The Rove/Roberts battles: A post you must read (via Kos)

[iconoclastic cat]

This is not my work, but this person has absolutely nailed the reason why we should all: a) make a hell of a lot of noise about Roberts and b) let Fitzgerald do his work and raise hell again when/if indictments actually happen.

Read on, I implore you:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/19/235536/779
*************
Is the GOP suicidal?

by thereisnospoon
Tue Jul 19th, 2005 at 20:55:36 PDT


What are Bush/Rove/co. thinking with the Roberts nomination??? Are they insane? This question is not meant as a rant, but a purely strategic political query. This is political suicide!

OK, I know we're not supposed to get distracted with Roberts, and we're supposed to keep focusing on Karl Rove. But as Kos says, we can walk and chew gum at the same time, so let's take a look at the political effects of Roberts for a minute--both because we can afford to, and because we can't afford not to.

(snip)

Despite his short judicial record, and the numerous civil rights/environmental/church and state/you name it problems we can already point to, There is one, and only one important piece of information to remember about this nomination. It is a statement made by Roberts about the Abortion issue, taken from the Judicial Watch website frontpaged by Kos:

"we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled...The Court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion...finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."

Folks, I can't tell you how enormous that is.

Please keep in mind that there has been no such explicit statement regarding the views and intents of a prospective supreme court justice since Bork. Recall that Clarence Thomas said that he had never thought about the issue.

The trouble with a nominee for the Supreme court is that their views are often unclear, their opinions vague and open to interpretation and plausible deniability, and it is difficult to determine how they will end up voting in certain issues, especially as they age. Usually, justices do not open themselves up to direct attack on hot button issues.

But Roberts has. He doesn't NEED to be asked. He's on the record, clear as day. And he's on the record in an almost unprecedented way.

Now here's where it gets fun...

We already know that the best possible thing for the GOP is the status quo. They keep their red meat base happy by publicly denouncing abortions, while practically doing very little to stop them. Roe v. Wade has popular support, and the last thing any GOP politician actually wants to do is be forced to legislate against the right to have an abortion.

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion rights become the legislature's problem in each state--a situation politically nightmarish for each state's GOP. More abortions happen in Red States than in Blue States, and the non-wackos in each state will chafe strongly at the denial of their much-hated but much-used right. Further, if abortion is denied, the most motivating issue for the GOP "moral base" is taken off the table.

So the best thing to do would be to maintain the status quo and nominate a judge that looks pretty conservative, but won't actually do a thing about overturning Roe.

Trouble is, the fundies are onto this status quo game, and will stay home from the voting booths if not abandon the GOP permanently if they don't get their way. They want a justice who is guaranteed to try to overturn Roe.

Here's the problem, though:

at least 61% of the public supports upholding Roe v. Wade. That's an enormous number, folks. Bush has capitulated to a wingnut base that the public already inherently distrusts after Schiavo, on an issue that is so emotionally charged and divisive that it cannot be spun.

Let's look at what else the public wanted:

Over 70% of the nation wanted a WOMAN to replace O'Connor.

There was considerable desire to see a MINORITY replace O'Connor.

But now, during the same week that Mehlman went down to apologize to the NAACP about the GOP being an all-white party with mostly male votes, the Bush administration comes out with a white male who is guaranteed to try to overturn Roe.

My friends, that will generate enormous backlash, if we focus on it.

I have seen two main objections to outrage over Roberts. Let's look at each of them for a moment:

1. "His legal advocacy can be dismissed as doing the bidding of his bosses."

This is flatly untrue, and I don't know how people keep missing this, with all due respect to Kos. Again, let's take a look at the document prepared by Independent Judiciary, on page 5:

"During the administration of President George H.W. Bush, Roberts served as Deputy Solicitor General. He was the 'political deputy' in the Solicitor General office and thus, unlike career Deputy Solicitor Generals, cannot dismiss positions he took as simply argument he was forced to make as part of his obligation to zealously represent the interests of his client, the federal government."

The quote on abortion is from this period. It is his view, not just his obligation on behalf of the zealous service of the government. It's clear as day, and we've got this guy by the neck.

2. "Quick confirmation of this bastard will be good for Dems, because then we can focus on Rove."

