: Shew... Thank-You-Skinner!

Shew. It was so confusing. And some of the remarks from our Dem's (XM Radio) today are making me feeling lost, confused, dazed. What's new, I know, I know, but I'm sitting here trying to figure if my pets could make a plane trip out of the country. That's how fed-up I am.

So I'm hearing that if we, the Democrats lie-down on this issue, the Rethug's debate will go down. Ut-ut. I don't buy it.

So thank you Skinner. Now, I no longer feel so alone w/my thoughts. I'm outraged because we all know it was a form of distraction which I take very personal as an American citizen. I'm weary of corruption in our highest office. Weary of the (yes) lame-stream media letting me/us down by the hour.

Democracy? What's that? How can we spread this to those whom are already died (like kids, women, innocent Iraqi's) much less anywhere else on this planet, when we have lost it right here where it supposedly began.

Anyone have any other ideas 'cause I'm lost in this strange, sick wilderness. I sincerely believe I no longer equate to "the powers that are."

[linazelle]

115. So we should agree? I don't think so. It has been said outside of DU

that this is a distraction--which is why the nomination was moved forward.

As for opposition and fighting--how will that be done?

[donheld]

118. Agreed

If we automatically say someone like Roberts is "acceptable" they will only push farther to the right than this, which is hard to imagine, with the next nominee. We MUST fight this one now.

[progressivebydesign]

120. Abso-freakin-lutely!!! Thank you for saying all that.

You read my mind, Skinner! I wasn't buying the distraction thing one bit. The timing was definitely planned to distract, but the choice was obvious. This man scares me, and should scare everyone who is NOT a hard core fanatical republican. The moderate republicans, and the independents should fight this, as well. We are becoming a right wing/psuedo religious country, and this nomination seals the deal. We must speak out against this partisan end run for the very survival of America. It's THAT important!

[Zomby Woof]

121. It was enough to get me back in it

My post-election stupor is over. Nothing motivates me more politically than the legal and human rights issues at stake with this pick.

Thank you for bringing that point home.

[hlthe2b]

246. YES, ZW!

Welcome back into the fight! WOOF WOOF WOOF! :toast:

[Zorra]

123. "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take." - Wayne Gretzky n/t

[understandinglife]

124. "Why anyone would want to hand this guy a seat on the Court..."

Someone can hand Roberts his hat after he's been told, in no uncertain terms, by every Democratic member of the Senate that he does not even begin to have the qualifications to be considered for the position.

And, here is some additional details and perspective on why I think we should fight and that the goal is to get Roberts to withdraw:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4149627&mesg_id=4150035



Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[blue morality]

129. This is a battle in a war. We can't win this battle...

... but we could use it to help win the war.
Listen, this guy sucks. I really hoped we could get a moderate like O'Conner. But the simple fact is we are the MINORITY party. We don't have power to stop anything. That was decided in 2004. Whether we like it or not, as John McCain said, elections have consequences. What we need to realize is that we have to pick our fights thoughtfully, as repugs do. We can kick and scream as much as we want, we can't stop this guy.

What we need to focus on is the future. Screw the idea of getting a couple of Senate seats in 2006. We need to use this battle to take control of the Senate. It is 2005, the election is one year away. Just today a new poll shows Bush at 44% approval rating and congress even lower. If Rehnquist holds on for one more year and we take control of the Senate we can force a moderate nominee to replace him and the Supreme Court is back to the current breakdown. If he holds on longer and we win in 2008 we can replace him with a liberal.

And for all of those who think the sky is falling, I understand your concern but don't forget Justice Kennedy has continued to move farther to the middle of the court. Roberts could push him even more. For instance, the major gay rights ruling a few years ago was 6 to 3, not 5 to 4. Part of it was 5 to 4, but that other conservative vote was O'Conner, not Kennedy.

Focus on the future. Roberts’ nomination confirmation was decided last year. Let's focus on 2006.

[ElectroPrincess]

139. No, this is not a battle that I will fight ... this is, as Tenet wanted it

to be FOR REAL - in finding WMD - REALLY = Robert's confirmation is a "slam dunk"!

We will look shrill and the RW noise machine will spin our comments to look like FREAKS.

Nope, the Right Wing does not want Roe overturned, they only want to throw red meat to the base. Our cries of religous zealotry will do just that FOR THEM. I will NOT do the Right Wing's job for them and neither should you?

Intelligent people, I mean, highly intelligent people, can usually be depended on to reach a compromise that WILL support Women's Reproductive rights.

IMO Abortion will be made more rare, but it will NOT be outlawed.

This is all a ruse to get our "eye off the ball" = the corruption of our Executive Branch.

This is the WRONG battle. This is a DECOY.

Roberts is our new Supreme Court Justice - no way around it.

It's all over but the formalities - let's please consider not taking this detour?

[blue morality]

148. I concur, we shouldn't take this detour. NT

[blue morality]

153. edit

sorry, wrong spot :(

[stevietheman]

133. Disagree Strongly: Because Rovegate is more than about Rove

This is all of course a matter of what is right to do at the right time. And hardly any Democrat or Progressive is saying Roberts is "acceptable" (unless you equate "acceptable" with "best of the worst").

For now, we must keep the flame WHITE-HOT on Rovegate, while we let our array of interest groups work on the Roberts case (call that a "medium-high" flame).

