Again I say, the filibuster of a right-wing hatchet man should focus heavily on discussion of Bush's callous disregard for law and ethics. Pertinent examples should not be hard to come by.
Posted by Matt Davis at July 19, 2005 05:22 PMI do not believe this nomination!
How could my President do this to me?!
(Okay, it was inevitable...)
Posted by Toby Petzold at July 19, 2005 05:23 PMHarry Reid's STatment on Roberts...
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID
ON THE NOMINATION OF JOHN ROBERTS
TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
The President has made his choice. Now the Senate will do its job of
deciding whether to confirm John Roberts to a lifetime seat on the Supreme
Court.
The President has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that
is not the end of our inquiry. The Senate must review Judge Roberts¹s
record to determine if he has a demonstrated commitment to the core American
values of freedom, equality and fairness. The nominee will have an
opportunity to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and make his
case to the American people.
I will not pre-judge this nomination. I look forward to learning more about
Judge Roberts.
I will not pre-judge this nomination.
Nice touch, Harry. You impress me a little more with your handling of each new outrage.
Posted by Matt Davis at July 19, 2005 05:35 PMMatt, I was going to say that, damn you.
Posted by iamcoyote at July 19, 2005 05:38 PMCool - a right-wing judge. I guess we could have held back on the gay marriage issue during the election, thereby helping John Kerry win instead of making it a certainty that he'd lose, but this is still good. We'll have to live with this guy for thirty years or so, but that's also thirty years of sanctimonious yuks we'll have at his expense.
Posted by Exstatic at July 19, 2005 05:45 PMThe conservative blogs sound pretty happy. Can't be good. At least it sounds like he's smart and well-respected on all sides.
Posted by CG at July 19, 2005 05:58 PMSo Jr. is going to put a right wing wack job on the SCOTUS. No one should be surprised.
Posted by Ga6thDem at July 19, 2005 06:05 PMNews reports say Bush called the guy after lunch and said "hey, how about the job?". Who really knows why Bush does anything, moreover, who really knows IF Bush does anything. He could have picked Roberts out of a hat for all we know. I wonder if Karl was too involved with the smear of Joe Wilson to tell George what to do???
Posted by T2 at July 19, 2005 06:17 PMI guess we could have held back on the gay marriage issue during the election, thereby helping John Kerry win
In what sense could we have "held back"?
The courts in MA and NY said, "our state constitutions don't allow marriage discrimination." Then, the GOP and their Xtian-freakazoid foot soldiers got anti-gay-marriage measures on state ballots to increase the turnout of bigots nationwide. John Kerry said he thought marriage was between a man and a woman, but that civil unions should be left up to the states.
Aside from lining up gays and shoving them into ovens, what were we supposed to do, smart guy?
Posted by Matt Davis at July 19, 2005 06:30 PMWe need to keep our eye on his previous comments, rulings, etc not on what he will say to the press, American people...
This man has no legal depth and is not a friend of the people. Fight him....
Those gay marriage ballot initiatives in 2004 passed in states like Oregon that went for Kerry, and in state s that Bush carried passed by larger margins than voted for Bush. Which means that "turnout of bigots" included Democratic rank and file voters. You want to call a chunk of your base bigots? A lot of African American voters who vote Democratic are culturally conservative Christians and probably voted to preserve traditional marriage. You want to characterize them as bigots too?
Posted by Mr Damage at July 19, 2005 06:42 PMThis man has no legal depth and is not a friend of the people.
I can go along with "not a friend of the people." But this guy went to Harvard Law, clerked for Rehnquist, and spent most of his career doing appellate advocacy, particularly advocacy before the Supreme Court. None of those are easy gigs to get, or to perform.
Though there are certainly other judges, and even other right-wingers, whose "legal depth" impresses me more, this guy is no lightweight. That's just not a charge that can be made to stick.