Hello? Has everybody forgotten that all we are doing right now is SPECULATING about what Fitzgerald has up his sleeve? Has everybody forgotten that Fitzgerald will be submitting his report, and probably indictments, whether we focus on Rove or not?

And on another note, has anyone forgotten that Democrats do best in the public eye when they show a spine?

No, Rove will stay on the front page, if you please. In fact, whether Roberts is nominated or whether he is filibustered, the indictments from Fitzgerald's office will still be on the front page AFTER this battle has already passed.

In fact, this also invalidates the claim that Roberts was nominated by Bush this quickly to get Rove off the front headlines. It may, in the short term,but to what end? The Rove business will come out all the harder and more furious when Fitzgerald's report comes out.

So what do we have, when all is said and done??

A
white (contra to the desires of most of the nation)
male (contra to the desires of 3/4 of the nation)
who is on the record as willing to take down Roe v. Wade (contra to the desires of at least 61% of the nation, and probably more if you take the hypocrisy factor out of play)
to take the heat off of Karl Rove, when indictments are coming down the pipe anyway.

I simply don't see how this is anything but suicide by the GOP.

And I don't see how it would be anything but suicide for the Dems not to take advantage of it.
**********************

I fully f-ing agree.

[kevsand]

1. Wow.

Those are the words I've been looking for all night. Thank you.

[jhain]

26. excellent

I was disgusted reading here last night.
All the ( low count) posters insiting we give the nom a free ride...

*THIS* is what I wanted to read!

[flpoljunkie]

28. Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg has expressed reservations about sweep of Roe

http://www.wtop.com/index.php?nid=343&sid=443760

Ginsburg Touches on Roe V. Wade in Kansas

Updated: Thursday, Mar. 31, 2005 - 7:36 AM

LAWRENCE, Kan. (AP) - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an abortion rights supporter, said the court's historic Roe v. Wade decision "seemed to me not the way courts generally work."

Ginsburg, who turns 72 on Tuesday, touched on the 1973 ruling legalizing abortion Thursday during a question-and-answer session with law students at the University of Kansas.

Before her appointment to the court in 1993, Ginsburg said she believed the nation might have been better off if abortion rights had been established more gradually.

When the court decided Roe v. Wade, Ginsburg said, "The law was changing."

"Women were lobbying around that issue," she said. "The Supreme Court stopped all that by deeming every law-even the most liberal-as unconstitutional. That seemed to me not the way courts generally work."

[The Jacobin]

40. If I remember correctly

I think she thinks the basis for Roe in the "found" right of privacy is weak and that if the decision was grounded in equal protection from the 14th amendment it would be stronger.

She does not attack the base of the Roe decision ("privacy" -- which is the base of decisions on issues like contraception and sexual intimacy), only says it is not as strong as equal protection.

Roberts has actively argued to destroy the base of Roe, which takes out a whole range of cases as well.

[flpoljunkie]

42. What Roberts said in his appeals court nomination hearing re. Roe v. Wade

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

Critics have already called attention to his writings on abortion. As deputy solicitor general in the George H.W. Bush administration, Roberts signed a brief on abortion financing that argued in a footnote that Roe v. Wade , which established a constitutional right to abortion, should be overturned because it "finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution."

Some allies and analysts cautioned against reading too much into that because Roberts was reflecting Bush administration policy at the time. At his confirmation hearing for the appellate bench in 2003, he offered a careful answer to the abortion question that likewise was open to interpretation. " Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land," he testified, adding: "There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

____________________________

"Nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying precedent. Intriguing statement.

[TahitiNut]

2. I largely agree with 'thereisnospoon' ... Roberts is an abomination.

He's just another "the people are chattel" neofascist ... one of the worst. He's ideologically on Rehnquest's lap.

[punpirate]

3. Maybe literally, too...

... since he clerked for Rehnquist.... :)

[FreedomAngel82]

8. I think so too

And he probably has the Bush loyalty oath. So if another one of them wants someone to steal an election and the machine's somehow get managed to be banned. And as the orignial poster has noted a lot of the population really is for Roe V Wade for safety and for privacy issues if nothing more I think. Think of how many people could be made democrats if this guy gets in and people find out about this? Then it'd be so obvious if they stole another election.

