surendering before the battle has begun? perhaps, but perhaps it's better to save it for another day.
Posted by cr at August 17, 2005 04:09 AMIf not now, when?
Seriously - What threat to the nation is lurking in the shadows that Democrats must conserve their political power in order to fight?
What it comes down to is that Roberts sings the right notes for the corporatists in both parties, so the corporatists have given him the thumbs up. Screw the social issues which are window dressing and just serve to stir up the left or right.
Posted by idiosynchronic at August 17, 2005 05:12 AMginsberg was a tool of liberal organizations...
Posted by at August 17, 2005 05:30 AMPessimist, thanks for the nice summary of Roberts' history.
Posted by eriposte at August 17, 2005 07:00 AMArmando the Argumentative posted a statement by Harry Reid:
"All this talk about whether Democrats will support the Roberts nomination is laughably premature. The hearings have not even begun. The White House has so far refused to produce relevant documents, and the documents we have seen raise questions about the nominee's commitment to progress on civil rights.
John Roberts must still persuade the Senate and the American people that he is a worthy replacement for Justice O'Connor and the jury is still out on that."
It's a response to the original WaPo article by Mike Allen and Dana Milbank that Pessimist posted from the San Jose Mercury.
Milbank's got a mixed reputation for hyperbole and of good reporting. But the tone of the article is fairly strident - and also very in line with Reid's reiteration of the Offical Postion posted above.
The strategy is this - the democrats obviously think they've got little ammo to work Roberts over with, so they're setting a trap in forcing Roberts and the White House to disclose more of Robertt's writings. They expect both to stonewall and resist all the way up into hearings, and at that point they'll reap the benfits of the 'won't disclose information' seed they're planting.
I think the strategy sucks. Since when has anyone not tesified in front of Congress and not evaded or stonewalled? And it's not going to flip anyone's vote nor will it sound well in the media echo chamber.
Posted by idiosynchronic at August 17, 2005 07:04 AMMore thoughts - the Democrats keep expecting a fight of an even more conservative replacement than Rehnquist - that's the great evil waiting in the shadows. To paraphrase, "if we draw the line some where back here in what we consider an acceptable justice, then when Dubya nominates Whacko McRighty for the Chief Justice slot, we can say he's not acceptable according to the line we drew earlier with Roberts."
WTF ARE YOU IDIOTS THINKING?
You're giving way. Your line in the sand is exactly that - a line in the sand which can continue to be moved around ad infinitum by both you and the majority Republicans. "We'll allow this guy, but not the next crony wingnut." Rolling the fuck over for these people encourages them to roll you again the next time and further than before.
(I can't help but think of a Warner Borther's cartton that had characters repeatedly drawing lines and then rubbing them out, and then disaster occuring for the guy thinking he's making a stand there.)
Rehnquist will have to be pried off the bench even after death - rigor mortis will be an understatement. He probably has a spirit medium picked out so he can continue hearing and debating arguments. I doubt the man will ever retire, and he does seem stable at this time.
Dubya will nominate a crony - most likely Alberto Gonzales - for the Court if Rehnquist is suddenly spirited off, who will not be a wingnut per se, but still a corporatist and a guy who'll be willing to bend the Court to the GOP's wishes.
Posted by idiosynchronic at August 17, 2005 07:20 AMThey're not surrendering before the battle, the battle was lost in November. Anyone who isn't happy with Roberts but didn't vote for Kerry in November should've thought about this then.
Posted by croatoan at August 17, 2005 07:36 AMI think it's interesting that your first point was the "used and abused" feeling from the two-party structure. It's precisely because of things like judicial nominations that party rivalaries became complements to the built-in checks and balances of the constitutional design. Unless we were to take a machete to articles I & II, I don't think we could enable a long-term, multi-party political structure such as one sees in parliamentary democracies.
Posted by dj moonbat at August 17, 2005 08:19 AMThe topic sounds worthy of a post to me, moonbat!
Posted by pessimist at August 17, 2005 08:49 AM"Despite my regular support for Democratic Party positions, I am not a Democrat."
No kidding.