Why? Simple. Because the Plame leak is but the outer layer of an onion, a scandal that may very well go several layers deep. Deeper even than just the Republican party. So deep it could turn our national politics inside out. So deep that it could involve 9/11 links. We should *not* even contemplate missing the opportunity for busting this historical scandal WIDE OPEN.

As for Roberts, even if he is confirmed, his presence will *NOT* take away Roe V. Wade... it merely changes the vote from 6-3 to 5-4. Further, if and when Rehnquist is replaced, we'll just be witnessing a conservative traded for a conservative. Still 5-4 on Roe. This is certainly worth a fight, but it's just not worth a filibuster. A filibuster is better saved for other fights that are *actually* monumental in scope. The fight against Roberts should be on his limited judicial experience and other salient facts. Soil Roberts and vote against him, whether he wins confirmation or loses.

Yes, the Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment, but with Rovegate/DSM, we are witnessing the scandal of a lifetime, meaning the lifetime of the United States itself. For the sake of our country (not merely the Democratic party), WE CANNOT BACK DOWN FROM THIS!!!

To this end, we can ill-afford a poisonous confirmation process that sucks up all the media's attention while Rovegate should be center-square.

I have to reiterate another point I made in another thread: Fitzgerald is *not* the only force "working on this." The press, if not overly distracted, will conduct their own investigative journalism into all this, but much of that will be due to our continuing to pay major attention to this growing story and feeding the press at FULL THRUST. If we suddenly stop our work on Rovegate, the MSM will take notice and drop the subject. That itself would be a tremendous CRIME and it would be OUR FAULT.

To summarize again in terms of flames:
--Rovegate/DSM: WHITE-HOT
--Roberts SC Nom: MEDIUM-HIGH

[MsTryska]

142. yes yes yes!

I totally agree with you.

[ibegurpard]

150. I'm sorry but when did this become an either/or situation?

And all of the comments I've seen from congressional Democrats indicates that they are keeping their opinions on this nominee low-profile for the time being and trying to keep the focus on the treasonous activities of the Bush White House staff...which is as it should be.
I agree he should be opposed...but I also think it is smart not to take the bait and make a stink now and save it for hearings. We'll probably lose but I DON'T want to see a single Democrat voting YES for confirmation on someone like this.

[stevietheman]

156. I did NOT say "either/or" -- please RTFP b4 responding

I basically said that Rovegate should be the top priority, while the Roberts SC Nomination is a smaller one. The historical importance of Rovegate/DSM is far, far greater than Roberts getting on the court.

[blue morality]

157. yes! see my post above, Roberts won't change the rulings of the court. NT

[stevietheman]

161. Saw it... thanks! n/t

n/t

[Strawman]

134. Yep. We've gotta stand up for our values here

This is no time for retreat. Putting a 50 year old solid conservative in place of the moderate conservative who was the swing vote on so many critical political issues cannot just be conceded to the Republicans. He seems like a good guy, and I don't want to see him dragged through the mud, but I do want to see this political appointment opposed on political grounds by people like me who do not share his politics.

Swing vote on the SCOTUS, people. This is the whole enchilada. Maybe Roberts is as good as we can do and as much as we can moderate *'s choice, but how do we really know that unless we try? I'm certainly not just going to trust him to turn out ok. If there was reasonable doubt about Roberts' conservatism, Dobson and Perkins and all the others on the right wouldn't be praising this choice. And if we can use this fight to mobilize people around issues of reproductive freedom, and around limiting corporate power, limiting unchecked executive power, and exposing the far right for what they really are, then fighting this is not in vain whatever the ultimate result.

I believe that when you take the opportunity to mobilize people around the right things only good things and new possibilities can result.

[hunter]

136. This is all about energy policy -- the abortion issue is the distraction.

BushCo doesn't give a shit about Roe vs. Wade. Rich white republican kids will always have access to safe abortions and effective birth control, so who gives a flying fuck about anyone else? Those hordes of brown people and poor white trash all exist to service the Empire.

John Roberts sucks the same corrupt Dick that Arnold Schwarzenegger sucks. This is all about an evil rotten empire fueled by coal, oil, and nukes.

We are all fuel for the furnace, full speed ahead!

[AmBlue]

137. Tony Perkins (Family Research Council) is loving Roberts...

Thank President Bush for Nominating Judge Roberts
July 20, 2005 | Forward to a Friend!

Last night President Bush announced his choice of Judge John G. Roberts to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court created by the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The President has selected a jurist who is intellectually powerful, committed to the rule of law, steeped in character, and determined not to legislate from the bench. During his time on the national political stage, President Bush has said he would nominate to the Supreme Court individuals who reflect the judicial philosophy of the justices he most admires, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

By picking John G. Roberts, the President has been true to his word. Join us in sending a message of thanks to President Bush for making this strong nomination. Judge Roberts now embarks on a confirmation process that should be fair, thorough and swift. He is entitled to an up or down vote, and the American people are entitled to have a full complement of nine justices ready to work when the Supreme Court convenes for its fall session on October 3, 2005. Tell President Bush you will stand by him and urge the Senate to complete its "advise and consent" role promptly.

Click here to send a thank-you note to the President at the White House.