[Pachamama]

15. Roberts statement about Roe v. Wade in a past case is all I need to know

that he shouldn't be a Supreme...He's arguing (and the talking points in the MSM) are already emphasizing that this statement doesn't necessarily reflect his views, but rather those of his "client" that he was representing.

Eff that...that's bs and that doesn't fly with me for a minute...does that mean that a lawyer who represents a pedophile who then makes the argument for "Man on Child Love" is a philosophy and then later claims it was his clients view not his?

I believe everyone should have representation, but I also believe that Lawyers have to choose what they are willing to argue and I think someone who was pro-choice could never ever be willing to have a "client" in which they would try to argue such a defense argument or statement on Roe v. Wade.

Sorry, it just doesn't fly with me...I believe that statement is all I need to know about his leanings and I for one am not willing to budge on this issue.

I say filibuster this guy and anyone else who makes such statements on a law I consider sacred!

[TahitiNut]

18. As I said below, his "client" was ...

... "The People of The United States of America"! His posturing was NOT advocacy.

[Pachamama]

35. "The People of the United States of America" NO IT WASN'T!

Atleast not the large majority of Americans that I belong to that believe that a woman DOES have reproductive choice of her own body!

Whoa! I hadn't read the decision yet, only the snips of this statement and heard the GOP spin that he "was representing his clients view". To now find out that this client was "The People of the United States of America" (according to him and other right wing conservatives) is even more damning then before when I made my statement that his position doesn't fly with me and is enough to disqualify him there immediately!

Your absolutely right - his posturing was NOT Advocacy! It was OPINION!

:grr:

[Swamp Rat]

25. Right on Pachamama!

:hi: :hug:

First they came for the Muslims, then they came for the gays, then they came for the women...

[NAO]

4. It was not suicide when German tanks rolled into Poland

and it is not suicide when Bush acts on behalf of, and with the full support of the Electoral Shock Troops of the Religious Reich.

Public opinion polls about people wanting this or that are about as effective against the American Taliban as Poland's Horse Mounted Calvary was against Hitler's Panzer Divisions and Dive-Bomber Squadrons.

The Religious Right is really OUT OF CONTROL and is exerting a greater and greater influence on our society. They are flexing their muscles in the political process, the economy and our entire culture.

Let us remember that the first time Christianity spread rapidly and gained control of the government (in Rome from 200 - 500 AD) it resulted in the utter collapse of Western Civilization and ushered in 1,000 years of darkness, superstition, ignorance and suffering.

Finally, after a millennium of Darkness, mankind began to see the Dawn of The Age of Reason and The Enlightenment. Humanity recovered some dignity, science was freed from the chains of religious superstition and real progress began.

The Constitution of the United States of America was one of the crowning achievements of The Enlightenment, being a document for the Establishment of a government that did NOT MAKE ONE SINGLE REFERENCE TO "GOD". With the establishment of the United States, government as well as science was freed from the domination of religious superstition.

Now, every day in the news there is some story about how the religionists are exerting their influence. Radical Clerics like James Dobson and Jerry Falwell get air time on network news. Religionists are organizing and boycotting businesses that do not adhere to their version of personal morality.

The specter of religious superstition is once again casting a frightening shadow over our world. The ghosts and demons of the Dark Ages, once believed to be banished forever by Reason, are again haunting our culture. Christianity destroyed civilization once before - it could happen again.


****
****

Antidote to Fundamentalist Nut-Cases is a Revival of the Freethought Movement

I think what we need is a Freethought movement similar to what the US had around the turn of the 20th century. Robert Ingersoll was touring the country, lecturing on secularism and exposing the claims of revealed religion to be false. Unless something breaks the stranglehold of religious fundamentalism in the US - and in the world - I think we are going to continue the slide into Theocracy and destruction.

The Freethought Zone
Science and Reason Over Religion and Superstition
http://freethought.freeservers.com /

Freedom from Religion Foundation
http://www.ffrf.org /

Secular Humanism
http://www.secularhumanism.org /

Secular Web
http://www.infidels.org/index.shtml

Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason - Online
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/index.shtml

Complete Works of Robert Ingersoll - Online
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/index.shtml

****
****

Dominionism's Theocratic Designs and Radical Clerics

Fundamentalist Radical Clerics such as Falwell, Dobson, and Robertson are not merely medieval throwbacks or misguided religious hacks. They are part of a well organized subversionary movement known as "Dominionism". Dominionism constitutes a serious threat to American Democracy. These Radical Clerics have developed and are executing a detailed plan to gradually replace the free, secular democratic society of the United States with a Theocracy.