Posted by Matt Davis at July 19, 2005 06:44 PMA lot of African American voters who vote Democratic are culturally conservative Christians and probably voted to preserve traditional marriage. You want to characterize them as bigots too?>
If the shoe fits.....
Posted by at July 19, 2005 06:45 PMHmmm. So far I'm inclined to agree with Steve -- "As I said, I would rather not have Roberts but given the dynamics and the alternatives, I can live with him based on what I know of him now.".
In other words, unless something new comes up, this will not be worth a fillibuster in the Senate. As a result, it is pointless for us to complain about it too much, as it won't change the result, and will feed into the Rove strategy of distraction.
Certainly we in blogger-land need to keep our eye on the Roberts situation, but it's important that we resume hammering on Rove ASAP.
If we can do this, then the press will headline Roberts for just a few days. Then they'll get bored and drift back into Rovegate/Plamegate. Remember, they are attracted to controversy. Let's place the controversy where it will do the most good.
Posted by Doug at July 19, 2005 07:05 PMI would have preferred Edith Clement - "Sandra, model 2005" - but I really want neither.
Posted by idiosynchronic at July 19, 2005 07:15 PMIn other words, unless something new comes up, this will not be worth a fillibuster in the Senate.
Yup. It's a downer, but given the context, it would be a very bad idea to make killing this nomination into a Dem priority.
Posted by Matt Davis at July 19, 2005 07:21 PMMatt is correct. This is not the place to draw the line in the sand. We knew in November we were going to get someone we didn't like.
Posted by Ron In Portland at July 19, 2005 07:33 PMDoug, may thoughts exactly. Don't give Bush and the GOP what they want, which is a distraction from Treasongate.
Posted by Judith at July 19, 2005 07:44 PMLets concentrate all firepower on the traitor.
Just a thought, and I will research this, but how strongly, if at all is the fear in the bushites that Roberts could be a potential "stealth" Souter type? My point being, let them complain while the left remains civil and keeps its focus on the leak and its fallout.
Posted by caroline at July 19, 2005 08:12 PMTo put it bluntly, unless the figurative corpse shows up, this guy's a shoo in. Pick your battles carefully, look for the corpse, but don't be surprised if baring the corpse, he gets in with 90+ votes.
Without the corpse, this battle isn't winnable.
Posted by rlprather at July 19, 2005 09:49 PMGtt hnd t t Hrry Rd. H hndly spplntd th ssntl f dhrnc t th lw f th lnd mbdd n th Cnstttn wth th stndrd lftst prtxt, smltd mrcn vls.
[Editor: ignore=off]Christ, Bendito, how many drugs are on?
Posted by sf at July 19, 2005 10:54 PMSorry, I meant to say are you on
Posted by sf at July 19, 2005 10:57 PMWrong on environmental protection: Roberts appears to want to limit the scope of the Endangered Species Act, and in papers he wrote while in law school he supported far-right legal theories about "takings" which would make it almost impossible for the government to enforce most environmental legislation.
Wrong on civil rights: Roberts worked to keep Congress from defending parts of the Voting Rights Act.
Wrong on human rights: As a appeals court judge, Roberts ruled that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to some prisoners of war.
Wrong on our right to religious freedom: Roberts argued that schools should be able to impose religious speech on attendees.
Wrong on women's rights: Roberts wrote that "Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled." He also weighed in on behalf of Operation Rescue, a violent anti-abortion group, in a federal case.
President Bush could have chosen many fair-minded and independent jurists to replace Sandra Day O'Connor.
Judith -- this is really great data. We all need to commit this stuff to memory. But it's not going to defeat Roberts' confirmation.
What it CAN help defeat, though, is the re-election of every Republican senator who votes for confirmation. In voting to confirm Roberts, a senator is essentially voting for every one of those aspects you list.
If we do it right, the Roberts confirmation can be a major battle in the war to re-take the Senate. We need to make sure the public understands very clearly what Roberts stands for, and against, and who is voting for him.