Sincerely,

Tony Perkins
******************************

[Bonitas Virtus]

141. Wow! Ann Coulter agrees with you.

check out her babel - good for a laugh

http://anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=66

excerpt: "Apparently, Roberts decided early on that he wanted to be on the Supreme Court and that the way to do that was not to express a personal opinion on anything to anybody ever. It’s as if he is from some space alien sleeper cell. Maybe the space aliens are trying to help us, but I wish we knew that."

[Douglas Carpenter]

143. I wish we didn't have to fight this

But, the long-term consequences are just too severe.

[Politicub]

146. I stand with you

Thank you for doing such a great job of articulating why it is important that Dems fight the Roberts nomination.

This guy is young in Supreme Court years, and will wreak havok on the people of America for decades to come.

I'm not about to turn tail and say that I'm not going to be a democrat anymore if the Senate dems don't fight this, but if they remain silent it does plant a seed of doubt in my mind about why I chose to align myself with Dems. Third parties are nothing but votes for the opposition. It sucks when it feels like only a bare handful of dems speak for me.

[progmom]

147. right on, skinner

:applause:

I really appreciate this rallying cry!

[PaulaFarrell]

154. and you didn't mention the environment

Roberts loves mountain-topping, hates the ESA. Might as well kiss all the endangered species goodbye if he gets in.

[democrank]

159. Thank you, Skinner.

As Democrats, we can continue down this well-traveled (go-along-to-get-along) path at our peril. How much more skipping along with the Joe Lieberman wing are we going to do? John Roberts is no moderate.
We need to take action.

[David Zephyr]

160. Great post, Skinner. And the other reason (flame away) is that he is a man

Great post, Skinner.

The fact that President George W. Bush would nominate another white male to the Supreme Court to sit as a top judge over a nation of nearly 300 million people where over 50% are women, where nearly 40% are no longer white is not acceptable.

This is a reactionary choice for the Court.

The fact that Democrats are afraid to address the gender issue on this appointment is pathetic!

There will now only be ONE woman on the Supreme Court. This is 2005.

At the very least, Bush should have been able to have found a right-wing woman instead of a right-wing man.

Good grief!

This is precisely why I do believe in quotas!

[nightwing118]

170. bush has this one

come on...is all democrats do is complain? this isn't like misleading us into war or fighting the war on terrorism without logic...this is a supreme court nominee who should have a fair hearing. let's give this one to bush (i understand its a lifetime appointment), but if it was a democrat in the white house we would be upset at the conservatives for saying that the appointee is too liberal.

bush has "capital" (as he put it the day after his election in 04) to spend and this is what he can spend it on...putting someone of his liking to the scotus. democrats should be upset at all the other things bush has done with our "captial" (after the election of 2000 he acted like he had "capital" to spend and he did on his conservative ideas, we should be upset with him for not unifing the counrty back then). he won the election in 04 (not sure if it was fair and square) but he did win and should be allowed to do something for his base that voted him into office. we can't complain (only if it proves this john roberts is far right...then we can complain) right now we hardly know the guy.

democrats and liberals online aren't going to be happy with any of bush's choices it seems. let roberts go through the process and see what the senate finds out. barbara boxer said it best (paraphrase) she doesn't know if it will be an easy confirmation because she doesn't really know much about him. so let's let her and her colleagues do their job (which they aren't doing when confronting the president on misleading us into war) and ask john roberts the hard questions and see how he answers them.

[ElectroPrincess]

179. Whoa! Back the truck up?

"let's give this one to bush"

Nope, I will given NOTHING to "that man" who I did not elect KING.

However, we do have to give anyone with the basic qualifications a just review.

This Executive Branch knows nothing about true consultations, compromise and consensus. They are swaggering bullies. The Right Wing's ineptness is beginning to reveal itself to the average American.

Pull back the curtain and reveal the PNAC and Neo-Con PUPPET MASTERS!

[shelley806]

172. I agree w/ what you've said Skinner...BUT this is a DISTRACTION...

AND INTENTIONALLY SO, IMHO! He chose a pretty boy without much of a record, but one who would inflame and divert from the Iraq War and Rove...the more we fight about this seemingly good (or bad)candidate, the more our collective attentions are diverted from things that matter more. They get us in the SHORT term AND in the LONG term.

"The effects of placing another conservative on the court are VASTLY MORE SERIOUS than anything that could happen because of this Rove situation. In Rove, we could cripple a GOP Administration for a couple years, tops. In Roberts, there is the potential to change the course of this nation for decades."

How many more HUMANS have to be crippled by this current Administrations' greed, hypocrisy and lust for power?

[Guaranteed]

200. While the move may be meant to distract, calling this a distraction

is a serious misstatement. It's like saying that, while your dad is having a heart attack, your mom cutting her leg off is a "distraction."

This is IMPORTANT, whether they did it on purpose or not. We don't have a choice.

We have to deal with both.

[jurassicpork]

174. I absolutely agree, Skinner...

...but the consensus on Daily Kos seems to be a 60-40 split in favor of letting this guy walk into the Supreme Court building and saving their firepower for John Bolton.

But this, to me, constitutes an "extraordinary circumstance." Just because this bird seems moderate on paper and may present a sane, rational and lucid facade in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee doesn't mean that he is. It's during times such as ours that these right wing wackos come out of the woodwork and relieved to be free from the mental straitjacket that more moderate times insist that they wear.

By the way, has anyone read this article? I'd like to kick the ass of the QC inspector who checked that grenade.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050720/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_bush_grenade

JP
http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com

[bearfan454]

181. 30 years is a LONG time. That is more damage than Reagan did

when he stacked his puppets in place.