It is critical that people become aware of the extreme agenda these people have for the United States and ultimately for the world. The results of the 2004 Presidential Election were not a fluke or something that was drummed up over a period of months. It has been in planning for over 20 years, and what we are seeing take place now is, in the words of Katherine Yurica, "the swift advance of a planned coup".

The Swift Advance of a Planned Coup: Conquering by Stealth and Deception - How the Dominionists Are Succeeding in Their Quest for National Control and World Power
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheSwiftAdvanceOfaPlannedCoup.htm

The Despoiling of America: How George W. Bush became the head of the new American Dominionist Church/State
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm

Video on the Christian Reconstructionist Dominionist Theocratic Agenda
http://www.theocracywatch.org/av/video_dominion.ram

The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party
a public information project from TheocracyWatch.org
http://www.theocracywatch.org

The Religious Right - An Anti-American Terrorist Movement
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8816.htm

****
****

Christianity is the longest running atrocity in human history...

...From the persecution of gnostics and other sects in the first few centuries, through the Inquisition, the Witch Hunts, right up to today's pedophile priests, Christianity has inflicted more suffering on mankind than Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Kahn, Pol Pot and all the "really bad guys" combined. It has been a 2,000 year nightmare of violence, intolerance, torture, murder, destruction and child molestation.

[wli]

22. the death camps are coming

We ignore this at our peril.

[Peace Patriot]

32. I like where you're coming from, Nao! I like your mind. I analyze

history and current events in a very similar way. 5th Century A.D., end of the Roman Empire, death of Hypatia--philosopher, woman, head of the Alexandria Library, skinned alive by Christian monks on orders of Bishop Cyril, no consequences; end of the rule of law; Library burned; Cyril becomes a "father of the church" (big at the Council of Ephesus), adopts the word "patriarch" to describe his position, suppresses women (no women can speak in church), persecutes Jews and real Christians (the Gnostics--into equality and communal living), re-writes the Gospels (deleting Mary Magdalen, designating Peter as Jesus's successor)--and, truly, thus begins a thousand years of darkness.

And here we are again. Reason, learning, science, education--all under attack. Representative government totally corrupted by the rich and the warmongers. Civilization--knowledge, books, science, art, medicine--and common ground--roads, cities, public buildings, libraries and schools--all suffering from war and looting. And the Patriarchal madmen (I hesitate to call them Christians) seemingly on the rise (although I think that is something of a corporate news monopoly illusion).

It looks bad for us, really bad. The historical gyre coming back round, and biting us in the ass.

However, I think it's simplistic to say that "Christianity" has inflicted more suffering than Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Khan, Pol Pot, etc. I am not underestimating the death and suffering that has been inflicted on human beings by other human beings who CALLED THEMSELVES CHRISTIANS. It has been enormous. But I don't think that the utter hypocrisy of killing, torturing and oppressing others "for their own good" is unique to Christianity, and I don't think you can weigh millions of deaths against millions of deaths. (What of nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the name of democracy? Or slaughtering White Russians in the name of communism?)

Christianity has been USED--like many other tools of tyrants--in order to conquer and control lands, consolidate wealth and enforce obedience. But the key thing that happened, in the American Revolution, was the SEPARATION of church and state. Both government and church benefited enormously. The government quite deliberately abandoned the enforcement of religious ideology as a powermongering tool, and endorsed and started protecting the notion of the Free Human Mind. (That was Thomas Jefferson's GOAL in life--it's inscribed around his Monument!) The Christian religion was thereby FREED from its chattel status, as a tool of government and powermongers, and could reach back to its ORIGINS in the peace and love teachings of Jesus.

I really think that's what has happened. Thus you have, by the 1960s, CATHOLIC PRIESTS pouring blood on Draft records, CATHOLIC NUNS marching with Martin Luther King, and virtually all Christian churches embracing policies of peace and justice. And you have the Ecumenical movement (cessation of the warlike battles among religions; instances of common services; reconciliation of Jews and Christians, etc.).

