Steve, this guy is beyond conservative. He's one of the religious right and greedhead right. I see him as practically as bad as they come. Confession here -- don't flame me, please -- I'm pro-life and even I'm afraid of this guy.
From stomping on civil rights, to defending greedy companies including taking issue with the facts of global warming, to prayer in schools, this guy's got it all.
The religious right and the wealthy right got everything they wanted with this guy. Bush has more than pleased all asects of his base with this nominee.
Be afraid, be very afraid, no matter how personally decent this man may seem, ideologically, politically, and in legal matters, he is the pits.
Posted by Brian Bell at July 19, 2005 10:07 PMOh, so they accidently did something mild, or purposely did something mild? Not likely. I predict he's the anti-Souter. A stealth bomb, carefully laid.
Bush has forfeited his right to lead. Shut down the senate. Go nuclear.
Who did Rove betray today?
How did the Iranians find out we can read their codes?
Where did the 5 billion in cash Saddam had go away?
When the government has nothing but lies and security gaps, it has lost the right to govern.
Just shut it down now.
GUARANTEE:: if they accept him, he is an unamerican disaster waiting to happen.
Posted by jim at July 19, 2005 10:09 PMJim, I think he is barely the anti-Souter. Scratch the surface and there's a lot of odious stuff there, not on a personal level, but in his work as a lawyer.
Posted by Brian Bell at July 19, 2005 10:11 PMAll I ask is no more benefit of the doubt to people who surprise us at every turn with how unwilling to govern responsibly they are.
Posted by jim at July 19, 2005 10:16 PMWhy Roberts?
This is as close to a Scalia clone that Dubya could hope for; in fact, I'd venture the guess that he's been groomed as a Scalia Clone for many, many years . . .
This is Daddy's Solicitor General -- this is as close to the Scalia / Thomas / Ted Olsen Axis-of-Wing-Nut-Judicial-Constitution-in-Exile that Dubya could get.
Roberts was selected because he has Democratic friends -- not for his lack of Wing Nut cred . . .
The Question Is -- should a Co-Conspirator in the exposure of the CIA's Anti-WMD Covert Operation, be allowed to nominate ANYONE -- to the Supreme Court?
Not to mention, the RoveBush Conspiracy to Steal the Election of 2000 -- Speaker of the Florida House Tom Feeney played a major role from 1998 on . . .
Not to mention -- subverting every intelligence agency, from the CIA to the DIA to the NSA -- to lie this country into a WAR that has made us less save and both emboldened our enemies, and created a Graduate School of Terrorism the likes of which the World has never seen.
Consider a tiny portion of that indictment --
Why should Dubya not be in IRONS -- instead of nominating ANYONE to ANY court in the U. S. of A.?
The Battle Has Just Begun . . .
Posted by ck at July 19, 2005 10:28 PMThe guy's a conservative, Republican, Washington establishment hack. So he doesn't have a lot going for him. What did we expect?
Washington establishment hacks aren't revolutionaries. He's about as good as we will get with this White House. Push him to the wall. Make him explain himself. And then ignore the red herring Dubya and the boys have trailed in front of our noses and get back to the business the White House wants us to ignore: Plamegate.
Posted by blaneyboy at July 19, 2005 10:39 PMDespite the fact that Roberts is way too conservative for most of us, I generally agree with Steve. I think another reason he was chosen is that you can't easily vote against him without being convincingly painted with the "anti-american" and "obstructionist" brushes that the GOP loves. This guy (at least as much as the public will see of him) is about as apple-pie and daddy-was-a-millworker as they get. Now why that makes one ineligible for president, but virtually un-contestable for nomination as a justice I don't quite get.
Here's a bit from an (old) Andrew McCarthy article on NRO that raises a question for me regarding what the objective of appointing "strict constructionist" judges is:
Practically speaking, in the adroit hands of the nation's best lawyers, terms such as "liberty" and "privacy" are boundless — and, lest we forget, the Constitution, to say nothing of its many penumbras, ellipses and lacunae, contains many such words. The upshot is this: The more those words can be stretched, the more forbidding a fortress they become around life's disputes, and the less remains for the American people to determine for themselves. Instead of the masters of our fate, we become the subjects of those empowered to say what the words mean: the judges.
Is this really a common neo-conservative viewpoint, that the more broadly terms like "privacy" are applied, the fewer choices and less of it you have? I read that graf and it seems totally bass ackwards....I don't get it.
If you want to see the whole article, it's here.