[jurassicpork]

193. Reagan? Funny you should mention him...

The Rude Pundit has something interesting to say today about the Gipper and a case that Roberts worked on regarding Executive Privilege back in 1986. Go to http://rudepundit.blogspot.com

JP
http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com

[abluelady]

182. The Timing is the Distraction

I agree with everything you say except I would start saying it in two weeks. Why did Bush announce yesterday evening in prime time. Heard on the radio this morning Tom Hartmann saying another memo came out that links the Rove story much closer to George Bush. Of course that story is probably buried so deep now that it can't be found. There are five weeks ahead of us until the Senate starts the confirmtation process. It is a fight worth picking, in my opinion, just not today.

[bliss_eternal]

191. Thank you, Skinner!

:hug:

:applause:

:woohoo:

[_testify_]

194. Okay I've been following this debate since last nite

Here's what I think:

Roberts is most definitely a scumsucking idealogue who obviously does not have the depth of judicial experience one would presume necessary for a SCOTUS nomination. His participation in the 2000 debacle is icing on his anti-choice cake. Incidentally, I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.

VERSUS

Every action by the current residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is a cold, calculated one that we must view from all angles before knocking our own teeth out with a savage kneejerking. This nomination serves to cloud the current PR disaster gathering around the White House. I think it's obvious they want us to gnash our teeth and pull our hair because they can depend on the MSM covering that rather than Rove's fat quivering, pale ass.

SO HERE'S WHAT WE DO!

Our focus *should* remain on destroying Bush's credibility through the DSM & traitorgate, followed by pinning the nearly 1800 dead US citizens on his simpleton ass and having him impeached. Not even the nomination of Ann Coulter to SCOTUS should not sway us from that path.
Now, that does not mean we should allow Mr. Roberts a painless ride into judicial history. Even if we cannot muster the votes to defeat him (which we probably can't), we ought to fling as much shit as we can, because SOMETHING might stick...and that something MIGHT be enough to derail his nomination. Remember, this vote will be coming at the same time Fitzgerald indicts Cheney and Rove. If Bush's SCOTUS nominee is found to have a penguin fetish around the same time, we'll be swearing in Skinner before you can say 'OMFG it's pronounced noo-cleer'.

Lastly, don't depend on our Senators to do this for us. They're embattled, desperate, and politically clumsy. We need to crash google in our search for ammunition. WE ARE THE ONES WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR.

[BelgianMadCow]

196. outsider perspective : FIGHT! (and read post 168 too)

The SC Selected your pResident, remember...
Millions of people protested the war in Iraq. DSM and Plame prove them right.

The will of the people has been ignored multiple times.

How is it possible that there isn't an outcry EVERY DAY from the people that were elected to represent YOU?

You really really need an opposition party. Do what Jon Stewart said to John Dean, be a shadow government, and let it be known to ALL what this nomination could mean. (filibustering is not the proper means imho).

Now isn't the time to speak up for your representatives, it's long overdue!! On this issue, and a host of others.

[Generator]

208. Thanks outsider!

Remembering how Bush Jr. was selected is just the beginning. But the beginning leads to today.

[BelgianMadCow]

209. "but the beginning leads to today"

so very true. I became politically aware due that entire debacle.

Since then, I found DU (albeit as "freeminder") and learned to appreciate history and it's teachings much, much more.

You're very welcome!

:hi:

[Guaranteed]

197. Righteous.

Thank you. :)

[redqueen]

198. THANK YOU!

*sigh*

[mousie]

202. Wow! Would you consider sending your comments

to John Kerry?!! That was very well said!! See below:

Email for John Kerry:

This much is clear already. Judge Roberts is no Sandra Day O'Connor.

Last night we learned that President Bush wants to replace a woman
who voted to uphold Roe v. Wade with a man who argued against Roe v.
Wade, and that sends a clear signal that this White House remains
bent on opening old wounds and dividing America.

There are big questions that must be answered involving Judge
Roberts' judicial philosophy as demonstrated over his short time on
the appellate court. The Senate must learn whether he has a clear,
consistent commitment to upholding Constitutional standards like
civil rights, the right to privacy, and Roe v. Wade. These issues are
in serious question if you take even a cursory glance at his record.

We need to ask the tough questions to determine whether John Roberts
is the nominee who will give America a Court that is fair,
independent, ethical and committed to Constitutional freedoms rather
than an ideological agenda, and I promise you I will do everything in
my power to assure that no question is sidestepped.

Throughout every step of the confirmation process, I will keep you
informed about the questions that need to be asked, the answers we
need to demand, and the principles we need to defend. It's impossible
to overstate the importance of this moment.

As the U.S. Senate discharges one of its most important
responsibilities, I will be active and vigilant. I hope you will do
the same, beginning right now. Start by sharing a few words about
your personal feelings on the importance of this Supreme Court
nomination.

You can submit your comments or questions here:

http://www.johnkerry.com/action/share/

Thank you,

John Kerry

P.S. In the days ahead, we'll be featuring on our johnkerry.com
website a cross-section of the comments submitted and contacting you
with important information and action requests as events demand. Sign
up here if you want to get the latest information. Recruit your
friends and neighbors, too.