This rightwing thing is very overblown--it is a distinct minority of dominant/submissive personality types that has always been with us, but has recently been given a big trumpet by the corporate news monopolies, way out of proportion to their numbers.

I have to laugh. Somebody asked Karl Rove how they won the election. You see, the Democrats blew the Republicans away in new voter registration in 2004, nearly 60/40. And the vast majority of new voters voted for Kerry. And the vast majority of Independent voters voted for Kerry. And the vast majority of Nader voters voted for Kerry. Gore/Bush 2000 switch voters were a wash (and not a factor). And Gore 2000 voters--still angry about 2000--were the ones responsible for getting all their non-voting family members, co-workers and friends to register and vote THIS TIME ("most important election in our history"). (Very motivated, in other words.)

So it occurred to some news monopoly reporter that this needed some explanation, and he asked Rove, how did they do it? And Rove replied (I am not kidding), it was their "invisible" get out the vote campaign.

Oh, and previously, Cheney had floated a line about their voter registration in churches. (--that big, important, rightwing effort that resulted in a 60/40 Democratic triumph in new voter registrations!).

The "invisible" get out the vote campaign. I think when you combine Republican greedbags and war profiteers, a few genuine but clueless conservatives, and a few rightwing "Christian" extremists, you might come up with about 40% of the voting population.

"Invisible," indeed. And well out of the mainstream of American opinion, which is extraordinarily progressive, justice-minded and peace-minded. (I'll spare you the stats. It is overwhelming--on every issue.)

So, anyway, the point I'm getting at is that I think you are exaggerating the menace of Christianity out of fear of the rightwing and what we know it has been capable of, in the past. And, of course, the rhetoric of people like Falwell is scary, and their power within the Bush Cartel is scary. I feel tremors every once in a while myself, on the very matters you have brought up--witchburnings, inquisitions, crusades.

But I also think we need to become FULLY COGNIZANT--aware every minute, and as to every word and every image--of the PROPAGANDA OF FEAR that is being relentlessly infused into our brains.

And have faith in the American people. The American people don't buy this crap--Bush or rightwingism--but they don't know how they have been disenfranchised--the specific mechanism that was used. (They are becoming more aware of it, though). I mean, Bushites have gained control over our election system. Major Bush donors and campaign chairs OWN AND CONTROL the SECRET, PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE by which all our votes are tabulated electronically. (Two companies, Diebold and ES&S.)

Most Americans also don't know that the TV networks, acting in concert, FALSIFIED the exit poll data (Kerry won) on everybody's TV screens on election night. (They "adjusted" that number to fit the official tally coming from Diebold and ES&S--thus depriving the American people of major evidence of election fraud, and squelching protest and calls for investigation.)

This is a fixable problem. And I and others have been crying the alarm over it for some time. We still have the power to change this--to achieve election reform--at the state/local level. There is bipartisan corruption to deal with, in electronic voting (elections have become a big business), but we have more say, and more ability to purge the corruption, locally. (Federal reform is a hopeless prospect, and could be quite dangerous, especially if the Bush Cartel seeks to federalize elections, which I suspect they have plans for.)

Don't give in to fear! Work like beavers to reconstruct an edifice of democracy from the bottom up. Demand transparent elections! Throw Diebold and ES&S out of your county and out of your state! Or, at the least, demand paper ballot backups, strict auditing and security, and no secret programming code!

Nao, we are looking at a fascist coup, not at the will of the majority. This regime does not have the "consent of the governed." That is very clear. And so what we have to do is to re-empower and re-enfranchise the majority.

I am all for raising holy hell about John Roberts and a number of other things, and for the Democrats in Congress chaining themselves to their desks if necessary, to blockade any further action by this illegitimate, traitorous government.

But I DO think we need to be realistic about the Supreme Court. The courts are going to be very, very bad for a very, very long time--not just on women's rights, but on ALL rights and on Corporate Rule. We need a new strategy to protect women's rights, and to recover our democracy. The key is transparent elections.

Americans are overwhelmingly against this, and ALL OTHER Bush policies--way up in the 60% to 70% range. Think about it. Why are we getting these things shoved down our throats ANYWAY?

Election reform! Now!

See the DU Forum "2004 Election Results and Discussion" for information and action ideas:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=203http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=203

[NAO]

61. Thanks for the post - I'm reading and will reply

Thanks for the detailed reply. I scanned it, but soon realized this is one I need to print and read off-line.

