Democratic leadership(?) will be needing this for Gonzales...

[jonnyo]

and pretty much everything else the way it looks. With the exception of the courageous Boxer, Conyers, Rangel, Tubbs, Kucinich, Sanders, Obama, etc. who refuse to stand by while America is destroyed. Hopefully, cowardice is just a moral failing and not contagious.

<>

[StClone]

1. I have to go along with this strategy

Judge Torture will be gone with Bush's term end and I think his tainted judicial course is well-exposed.

Where the Dems need to stand tough is when the SC Judge nominations come forth as well as Federal Judges.

[pdxmom]

2. It's a set up

If Gonzales is next nominated for the Supremes, as many have surmised, how can the Dems possibly stand tough against him then if they cave now?

[Rowdyboy]

3. Because a president almost always gets his cabinet picks-

Democrat or Republican. However, Supreme Court Justices are a different matter. I, personally, much prefer to preserve the filibuster for judges and justices and really egregious policies.

Even if they could beat Gonzoles with a filibuster, Bush would nominate someone equally appalling, only with no paper trail. I think Gonzoles as AG will give us plenty of ammo to use in opposing him when and if he's ever nominated for the Supreme Court.

JMO.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[Sparkly]

9. Woe is US!

Let's not generalize this.

First of all, the Republicans are NOT "united."

Second, Democrats have made clear they will NOT be as willing to accept the nomination of somebody like this to the USSC, and they need to pick their battles. I wish they wouldn't rubber-stamp Gonzales, either, but that's the game, apparently.

Third, "it doesn't look good guys" -- Democratic principles and stances on issues are still supported by the majority of voters. I'm not worried about that.

Fourth, "this election challenge makes us look like idiots" -- WRONG.

Fifth, what Kerry said does not mean "it was fair."

Sixth, it looks to me like we're not the ones having a melt-down. After all, we're having a lot of new visitors here in DU lately, such as yourself.

[izzybeans]

5. uhhmmm..i'm spacing his name but...

the first democrat to question Judge Dredd made it very clear that there were much more stringent criteria to pass for the Supreme Court nominees. I think perhaps this was a sign of things to come. Dredd replied something like "I haven't been nominated for Supreme Court" to which the democrat smirked "I know... just wanted to be clear." or something. If anyone has the transcript to post. I'll find the actual interchange and paste it.

I think, I hope, that if this sort of doomsday scenerio comes to pass and he gets nominated then the dems will come out full force to squash the nomination and perhaps his position in the Justice Department in the process. I'd imagine whatever else they've got on him an even larger stir if it went that far. He'll make the conservative libertarian squirm much more than he already has.

[Ruck]

7. Guess what

Our Democrats are not going to come out "Full Force" against anything. They are much too timid. "Dream On"

[Eric J in MN]

6. I agree. The time to stand up is now.

I don't want Gonazeles as Attorney General or a Supreme Court Justice.

The Democrats should reject any Bush nominee associated with torture, to make clear that the Republicans are the Party of Torture, not us.

[izzybeans]

8. Very true...

speechless as to why not just step up now.