[bread_and_roses]

204. I agree (n/t)

[Lorien]

205. Thanks Skinner!

Well said! :yourock:

[PATRICK]

206. I finally checked out the one question

That ALONE matters to the Bush people. The stooge factor. It appears very strong and all the other elements are perfect for his political purposes, including a seeming lock on a vote to overturn Rove v. Wade already spun as lacking the "technical" evidence needed to oppose him on that issue. Beautiful. The media has been working hard- with some infuriatingly naive cooperation by leading Dems who shouldn't be leading Dems- to paint the rules of engagement into a fine corner. In fact the paint brush is still at work to make it already decided whether the Dems WILL fight at all.

But it is the stooge factor above all. This may be the real reason Rehnquist is staying on, the ever faithful tool of the political GOP, an election fixer, and no matter what his position on various issues, a loyalist in all matters purely political. So Rehnquist staring death in the face is clinging as O'Connor oozes away while the most careful move is crafted to seal the SCOTUS in the Bush dynasty pocket. If it is easy and met with Lieberman enthusiasm, they may even ride this guy right to the next stage as Chief Justice. If not they can play the next stooge appointment off how easily Dems fell for this one.

Above all, a Bush appointment must be almost inevitably a Bush stooge, with power money and even blackmail insuring protection, favors and a near disdain for any concept of human compassion. There will be no Souters. But there will be a lot of very very stupid wishful thinking and kind speculation both in the media chorus and the Dem leadership suicidal sing-along.

The only hope is that somewhere, somehow, the crafting of TOO perfect a plan is itself a fatal flaw such as the glorious Iraq PNAC plan and the Plame crime. In other words, this guy has been too carefully chosen. There may be more than one Achilles' heel in each of his wonderful Bush objectives.

You will never find them though following the media rules being laid down via WH instructions. You will never beat them using the same old script or predictable strategies some Dems are strutting about with- in advance- along with concessions and conditions that are being gamed all along the way.

Find the ironclad stooge factor or the control mechanism and get the implications of hard RW laws out to the people- despite the dutiful silence and respect of the propaganda MSM.

[Speed8098]

207. You Hit The Nail On The Head Here

This guy is the sleeper that nobody thought about.
The fact is, he would vote to overturn Roe v Wade in a heartbeat. He is a toady for * and the republican party who should never make it to the highest court in the land.

As a New Yorker, I'm comfortable with the fact that Chuck Schumer will never vote to confirm him, but I wonder if Hillary will vote with Schumer or will she continue her march to the middle.

Before you flame me, I'm a fan of Mrs. Clinton, but I'm not sure which way she is going these days.

I think there are more important issues she should be speaking out about than video games.

Just my $.02

Great post Skinner
Thanks

[shugah]

210. i agree skinner

my son often asks me "what's going on in the world?" the day o'connor announced her resignation i told him that what happens now is hugely important- that the person who is picked to replace her is going to affect the rest of his life (he's 17).

i agree - this fight has got to be fought. nothing is more important.

[VOX]

212. Agreed, agreed, agreed!

Thanks, Skinner! :thumbsup:

[grace0418]

218. One small comment re: the whole "distraction" thing

I take this nomination very seriously, and I hope everyone else does too, for all the reasons you stated. But the GOP is indeed using this as a distraction. The fact that it's incredibly, gravely serious is all the better for BushCo, because it's a far more effective distraction than just about anything else. An already weakened, already divided Democratic party now has to split its focus or risk losing on both fronts. And that's great for BushCo.

So can we push the Rove story and all the WH impropriety to the point that they are under fire? So much that it basically pushes the nomination to the back burner? I mean, isn't going to be easier to fight the nomination if we cast the adminstration as the villians they are, once and for all?

I guess I don't see it working the other way. If we drop the whole Rovegate thing to focus on the nomination, Rove will scurry back under his rock and lie low for awhile until everything is forgotten. And we could still lose the nomination fight. But if we turn our focus on Rove, we *might* be able to kill two birds with one stone.

Or maybe I'm just smoking.

[alfredo]

219. Pett on the process

[crucified]

221. sad

but he's in. There won't be a fight. Kennedy or Schummer might ask a tough question or two, with a follow-up here and there.

Abortion will probably be outlawed before 2008, especially if (when) Renquist retires.

The only way Democrats can take back power is if they stop concentrating so much on attacking neocons on Iraq, Social Security, Valerie Plame and start attacking Repugs for the greatest political crime they have ever committed: the theft of 2 presidential elections.

[imenja]

229. Who would you have replace him?

that Bush would actually nominate? And what is the strategy to get us a better nominee rather than a worse one?

[gristy]

230. In the run-up to the war in Iraq, I do remember thinking once or twice

"Well, maybe this will work out."

Anytime I catch myself starting to think that maybe Roberts will work out, I just remind myself about how Iraq turned out.

Roberts must be defeated.

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

231. You said it, Skinner. Bingo, and right on!

I agree wholeheartedly with you, Skinner, especially the part about Roberts only being 50 years old, and how this appointment can potentially change the course of our nation for decades to come.

As far as I'm concerned, we shouldn't give up any fight for another. What, no one ever heard of multi-tasking? Sheesh!