I'll post a response here after reading and pondering.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. WOW! This is the begining of the civil war

mark my words, but this is it

[Al-CIAda]

6. I concede this post does have a point.

Despite Kos being in complete denial about the stolen election(s), which should actually be the TOP Dem priority.

[zann725]

7. Neo-cons plan on continual wars & conquests...requiring lots of soldiers

...to be filled by a surplus of babies born without the choice of birth control. If the PNAC is to move forward, there IS sadly no 'choice' but to over-turn Rove v. Wade. I'm surprised they've waited this long.

What was that famous Nazi phrase, "Kinder, Kuchen..." Women (among other groups) have a dim future if Neo-cons have their way.

Wake up! Wake up...everyone NOW!

[Hardrada]

19. Kinder, Kuche und Kirche

Children, Cookies (stay in the kitchen) and Church. The hausfraus around here are pretty much into that. Glad they are usually too apathetic to vote.

[DELUSIONAL]

9. Repeat: at least 61% of the public supports upholding Roe v. Wade

[NAO]

12. That is 61% of the PUBLIC, not of the ACTIVE ELECTORATE

The Religious Reich is far more powerful than their numbers would indicate.

See my post #4 above

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1942021&mesg_id=1942062

[Starfury]

20. My 2 cents: it's about the 2006 elections

Unless the Dems can get in front of this...it's a win/win for Repubs:

If Roberts gets filibustered or otherwise rejected, it'll motivate the christian right to turn out in droves again in the 2006 elections, just a few months from now.

If not, the christian right gets their #1 issue set up for the next court case. If RvW gets overturned, will enough people still be motivated enough to vote in 2008 against the Repubs? In the world of politics, that's a long ways away...

So when's the next RvW case scheduled?

[Peace Patriot]

33. 63% of Americans oppose torture UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

(That's the America I know and love--not frightened, sticking to their ethics, despite all the fear-mongering.)

Yet we have torture memo writer Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General!

58% of Americans opposed the war in Iraq BEFORE the invasion--before all the lies were exposed. I'll never forget that stat. And I think it's about 80% today.

Over 100,000 innocent Iraqis slaughtered, and almost 2,000 US soldiers. Invasion without representation! War against our will. Quagmire. Disaster. And it goes on and on.

Something like 90% of Americans oppose Bush's lying, thieving deficit. Yet it keeps growing, along with the lying and thieving.

Social Security. War. Torture. Debt. You name it. Americans oppose all Bush policy, in huge numbers.

61% of the Americans public support women's rights and Roe v. Wade. Yet we are going to have that protection stripped away--once again, against our will.

When are we going to understand this? When are we going to take back our right to vote?

We have a fraudulent election SYSTEM. It is as plain as it can be. And we still have the power to fix it.

So let's get that done, okay? Transparent, verifiable elections--with no Bushite companies controlling the counting of our votes.

[WillyT]

10. Great Piece !!! - And Don't Forget, This Is NOT The One For One...

Moderate for moderate swap everybody was assuming after O'Connor announced her departure. They're using this slot now to fill in a trusted conservative. When Rehnquist goes... they will do the very same thing.

Maybe the Dem Senators should not vote at all. Just register their complaints, but not cast a single vote either way, in committee, or on the floor. Roberts gets in with JUST Republican votes.

Let THAT legacy languish.

:shrug:

[Hamlette]

11. he was speaking as a lawyer, not a judge

big difference. You don't always get to say what you believe when you are representing someone else.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Sorry thuis is bush we are tallking about

[TahitiNut]

14. He went beyond advocacy and beyond the question before the court.

He went on an ideological riff ... so the advocacy rationalization is pure poppycock.

Furthermore, and this is important, his 'client' was "The People of the United States of America"!! So, not only is the rationalization poppycock from a procedural perspective, it's obscene from an ethical perspective.

[Hamlette]

38. I represent the citizens of my state, my briefs are much more

passionate than what he said. You simply cannot attribute to someone what they argued on behalf of a client. I do not see him as having gone off topic on an ideological riff.

I am NOT defending this guy. I'm saying I don't have enough information to judge him.