Posted by Kaleefornian at July 19, 2005 10:40 PMsomething tells me there is more than pubic hairs on the coke can in this guys history ... but good commentary steve.
his most offensive stuff - is his votes against the environment ... we need to take these motherfuckers to task for not protecting what's left of the environment.
the USA needs to lead the world - not the opposite.
how the hell can a man be sent to the supreme court that doesn't support environmental protection?
that said - if we can't win this one ... we work the SOB over the coals and move on other battles.
Posted by spk at July 19, 2005 10:48 PMfirst of all, folks should remember how hard John Sununu worked to reassure the right wing that Souter was a solid Rightie
and folks shouldn't forget that Eisenhower nominated Earl Warren
it may well be that the Bush folks genuinely believe that they've got a good stealth candidate, but they're having to guess just as much as everyone else - the problem with being two cute by half like this is that if there is anything stealthy about him, it will be the Right who gets surprised - we on the Left already expect the worst
secondly, especially given Rove-gate, and the elevated public awareness of the damge done to the public good by illegal leaks, perhaps Chuck Schumer or another Dem could take advantage of the oppostunity, and ask Roberts who all those leakers were in Ken Starr's office who illegally gave information to Sue Schmidt
Posted by bz at July 20, 2005 12:04 AMWell, the Democrats may not fight to keep this guy off the bench, but Moveon is.
In nominating John Roberts, the President has turned to a right wing corporate lawyer and ideologue for the nation's highest court.
Roberts has been associated with some of the most fringe and extreme views of the Republican Party for years. He has supported the "takings" philosophy of the extreme right, which calls for government to compensate polluters. He believes Roe should be "overturned," and won the case that gagged doctors so they could not even discuss abortion with their patients.
"He opposed clean air rules and worked to help coal companies strip mine mountaintops. He tried to stop Congress from strengthening the Voting Rights Act. He worked to keep injured workers from receiving disability. And no wonder, he's regularly been associated with corporate, far right legal groups in America - the Washington Legal Foundation, the Federalist Society, and the so-called National Legal Center for the Public Interest.
"President Bush nominated this corporate lawyer to add to the right wing activist block of Scalia and Thomas. Instead of a mainstream jurist with a distinguished career as someone who protects the rights of the American people, Bush chose another right-wing crony.
Posted by Judith at July 20, 2005 04:10 AMI don't know what you guys are smoking. I can't believe that more than 10 or 15 Democrats in the Senate will vote against Roberts. He is a blue chip candidate.
Posted by at July 20, 2005 05:12 AMOur senators just need to remind the public that over the next few years, Roberts will be taking away their freedoms. And that the only way to make sure that Bush doesn't get more judges who will take away their freedoms is to vote Democrat.
Then just vote "no" and be done with it.
It's all about elections. Digging in our heels on this guy will make winning elections more difficult, not less.
Posted by Matt Davis at July 20, 2005 05:18 AMThe Democrats have to oppose Roberts, and they have to oppose him on straightforward, partisan grounds. Roberts, like Bush, is simply too partisan for a lifetime appointment.
There will be no downside to saying so.
Roberts is not a justice for all Americans.
Posted by James E. Powell at July 20, 2005 05:35 AMAll I can add is that the fun-damn-mentalists I work with are elated at the pick of Roberts. It's as if they smell victory in their campaign to impose their god on the rest of us through the agency of human government.
There is a quote lurking in the back of my mind that declares something like those who don't care about their freedoms deserve to lose them. This is going to happen now that Roberts is likely to be confirmed, and those who cry the loudest about lost liberties will be those who don't now care enough to do something about it.
Posted by pessimist at July 20, 2005 05:37 AMOur senators just need to remind the public that over the next few years, Roberts will be taking away their freedoms. And that the only way to make sure that Bush doesn't get more judges who will take away their freedoms is to vote Democrat.
I agree and they should get that out in the open, and also be "nice" if possible. This guy is apparently well-liked by everyone who knows him, and trashing him personally won't do any good. Point out his decisions and writings, press him on them, then vote and get back to Rove. I hope the dems don't turn into raving lunatics on the senate floor, just have a thorough, professional confirmation hearing without getting nasty.
Posted by CG at July 20, 2005 05:53 AMSteve has summed up where we are well. This guy will get in unless something horrid pops up about him. They have the votes and without a true horror story people will understand, even the filibuster isn't workable. Remember, the more we talk about this, the less we are talking about Rove-just when the people are starting to understand. As others have advised, talk about traitorgate-that is a winnable battle.
Posted by rlprather at July 20, 2005 06:02 AMwhen the criminals pick the judges..this is what you get..it's a fight the dems can't win..stay focused on rove and the reasons for this war..focus on the 2006 elections..thats the ticket back to sanity..