[jurassicpork]

232. The way I see it

...the Repugs are favored to get their way because there's a timetable involved. The nominee(s) have to be confirmed by, when, September? And there's no guarantee that Rehnquist will even hold out that long. If we reject this guy (for the 3rd time), it'll take months that we don't have and the pressure will be on the damned obstructionist lib'rals to get this guy in, rather than keep the spot open much longer. And there's nothing to stop Bush from stubbornly re-nominating this assclown, anyway, like a thirsty customer insisting on shoving the same worn, ragged dollar bill into that damned Coke machine again and again and again.

JP
http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com/

[yardwork]

234. I agree, Skinner. Well said.

[femrap]

239. here's info on roberts....

http://billmon.org/archives/002038.html

Also, check out: www.juancole.com and read his diary for today, July 20. Scroll down to the second entry...

Roberts is a very scarey person...another manchurian.

[rainman99]

248. It's funny how people fight for their own civil rights, but not

for everyone's civil rights. Men should fight for women's
rights. Straights should fight for gay rights. Whites should
fight for minority rights. Civil rights are for EVERYONE and
we should all stand up for them.

[nicknameless]

299. Thank you for this great post, rainman99!

That is *exactly* correct!!!
... And welcome to DU :hi:

[gulliver]

249. Wait til we see the whites of his eyes.

I'm fine with fighting Roberts. I just think the filibuster talk and the real attacks should wait until after Labor Day when the confirmation hearings begin. Then they should hit him all at once. Otherwise we will waste our ammo and Bush/Rove will have its diversion.

The people won't pay a bit of attention to anything we say during August (the last month of Summer). Therefore, anything we say will be old news by the time the hearings are ready to go. If we find out something really simple and fatal for the nomination, by all means put it out there. The complicated stuff should wait a while.

[Kipepeo]

250. Thank you for this post

It means a lot!

[Ksec]

255. Hes extreme right

without a doubt.

Hate to see what this court will do to workers rights and choice, and environment and SS.

[adarling]

260. i agree with u

i am so sick of everyone rolling over and taking it from the republicans. We all need to pull it together and fight this. This guy is bad...u can see it in his eyes :eyes: :wtf:

[fortyfeetunder]

262. This is not the first fight

Because most of the sitting justices except for Thomas, Scalia, and Souter, are up there in years, thus marking at least one more opportunity for * to populate SCOTUS...

[bettyellen]

264. ...

:yourock:

[okieinpain]

265. let me say first that you've done a great job with this site and I

wouldn't know what to do if it wasn't for this site. having said that you're going to be in a very small party on this one partner.

but hey love your site man.....

[yorkiemommie1]

268. well said

we can fight ROVE and Roberts and the DSM at the same time. The GOP has all kinds of targets; we need to be just as determined. This, after all, is the fight of, and for our lives and those of our children.

We need to go after these rats on all fronts, forcefully and on point.

We CAN walk and chew gum at the same time!

[bken]

269. why not overturn Roe?

Can you explain to me what would be so terrible if Roe were overturned? Would it not return the power to regulate abortion to the States, and ultimately the voters of those States?

[bling bling]

272. Here's why.

A woman's right to make the choice to carry a zygote to full term should not be left up to other people, and certainly not to a bunch of strangers who happen to be voters in her state.

[demobrit]

270. change the system of appointments?

Why do supreme court judges have to be appointed by the President ?
Why not let all the Judges in the land cast a secret ballot for the most respected , most experienced Judge for the Highest court in the Land .

[bling bling]

271. I completely agree with your perspective.

There's nothing rash at all about your statements and at this stage it's the appropriate perspective. I see no reason why we should bow down and allow the right-wing-corporatists to appoint their cronies to the bench without a fight. Good god do we stand for OUR moral values or not? What does it mean to stand for something if you're willing to sit down when that which you supposedly stand for could be threatened??

So far the limited history reports I've heard of this guy are NOT in line with what I strongly believe in. The reporting of his record on the environment and women's rights alone is questionable enough that I don't want to simply throw my arms up and concede.

At the very least, we haven't even scratched the surface in terms of combing this guy yet. I need to see him examined with a fine tooth comb before I'm willing to give the crooks-and-liars on the right the benefit of the doubt.

[IndianaGreen]

274. Mantra: Judge Roberts is a moderate when compared to Scalia

This is the same analogy as saying that Mussolini was a moderate when compared to Hitler. The truth is that both were Fascists and both were responsible for genocide and war crimes.

It is pretty sad that someone that opposes women reproductive rights is portrayed by the media, and by too many members of the opposition party, as a great choice for SCOTUS.

Bush stands for everything we hate. We must oppose everything that Bush proposes, and support everything that Bush opposes!

[Q]

280. That's not going to happen...it's a done deal...

Lieberman and others have already given the green light on Roberts.

[katinmn]

279. You're right, Skinner

In addition to all the other reasons for fighting him:

Roberts was a paid lobbyist for Bush, and was on the legal team that that screwed with the election laws in Florida in 2000.

We don't roll over for political scum. Ever.

[nashuaadvocate]

282. I disagree, Skinner...

...as much of the force of your argument comes from a straw-man: that Democrats here and elsewhere are proposing we "support" (your words) this nominee.

I would be stunned if anyone here or elsewhere actually said that.

What has been said by others is what has been said by you, here: that we should "oppose" this nominee.

The question is, how? With a filibuster? By burning up the airwaves the next five weeks? And the obvious question which flows from that is: at what cost?