Yesterday, when we thought it might be Edith Jones, there was tons of stuff floating around her in her own words. Damning stuff. Now we are reduced to calling Roberts names. What? Because we don't have any evidence against him?

[TahitiNut]

44. Do you file amicus briefs on behalf of minority special interests?

That's what Roberts did ... while being paid by the People. Under oath to "protect and defend the Constitution," he filed amicus briefs attacking a legitmately interpreted provision of the Constitution (i.e. "settled law").

I have no problem with private attorneys, even Roberts, representing whatever interests employ them. I have a real and substantive problem with the People's Lawyer taking gratuitous positions against The People.

[Hamlette]

60. yeah, I would if I was told to. It is my job. n/t

[burrowowl]

16. Kick!

Going to go read the Alliance for Justice Report on BuzzFlash

[burrowowl]

62. I do recommend

Alliance for Justice report; Opposition to the Confirmation of John G. Roberts ...
and, more readable but less footnotes:
People for the American Way: The Record pf John G. Roberts: Preliminary Report.

Have a great day! :sarcasm:

Pretty bad!

[McCamy Taylor]

17. Agree whole heartedly. My Modest Proposal is similar...

...though not nearly as eloquent.

[GetTheRightVote]

21. Republicans are getting stupid these days, listen to the public

they are really idiots and everyone knows it now

:kick:

[enough]

23. Right on.

Kick

[bejammin075]

24. Bush's white male pick, can't play race or woman card

this guy will be a lightning rod, sort of, but I am not letting up on the Downing documents or Rove or Bush lying us into war.

Make these fuckers fight on multiple fronts, just like they are forcing our soldiers to.

We can give them hell with the nominee, and we can give them hell with DSMs and Rove.

[mikelewis]

27. This is definitely not a deversion. He's been hand-picked for some time

"In fact, this also invalidates the claim that Roberts was nominated by Bush this quickly to get Rove off the front headlines."

Roberts website was up and running on Jun 20th 2005, nearly two weeks before O'connor announced retirement. His is the only site created in the group of potential nominees. This has been planned for a least a month.

From whois lookup
http://judgeroberts.com
Record Information:
Domain Record Created: June 20, 2005 00:00
Domain Record Updated: July 19, 2005 16:49
Domain Record Expires: June 20, 2006 00:00

I agree that we should openly and vehemently oppose Judge Roberts, if for only the simple reason that Bush picked him. I do not believe an illegitamite president should have the honor of defining our rules of justice.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[progressoid]

30. Exactly. We must encourage our elected Dems to stand up to this.

His lame duckedness is getting lamer every day, Lets take advantage of it.

[Armstead]

31. Good points BUT......

This is MUCH BIGGER than abortion and Roe V Wade, ort whether Roberts is a white male.

This is about the entire balance of POWER between the majority of the country and the powerful interests who are opposed to workers and consumer rights, environmental protection and individual liberty.

INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. That's something the Red Staters who are not blinded by partisanship can relate to.

[Peace Patriot]

34. Please don't dis "Red Staters." We don't know how they voted.

The 2004 election was completely non-transparent and unverifiable. And I strongly suspect that a number of "red" states actually went "blue" (on the basis of the exit polls--a far more reliable criterion than the official tabulation by Bushite companies, Diebold and ES&S, who use secret, proprietary programming code).

Red State/Blue State is divide and conquer language. One of the most kickass newspapers in the country--the Lone Star Iconoclast--is in Crawford, Texas (Bush's home town)--and SOMEBODY'S reading it.

If the majority has been disenfranchised on the national level, you can be sure it has been in many states.

I know it's a joy to detest ignorance, bigotry and stupid Bushism, but I don't think it's fair or correct to assign those qualities to states on the basis on the 2004 election.

[Armstead]

37. I'm using Red Staters in a more general sense

It's a state of mind, rather than a real state.

And please note that my comments referred to those who voted for Bush and Republicans without being aware of the real agenda of the right wing.

And, true or not, using questions about the election results as an excuse is not constructive, IMO. The fact is that the Democrats and progressive left are not resonating with sufficient number of voters. Its not because the ideas can;t resonate. It's because we aren't being effective at putting the real core messages across.

[bobbieinok]

64. it's because the RW controls the radio; corporatists control the TV

they DO NOT allow the democrats to put across their message......see campaign coverage 2004

[dajoki]

49. they will control all three branches

God help us!! laws and rights will be turned back to pre FDR.

