Great point by a poster at Kos: Roberts means we already won.

[patcox2]

It could have been Ashcroft. It could have been Roy Moore. It could have been any of a parade of horribles.

But by fighting on the filibuster and backing Bush down, we won. Bush picked Roberts instead of a fire-breathing nutjob because we did influence him to be more moderate. Bush is runnning from the fight, he is wounded and in bad shape right now politically (no capital, as he would say) and he couldn't afford a big fight right now.

He was never going to nominate someone we want, that we would rejoice over. The best you could ever hope from the other side is the lesser of evils. And thats what we got, because the democrats successfully sent the message over the last year that he had better stop with the whackjob judges.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. I do agree with that concept.

I don't think we should celebrate, by any means, but he's not as bad as we could've gotten.

[phantom power]

4. We don't know how bad he is, or isn't. He's got almost no record.

I don't think his nomination means we won anything. The fact that he's got hardly any judicial record means that it would be difficult for the Dems to make a case for his being extremist, and so it would be hard for them to invoke their idiotic agreement regarding filibustering.

He may be a "small target", but that has absolutely nothing to do with how he will rule as a judge. It just make him hard to reject. For all we know, he'll be worse than Scalia, and we won't know until he's been appointed, for life.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. I don't dispute anything you said.

I'll still take "Maybe worse than Scalia" over "Definitely worse than Scalia" any day.

And it's not like we had a real chance to stop the appointment any way, unless the nominee was a true freak, like Olson.

Like I said, I'm not celebrating, but I'm not mourning it either. We could've gotten worse.

[ewagner]

2. Can't agree with this

Roberts is a Nut-job-in-waiting

the Nation profile points out that Roberts has never held a job since law school that wasn't a political patronage job served up by the Republican Party. He knows what got him to the top and he will pay his dues in the Rehnquist/Scalia mode. He will and can be a super RW nutcase at the drop of a hat...and once he is confirmed, there is NOTHING THAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. Well, don't tell the freepers that.

They seem to think he's the next Souter. So does Ann Coulter.

If they don't like him, there's a good chance he's not a Santorum clone.

[lastliberalintexas]

10. Nothing but the sound and fury of idiots

This administration would not select someone if they didn't know he could be controlled. Roberts is very far right, has some very bad decisions from the DC Circuit, and owes his entire professional life to the republican party. Their feigned outrage is just a smokescreen.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. No one is controlled once they're on the Court.

Once approved, not even the GOP smear machine can touch him. Many, MANY SCOTUS justices have done a 180 towards the middle once they take office. It'd be wise not to forget that.

[lastliberalintexas]

17. I haven't forgotten that, but neither have they

The republicans who matter hate Chief Justice Warren far more than they ever hated Bill Clinton. And they are making darn sure that they won't repeat the same "mistake" that was made with Warren.

They likely have picked someone who wouldn't need controlling, as he's as far right as they are. That's the point. Don't go for a moderate, because they can't be controlled once on the Court. Right wing nut jobs just fall in line without the leash.

[barb162]

44. Yes, I agree, this person is probably far right on business, choice,

environmental, woker rights, etc. I suspect he will be very, very bad for liberal causes. And Bush will probably get three more picks in the next 3 years. We are gonna have a Scalia clone court

[NewJeffCT]

40. Coulter helps the RW move the debate further right

Coulter is a tool of the Right Wing, not in a tool=dick sense (though that, too)

They use Coulter to make a slightly more sane Republican seem mainstream. "Sure he's conservative, but he's not as far out as Ann Coulter & Michelle Malkin!"

To look at how effective it is, in 1964, Barry Goldwater was way out of the mainstream and unelectable. He lost in an historic landslide. Yet, his pro-choice, pro-environment & pro gays in the military views would make him a moderate or even liberal Republican today. He is arguably more liberal than "moderate" John McCain, whom many on DU seem to admire.

[Lars39]

8. He's malleable.

He's proven his loyalty.

[sabbat hunter]

14. or a possibility

could be that he could thumb his nose at them and go his own way saying 'well you got me here, but now im here for life and can vote the way i want"

same goes for any justice

i mean i dont think eisenhower knew how liberal earl warren would be.
Souter was nominated by Bush I, Stevens by Ford.

we dont know really how someone will vote until they get on the SCOTUS.

not saying we shouldnt oppose Roberts, but you never know what will happen.

[T Wolf]

5. I also agree with ewagner

He is a far right-winger. He just keeps his sheet in the closet.

But everyone seems to forget that NOTHING is forever. It is only a "lifetime" appointment. And there are no guarantees in life, except that it ends in death.

[Armstead]

6. No it means we got outfoxed

They picked a guy is just like those extremist zealots, but who is nicer and doesn't have the baggage or "paper trail" to make it clear.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

12. Exactly.

[redqueen]

24. Bingo.

[SeattleRob]

7. I also disagree

At least with Ashcroft and Moore, they are out in the open with their lunacy. Roberts is a closet loonie - who in my opinion is more dangerous.

[derby378]

11. Two words: Clarence Thomas

Dread Pirate Roberts is starting to look more and more like a "stealth" judge who will turn mouthpiece for Don Scalia once he's benched.

[The Sleeper]

23. Absolutely...

somebody has to keep the ammo and fine wine flowing during those hunting excursions ....

[derby378]

33. Welcome to DU, Sleeper!

:toast:

[ibegurpard]

29. And he's YOUNG

He'll be on there for most of our lives' durations.

[leveymg]

15. No, it shows he's going for what he wants, not a clone of O'Connor as

the centrists in both parties have been urging. The fact that he didn't make the expected concessions on gender and (possibly) race shows that his political strategists may have reason to believe that he's not going to get another crack at this.