Posted by dennis at July 20, 2005 06:18 AMlet that embarassing freak in the white house have his pick...keep the aim on the downing street memos..the looming cival war in iraq..and the blood of our children being shed every day for a lie...
Posted by dennis at July 20, 2005 06:31 AMRoberts is a committed right wing judicial extremist whose views are set in concrete for life, just like Scalia/Thomas. Perhaps he's even worse than that pair, as he will want to "distinguish" himself as the Bush "conserva-mentalist" on the Court. When Stevens leaves the court, and Bush picks another one, virtually all the nation's environmental laws will be declared "unconstitutional". And rather quickly.
But, I don't think there's any way whatever for the Democrats (or the left) to stop him. This was the fate of the country after the 2004 election. Our wildlife, wilderness and environment are doomed----for God's sake, try to enjoy them NOW and get your kids out there NOW, because these precious treaures of America will be literally gone a decade from now.
Posted by euzoius at July 20, 2005 06:43 AMI think Steve and Matt make great points here. This guy is right of what Kerry would have appointed, but this is another reason voting for president is important.
I agree with Matt that if the dems throw too big of a fit on this guy, it will hurt them. There isn't a lot of material to hammer him on and he isn't as conservative as some justices could have been. Screaming about it like it's the end of the world will make dems look stupid. It will also have the crying wolf effect if rhenquist dies and Bush puts up an even more conservative justice. I mean if it will ahve the same effect why shouldn't bush just say screw it and put up Brown. I think a lot of Americans are getting tired of dems screaming about every issue they can get material on. Just my opinion.
Posted by Tex at July 20, 2005 06:56 AMhave to love the stupidity of the left....go ahead spend all your money trying to block John roberts. In the unlikely event you succeed bush will just nominate another one like him.
Posted by zendari at July 20, 2005 07:00 AMSo, in essence, you want the Democrats to cave again, right?
Posted by RJ at July 20, 2005 07:04 AMSo, in essence, you want the Democrats to cave again, right?
Do you really, honestly, think that a battle over this nominee is one we can win? I sure don't. Worse, I think fighting it wrong could hurt us in future battles.
If he'd gone and nominated Brown or Owens, no problem--we go to the mattresses. But this guy or Michael McConnell, Alito, Clement--these people are serious lawyers. Yes, we disagree with them strongly. But they aren't the Bork-type nominee, with an obvious axe to grind against the existing law.
I think we need our senators to take the case straight to America: This is absolutely NOT a guy we would have picked. We think his outlook on the law, no matter HOW good a lawyer he is, will be bad for your freedoms.
2006 is a battle we can win, if we play our cards right.
Posted by Matt Davis at July 20, 2005 07:15 AMI agree. Don't waste valuable resources to fight a damaging and unwinnable battle. Register opposition and move back on to the Treasongate scandal.
Posted by BeginningToWonder at July 20, 2005 07:19 AMWe do not need to be talking about CheneyGate right now (this is not about Rove, it's about Cheney, the real president, who fueled Bush's lying drive to war). Sure, it'd be nice if all we had to talk about was CheneyGate, but that's not the way things are now. CheneyGate will come back to the fore once indictments come down and if none come down, then we're not likely to make much progress on this scandal anyway.
What Democrats need to do is to put up as much fight as possible in every fight that comes down the pike. That is the only way we are going to get the respect of average, everyday Americans.
DO. NOT. CAVE. ON. ROBERTS. !
Posted by RJ at July 20, 2005 07:20 AMWell, of course we probably can't win on Roberts but that doesn't mean we have to cave. Bush is a dishonest man and the American public are finally catching on to this but my first thought - actually, my first feeling - last night after Bush presented Roberts is that this could very well make Bush look like a reasonable man again to many Americans who were starting to doubt him. Thus, if we cave on Roberts as he is discussed over the coming months, then that will allow the president many opportunities to appear reasonable to the public and this will take much of the wind out of the sails of CheneyGate, wind which will then have to be built up again. We do not want to have to do that, we want the wind to stay in the sails of CheneyGate. CheneyGate itself most likely will not get much play in the media nor in the minds of the American public for a while as the Supreme Court will take center stage but if we fight against Roberts then that will work as a proxy for CheneyGate and will hopefully keep American's minds on how dishonet Bush is.
Posted by RJ at July 20, 2005 07:31 AMRE my last post above. Don't believe me? Listen to Dana Milbank (quote taken from Crooks and Liars):
Milbank on was Countdown talking about the Roberts nomination and said:
"...This is going to dominate the news up until the court begins in Oct 1; that's not to say the Karl Rove story won't make its cameo appearance somewhat-of course it will and it's likely to go on somewhat after this nomination ends, but this is clearly going to be the main game in town now..."