[geek tragedy]

36. The problem with that is that he was acting as a government lawyer

at the time, so that the views expressed there are those of the Poppy Bush administration, not his personal beliefs.

I have no doubt that he is anti-abortion, but that statement isn't a silver bullet.

[peacetalksforall]

39. Yes yes - we need to get our message to the Senate.

This nomination mean that we are getting another Scalia.

In the meantime, the Libby-Rove-White House scandal won't go away - Miller could yell that she can't take the jail. Fleischer might talk. There's a good chance that something else will erupt.

Will the Judiciary Committee address Roberts in September?

There is time for everything except this -

our leaders and editors must know how we feel.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[realFedUp]

43. you're new here....

Roberts is a pretty boy, but behind the
face is a Bush loyalist, a Federalist Society
member, who worked as a partisan lawyer during the 2000 election
in stopping the legal vote count in Florida,
who has already stated his opinion
on women's access to safe and legal abortions,
made clear his stand on prisoners in Gitmo et al's legal rights
under our Bill of Rights and due process, on the environment etc.

You may not be here long....

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[realFedUp]

46. zendari....if you're not going to stand for principles..you stand for

nothing.

This side of America shouldn't just roll
over because this guy looks like the prettier
version of Scalia and Thomas.

We still have a form of democracy which we
like to practice, just so it doesn't disappear.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[peacetalksforall]

51. The votes in a significant number of states were stolen because

county officials used corporate republican voting machines with corporate republican software, and with the aid of corporate hired 'technicians', the vote was fixed. Additionally, the exit polls were taken by corporate media propaganda networks who partner with the right wing. Then, the same corporate media network called the votes. We turned our vote over to the right wing and they disabused it. They committed a very serious breach against our rights.

They pulled off a great heist.

I am unwilling to enter into a voting theft discussion on this thread as it will only distract. There is plenty of information on DU about the thefts.

Usually newcomers to the site read for awhile before writing comments that sound the same as what we hear from corporate propaganda tv hosts and guests.

DU - a great learning experience.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[mattclearing]

55. 2006 hasn't happened yet.

Just in case you don't have a calendar handy.

[pgh_dem]

47. O'Connor's seat is not open until the replacement is confirmed.

That means technically she could stay in until past *'s ability to appoint, if none of his nominees make it.

:hi:
Welcome to DU, btw...i'm sure you're brandy new.

[Vickers]

54. "i'm sure you're brandy new"

:rofl:

[CAcyclist]

56. Yes

We will fight to the end.

I've been waiting for this and I want to see the Democrats filibuster the hell out of this nomination. Until 2008 if need be.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[CAcyclist]

59. Why are you even here?

Must be so frustrating for you

[MN ChimpH8R]

50. Good point about Fitzgerald in this report

Remember that after the Saturday Night Massacre and the appointment of Leon Jaworski there was a lot of thought that Watergate would fizzle out. Behind the scenes, Jaworski and his team were carefully building the airtight case that they would eventually present to the SCOTUS.

Fitzgerald is doing the same thing now. Given his reputation for doggedness and thoroughness, Fitzgerald is not going to do anything until he has an iron-clad case. And when he finally issues a report or requests indictments is when the feces will really hit the impeller blades.

[gulliver]

52. Agreed. Make the subject both about who Roberts is and ...

... who he isn't.

[caligirl]

57. A SANE and Rational approach. YES!

[Gold Metal Flake]

63. Walk AND chew gum

We have made great strides lately. The Kos post has some great points, and I agree with it. We have some time before this guy gets before Congress, and during that time there will be an examination of this guy that could be described as endoscopic in it's completeness. What has been found in just these few hours is staggering. This quote:

"we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled...The Court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion...finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."

...is tremendous.

I posted yesterday that this nomination was a diversion. It was, it is. I also suggested that we not lose our momentum of Rove and the DSM. We should not. I also suggested that we ADD this to it. Fold it in like folding whatever you fold into whipped egg whites to make whatever you would make in that situation (oh, man, I am so sorry). As I wrote, we have been operating at a high level of energy. But now we have to pick it up.

Don't be distracted by Whitey Roberts, add him to the list.

Oh, and if I may, Fuck Al From.