This nomination should be opposed on the grounds that several ranking officials are under investigation by a federal Grand Jury. There is reason to believe that the pending charges are extremely serious, and that there's been a fundamental break in public trust. This President must not be granted the privilege of appointing a Supreme Court Justice until the investigation is concluded.

That's the position the Democratic leadership should be taking.

[EFerrari]

41. THANK YOU!

His staff is under CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. The staff HE HIRED.

"Can the American people trust this president's judgement?"

That's the meme. Please. It's just sitting there, waiting to be picked up.

[EFerrari]

16. The day we influence Bush on anything, I'll eat my dog. n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

20. And I'll ask for seconds.

What did we really expect we'd get for a nomination?

[EFerrari]

43. Exactly. So, let's settle because we now have options --

like the option to frame this in terms of a criminal investigation.

"You wanna appoint a SC judge? You didn't do so well picking your staff."

[leveymg]

22. Your dog is safe. We might not be able to influence *, but we can

slow him down long enough for the criminal indictments to be handed down, which will put a stop to this Administration's SC appointments process.

Please see my post immediately above.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

46. I strongly disagree with that notion.

Just looking at the timetables involved, an indictment is not likely to come down any time soon in the Plame case. On the other hand, the Republicans, using the nuclear option if they so choose, can have this guy confirmed by the second week of September.

[leveymg]

47. The Grand Jury is scheduled to conclude in October.

There are likely to be indictments before then. This is do-able.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

48. You fail to realize something.

The Republicans control the Senate agenda and timetable. If they wanted to, they could have a vote on this tomorrow.

[leveymg]

51. You fail to realize that if they did, we would impeach Roberts at the

first opportunity. That could make him the shortest serving Justice in US history.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

52. On what grounds? He hasn't committed a crime!

You can't just arbitrarily impeach someone!

[Eric J in MN]

18. A judge who rules that corporations and the White House

have unlimited power, doesn't equal a victory for us.

[BillZBubb]

19. Once again we can declare victory in the face of a defeat?

Gosh, Mussolini or Atilla the Hun weren't picked, so we won getting Roberts!

Roberts IS A WHACKJOB JUDGE. We won nothing. We got sand kicked in our faces again. All the rationalization in the world won't change that.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. And please, tell me, what did you expect we'd get for a nominee?

[BillZBubb]

34. I expected what we got: A right wing zealot.

But I also expect the Democrats to fight against him with every tool at their disposal. It's a fight we probably won't win, but it's a necessary fight nonetheless.

Just because their are a few worse possibilities (but not many, Roberts is very bad) doesn't mean we can claim some kind of victory and let this fanatic on the court without a fight.

Bush kicked sand in our faces with this pick. How do we respond?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

35. But you have to think ahead too.

Say we do everything you want AND won. Say we successfully held a filibuster and forced him to re-nominate. Who do you think he's going to nominate then? It's still not going to be someone we like in the least.

You have to weigh the risks and rewards of any battle before you enter it. The risks of filibustering Roberts is horrible PR with an extremely low likelihood of success. The rewards for a successful filibuster would be... another guy exactly like Roberts? Seems like very little reward for a fight solely in the name of idealism.

Question the shit out of the guy, but at the end of the day, cast your "no" vote and move on to better battles.

[GreenPartyVoter]

25. ** looked WAY too happy to have lost.

[Cha]

26. IF he is, indeed, "moderate" and

not a stealth judge..the opposite of Souter.

http://www.billmon.org

[Eric J in MN]

27. I'd have preferred Ashcroft. At least he's older (nt)

nt

[ibegurpard]

28. Hoo boy

You have a point there...seriously.

[JanMichael]

30. No way in hell would it have been Asscroft or Moore.

They're too flippin' easy to shoot down and the Republicans are not THAT stupid. They can find plenty of fellow conservative fellow travellers to do exactly what those two would do minus the insanorama baggage.

Pehaps the rest is legit, he's lost "capital" etcetera, but the idea that they'd nominate either John or Roy is nuts.

[Toucano]

31. If this is what winning feels like, kill me now! n/t

[Vinca]

32. Another thing to keep in mind is that conservative judges have been

appointed before and turned out to be anything but conservative. It's hard to know just how bad this might turn out without hearing the guy answer some questions. Most of his objectionable record seems to be briefs he was paid to write advocating someone else's position on an issue.

[Maddy McCall]

36. What is worse than a "fire breathing nut job?"

A covert fire-breather without much of a record to scrutinize.

[barb162]

45. yes, I am very, very afraid you are right

At least you can rid of the former

[Strawman]

37. There's some merit to that

He's not a nutjob.

But if * is so politically weak, why should we give any quarter? Fight Roberts too. Make him fight a SCOTUS battle and a grand jury investigation at the same time.

[patcox2]

38. So a miracle happens and he is blocked, who's next?

I would put it to you that there will be no better nominee from Bush. This one will be followed by another and another, all clean stealth nominees with no paper trails and no obvious history of ideological activism.

[Strawman]

42. Who knows

You're probably right. But speaking hypothetically, can you imagine what a lame duck * would be after a defeat like that on top of the grand jury investigation?

I don't think Roberts will be defeated, but why should we give * a pass on one front?

[mmonk]

39. We haven't won so much

as we haven't lost as much. But I'm not happy.

[mondo joe]

49. Problem is many on DU will say "The worst possible nominee!" no mattter

who it is and no matter who the other options might be.

[Bleacher Creature]

50. Just b/c he's got good hair doesn't mean we won.

As far as we know, this guy is a whackjob -- just a nicely polished one.