Your premise that it is "reasonable" for Democrats to expect a Supreme Court nominee in the mold of the retiring Supreme Court Justice has no precedent in law, history, or politics. Conservative Presidents nominate conservative judges--just because the Republicans have failed miserably in their attempts to do so on countless occasions (Souter, Kennedy*, O'Connor*) does not make the adage a false one. We did know that Bush would nominate a conservative, and there's nothing which makes this one worse than any other, in fact--and yes, I have looked at his decisions, with both my hats (as both a lawyer and a political enthusiast)--and he's a good sight better than Owens and Rogers Brown and Pryor and Pickering and countless others, because there is still a chance he won't vote to criminalize abortion (and some progressive scholars say, a pretty good chance indeed). That said--and as I said in my own remarks here on the subject--there's no question that whoever Bush nominated (and confirmed) would end up being at least a part-time member of the Mob of Three (Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist) on many issues. And so Roberts will be.

It's not hard to run this guy's background: CV (all available on-line), ABA rating (available on-line), 3 contested cases (all available), 39 cases argued in which (he is right in this much) we can't really deduce his personal opinion from what he said in representing his client, the President. So, yes, press him on all the issues, vote against him certainly, raise a stink if/when he refuses to answer questions (particularly about abortion), but don't put all your political capital in a fight which, politically, is not only lost already but which is not the best fight we have right now. Treasongate could neuter this President and make him a four-year lame duck; did you see the Zogby Poll which said that 42% of Americans would want Bush impeached if it's shown the misled the nation into war? (And might Fitzgerald's investigation not uncover the President's dishonesty on a crucial point in that analysis: the uranium claim?).

And no, neither the media nor DU can focus on two things at once. Look at the board right now: Treasongate is already a distant memory to the folks here.

* Still a conservative on 80% of issues, not a "moderate" as you implied.

[confludemocrat]

288. Obviously no stomach for a fight, since your world won't change either way

just in case here's a better strategy than others with similar concessionist views have advocated here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4154531#4154568

[katinmn]

290. Thanks. Generating some good ideas on that thread!

[blue morality]

296. I agree with you 100%! nt

[katinmn]

284. I have never been a single issue activist

and I don't plan to start being one now.

I've been a little mystified by posts recently suggesting that I and others like me who are fighting every day on many fronts need to choose between one political crisis over another.

Just since the last election:

We have worked on election reform; organized state and national protests; have started and support election reform organizations; organized protests to save the filibuster; marched in protest to the war on numerous occasions; helped plan the visit of Iraqis to 20-plus US cities so people could hear from "our enemies" first hand. We door knock, phone bank, gather and deliver petitions on issues important to us -- human and civil rights, the environment, the war. That didn't stop after November 2.

We participated in the National Media Reform Conference and local media reform efforts. We contribute to blogs, Indy Media and other alternative media regularly.

We join with local progressives anytime we can: DFA, State Progressive Caucuses, DU Meet-ups, even Drinking Liberally. We network with progressives all over the country.

We've written numerous LTTEs, made numerous calls to our legislators and write to them every week (if not every day). We've signed numerous petitions. We've written to every member of the Senate and the House at one point or another.

We give money to progressive organizations and elected officials every month. We are involved on national, state and local levels.

Our lives are immersed in advancing the progressive agenda. This is a war of good against evil.

We hope we are making a difference because other areas of our lives have had to take a backseat, and sometimes we get tired.

This is not bragging. Even writing this I know it must appear like manic behavior.

For those that only have time or interest in a single issue, please follow through. More importantly, please consider encouraging people who are drawn to do more. When you say: "Waste of time" or "We need to choose our battles" you are telling us to roll over and accept what for us is unacceptable.

[DistressedAmerican]

285. I Could Not Agree More! We Are Fully Capable Of Attacking On Multiple

fronts.

I will not limit myself to fighting these guys on just Karl or just Scotus or just DSM or just detainee abuse or just the Iraq war.

All of these things are fronts in the war. If we do not tend to them all, we will loose those that we dismiss for the others.

I know lots of folks are busy and feel like they do not have the time. I make the time everyday to go after these jackboots. You'd be amazed at what you can accomplish with just and hour or two a day. In that time you can hit several major topics EVERY DAY.

Do not let them rest on ANY OF IT!!!

Go Kat!

[volitionx]

292. Roberts Is No Moderate...

Of course Bushco is trying to portray Roberts as mainstream, but do you honestly think for a millisecond that Bush--an abject fascist--is going to use up one of his two probable SCOTUS nominations to nominate a MODERATE? Hell no.

If anything, Roberts is a stealth nominee. He _appears_ moderate until you actually dig a little bit into his past. That is, he appears "moderate" because people don't know much about him. But we will.

Just his work on the Bush 2000 recount ALONE should be enough to make every Democrat (and rational citizen on earth) loathe the guy.

Bush has an AGENDA. He's trying to form a neo-con, Global Corporate Empire. There is NO WAY he'd nominate ANYONE who may actually impede the neo-con goal of world domination.

There's no way the Dems will win on this one, and it's true that we have about 5 weeks until the real action begins, but we have to fight this one regardless. Nearly everything that comes out of this administration is tainted with their putrid slime.

We must keep the pressure on the Rove story and then start in bigtime on the SCOTUS nomination in a few weeks.