Posted by Mr. Obvious at August 17, 2005 08:57 AM"Despite my regular support for Democratic Party positions, I am not a Democrat."
So are you going to hold your breath until they do what you think?
No - I will do what I think is right - no matter what you think.
Come on - you have to pay to play in this world, sitting on the sidelines is NOT an option anymore even if you do have a great blog.
If this blog is the sidelines, then the game has to be redefined.
And besides, that multi-party thing works so great in the UK and Italy... do I really have to say more?
Only in the US is there two parties. Everyplace else has either one or more than two. Do I have to say more?
Posted by uptown at August 17, 2005 09:45 AMOK, pessimist, what's a winning strategy to oppose Roberts? You got one?
If I had one, would I be asking questions?
To begin, there has to be an opposition to the GOP. At the moment, there isn't one.
Posted by arglebargle at August 17, 2005 09:50 AMSorry pessimist, you have to pick your battles and the logistics of this one suck.
When on'es back is to the wall, one has no other choice.
Unfortunatly you have to play to the food units, and they would see this as mindless obstructionism.
They only see what they are told to see.
Unless something truly hidious comes to light, best to withdraw and set up an ambush in more favorable terrain.
We've tried that - and lost ground everytime.
And the hard core fundies dont like that gay pro-bono work he did, so maybe they will be the ones to screw it up. Don't underestimate their self-rightous stupidity.
While I hope you are correct, I hold out little hope of that. The Good Orange County (CA) Republicans I work with are already spouting the party lines they are programmed to recite.
Posted by SnarkyShark at August 17, 2005 10:16 AMSnarkyAnd the hard core fundies dont like that gay pro-bono work he did, so maybe they will be the ones to screw it up. Don't underestimate their self-rightous stupidity.
PessimistWhile I hope you are correct, I hold out little hope of that. The Good Orange County (CA) Republicans I work with are already spouting the party lines they are programmed to recite.
Since when have Republicans not marched in lockstep?
Snarky - don't fool yourself with the grousing you may hear from fundies. The vote on the GOP side of the aisle is in. It would take a hysterically insane confession on Roberts part to homosexual tendencies, pedophilia, or other front-page headline-grabbing deviantism for him to lose the full support of the GOP.
The Rockerfeller Republicans I work with all think he's the bee's knees. They'd still think he's great if it was revealed that Roberts was a clice-wearing self-flagillating member of the Opus Dei; they'd just acknowledge that he'd lose all the fundy Senators and couldn't win confirmation.
Posted by idiosynchronic at August 17, 2005 12:30 PMYou write, "This article contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of democracy..."
That's fine, but normal journalistic practice entails letting your readers know the source of the material you're quoting, and putting some quote marks around it. I just ran across your blog posting in doing a search for "Ella Williams." The part about Ella Williams is lifted directly from my book "Make Them Go Away" -- or you may have found it on the Ragged Edge website in an article I wrote. But in either case, it's my words, and I'd have appreciated some acknowledgement.
Ms. Johnson
My apologies that your work was used without attribution from the source I got it from:
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050813/OPINION04/508130346
Judge Roberts: Bad news for the disabled?
The header for that section of my post included that link, so anyone familiar with blogging would understand that the source material of my presentation can be seen by the reader at that location. In addition, because the link is usually accessible by readers, we generally allow the source article to provide the bona fides, such as the original author - in this case yourself.
As for quotes, we bloggers tend to use a left-indented section known as a block quote if the section quoted is somewhat large, as my quote of yours was. Using quotation marks is generally reserved for the shorter ones.
I have modified the original article per your request for attribution, but the quote will remain a block quote.
pessimist
Posted by Mary Johnson at November 10, 2005 03:07 PMMy bad! I now realize you were quoting with a blockquote, and that the subhead was in fact a hotlink. Thanks for using it -- and now that I see it's a blockquote, you can take the attribution off if you want. Please accept my apology for flying off the handle.
I'm glad in any case that you saw fit to note Roberts' record regarding disability rights. Now we'll see what he does with Goodman v. Georgia, argued on Wednesday.
Posted by Mary Johnson at November 11, 2005 02:24 AM