See? A reporter who has done decent work on CheneyGate is saying that CheneyGate won't get much play in the coming months. So if you think that by rolling over and dying on Roberts, we can quickly get CheneyGate back up front, then maybe you want to think again on that. That's the way I see it.
Posted by rj at July 20, 2005 07:35 AMpray for rain..and pray for indictments
Posted by dennis at July 20, 2005 07:42 AMIf I were the democrats, I would certainly offer limited at best resistance to John Roberts.
Don't point this at Bush. Ted Kennedy came out mere hours after the opening, threatening to block his nominee. Is this the Democrats' idea of "consensus" and "bipartisanship"? They wanted to play hardball, they got it, and now they are crying about it.
And if you succeed? Are you going to block Priscilla Owen? Brown? Any of the other dozen or so judges Bush had in mind? I guess you can try blocking until the 2006 midterm elections, when you'll get steamrolled and won't even have the 40 senators needed. It is Bush's right to choose whom he decides.
But go on, do what you can. You can distract from Rove AND lose ground on future nominations at the same time! Rehnquist isn't making it to 2009, and my guess is Ginsberg and Stevens won't either.
Posted by zendari at July 20, 2005 08:18 AMSteve is right.
And I am a little disappointed in some of my liberal colleagues in their eagerness to wage all-out war over his nomination.
What did you realistically think we would get? Larry Tribe? No, we got a conservative. And not necessarily the worst of the worst. And even if we (somehow) manage to defeat Roberts' nomination, guess who Bush will appoint for his second choice? Another conservative.
Going to war over fear over what an admittedly unappealing guy MIGHT do is not the Democratic way; it's the Republican way (see War, Iraq).
Posted by Kman at July 20, 2005 08:37 AMGrill him about his past statements and briefs.
Explain your position in opposition to him.
Get it all on the record.
Go easy on the rhetoric.
Press conference the Democatic objections into the public sphere.
Vote no.
Move on.
There's no way this guy is being defeated on his record.
The Republicans bidded their time for years until they got back into power. The Democrats are not gonna do it over night. The country might suffer for it for a while but eventually it will happen.
Posted by muckcat at July 20, 2005 08:59 AMabsolutely..things change..and by the time this frauds is done..there may never be another republican in the white house..the iraq lie may see to that..when hillary gets elected..and she will..and bill is the secretary of state..which he will be...there will be several opportunities to change the court...don't EVER FORGET that this fraud was not elected
Posted by dennis at July 20, 2005 09:22 AMThis is an excellent opportunity for the Democrats.
Yes, we're taking a hit when Roberts gets confirmed. But I agree with Steve's and others' take on this totally -- that we're not stopping it, and even if we did, Bush could easily nominate someone worse. And we need to keep Rovegate in the public eye. But I also want to add this:
If we play this right, the Roberts confirmation process will be a very useful tool for Democrats in the '06 Senate elections.
Quite simply: we need to make it very, very clear in the public's mind about just what Roberts stands for, and that every senator who votes for him is voting for those positions by proxy. i.e. every senator who votes for him is anti-environment, anti-choice, anto-consumer, anti-worker, etc. We need to really nail down all of Roberts' bad aspects, and make those apsects stick to everyone who votes for him.
The Roberts confirmation should not be a war. Rather, it's an opportunity for a major PR battle in the war to re-take the Senate.
Posted by Doug at July 20, 2005 10:15 AMRoberts' Draft/Vietnam Record?
Can't find it anywhere. High number? Student deferment? What?
Except for one obscure reference to his not liking Vietnam protests while he was at Harvard ('73-76) it's not mentioned. There's something close to impossible about a guy being a conservative then at Harvard. Uncovering what got him to be such a completely odd man out then will illuminate much about him now.
Absent some huge revelation, Mr. Soto's right. And MoveOn has gotten too interested in itself, not the country.
Posted by MazeDancer at July 20, 2005 10:50 AMWhat's his draft record?
High number? Indiana Dad Pal deferment?
Can't find it anywhere except an obscure reference to his not liking Vietnam protests. Huh? He was at Harvard from '73-'76. He absolutely inhaled. It would have been nigh onto impossible for him to be well-liked and knee-jerk conservative. And clearly he's the likeable type.
Find his Harvard pals. Knowing him then will tell us alot about now.
But Mr. Soto is right. Absent huge revelation, the party line has to be: Give him the hardest time, but focus on Rovian Treason.
As Barry Goldwater advised: "Go hunting where the ducks are."
Apologies for "double" post. It gave the "too much traffic" message and zapped away. So I typed it up from memory and posted again. Now find two. Sorry.
Posted by MazeDancer at July 20, 2005 11:36 AM