[nicknameless]

293. Thank you so much for your post, Skinner!!!

I can't believe how many alleged progressives (mostly men) are ready to sell out women's sovereignty over their bodies. Eric Alterman argues that Roe v. Wade has hurt the left!!! Really? I know that it has saved countless women's lives. But, I guess that's an unimportant side-issue.

We all know fully-well that Dems have lost a lot more elections due to the Southern Strategy than they have Roe v. Wade. And we all know that the so-called progressives who are willing to jettison Roe v. Wade would argue vehemently against turning the clock back on civil rights. ... Misogynists, one and all!

[bigwillq]

294. I'm with you Skinner.

:hi:

I'm still think the ROVE situation is serious but I get your point.

I hope you don't mind if I print this post and then give it out to friends and people happy or tolerate with Roberts.

[oc2002]

297. ..they controll the WH, and both houses of congress.. game, set, match.

It would be unwise for the dems to throw down the guantlet and filibuster the vote.

unless ROberts is found to have molested a child, and video taped it on the WH lawn, its a forgone conclusion he will be on the supereme corrupt court.

but its okay to bitch and whine, and when RoveVwade is overturned to get lazzy ass people to get out and vote these bastards out.

[Tinoire]

298. HALLELUJAH for your post

I don't have time to put this tactfully because I have very little time right now but HALLELUJAH for your post.

Here's the part I don't know how to be tactful about. The disappointment you expressed is the same many of us have been feeling about how far to the right this board has shifted with the accommodation of so many "moderates".

About 2 months ago a concerned thread by an old time DUer expressing dismay at all the right wing talking points being seen on DU was locked. I didn't have time to post in it but many people did and they expressed the same disappointment you just did.

Please Skinner, introduce some sort of a member moderating system before it's too late because with so many people flying under the radar, these RW talking points are all too common and doing great harm to what you're/we're trying to accomplish. Their tolerated presence has slowly made the board less of an imperative for me.

I used to feel very in sinc with the majority of DUers and trusted that that we were all working with one goal in mind- no more. I haven't felt that for the last year. We're marching to our own doom with all this accomodation and I'd rather not see those accommodation points being openly pushed here. A lot of your old-timers are tired of fighting it- basically thrown in the towel because we've not only felt powerless to stop it but felt that we were even fighting some mods. A case in point is the war. Many posters have noticed that there's been in increase in pro-war talking points but anytime it's mentioned, moderators step in and shriek "where, where, definitely not on this board" and that's BS- we see it, we smell it, we read it. We get tired of going after those posters only to see our posts get deleted as they Vichy crowd grows stronger and more empowered to continue with their RW points.

When you, from your 'not-down-in-the-weeds' vantage view, feel this disappointed also, you can bet your ass there's a problem. A HUGE problem.

I'm sorry for your disappointment but welcome to the club and please let's do something about it.

I remember this board when it first started. Elad's posts were the kind of thoughtful ones that attracted me to this forum but now I read such hateful posts here against non-mainstream-aligned dems that I clutch my head in grief wondering how the hell did this happen and why the hell are mods tolerating and even playing that hateful game.

It may be time to take a walk down nostalgia alley Skinner. Remember the first posts on this board, how thoughtful they were and how many of those first committed posters we no longer see. Their commitment didn't disappear because they were right by your side when no one else cared but where are they now? Disappointed, that's where. Disappointed that the board has shifted so far to the right that Roberts is being pushed as "ok". He's not ok and it's time to do something about why so many people feel comfortable telling others to accept him because he's "ok".

Now I'm late for my meeting! Sorry about just laying it out and not being very tactful. I hope you, and others, see this post in the concerned spirit it was meant.

No. No. No. Roberts is NOT ok. And shame on anyone who says he is. Also SHAME on anyone who says we should throw in the towel and accept it. SHAME, SHAME on all those "we just need to accept it" posters. I've accepted as much as I'm going to take and DO NOT march with the Vichy squad! You've "accepted" so much that we now have Bush for a second term and I'm done "accepting" or putting up with these Vichy right wing talking points. Don't want to fight these ass-holes? Just want to roll over and play nice puppy because Hitler is a dog lover after all? Shut up and get out of the way then. But you won't shut up. I only wish to hell the mods would start shutting you because the same accommodation squad that's gotten more emboldened everyday is the one now daring to push the RW point that "Roberts is ok". Just like Powell and McCain were "ok". :puke:

You're disappointed Skinner? I can't tell you how disappointed and broken-hearted I am.

[nicknameless]

300. HALLELUJAH for your post too, Tinoire!

A strategy of conceding for political points, as though people's lives were not at stake?! I can't believe what I've been reading.

:puke: indeed.

[katinmn]

303. Good post, Tinoire. Thank you.

:dem:

[NMMNG]

304. I don't trust Roberts

I was holding back judgement until I could do research on him but now I know I don't like him. On NPR today they did their little "Yay Roberts" piece and one thing his colleagues kept noting is how Roberts always maintains a conversational tone when addressing SCOTUS no matter how passionate the case may be. They said how much the justices appreciated this, and how professional and amiable it made him out to be.

Made me think more of someone with a serpent's tongue, who could lure people into doing his bidding with his devious smooth talking ways. Says what he must to get what he wants, then when he has the power he desires he uses it to assert his will.

The NPR rah-rah session mentioned Roberts' brilliant track record arguing cases against SCOTUS. Methinks he may be a little too crafty for our good. I think if he gets on the SCOTUS a lot of Americans are in grave danger.