I say we waste precious capital contesting Roberts

[DianeG5385]

We have bigger battles for 06. Let's not be the worst that we can be, questioning his adoption of his kids, that rubs me the wrong way and is mean spirited. I don't want US to be like THEM! From what I have seen of Roberts, he was a company man, an excellent attorney for the GOP, but I'm hoping there's a Jesuit core there, I think there is, and I think he'll surprise the Pukes. Let's let this one go. We have many more important battles to fight.

[MisterP]

1. We are your allies: surrender immediately!

[madrchsod]

2. i don`t think he`s a jesuit

this is where he went to high school
http://www.lalumiere.org/
La Lumiere School -- Home

[BillZBubb]

3. ??? Waste capital???

How much capital did the Repukes waste fighting everything Clinton did? Virtually every move? Impeaching him? And what did it really cost them? The won the White House, they maintained control of congress, they own the judiciary.

Political capital is a quaint concept. We should fight anyone who doesn't represent our values. No ifs, ands, or buts.

[liberaliraqvet26]

11. it is possible to waste capital, bush did whatever little he had..

on social security and LOST!!!

[BillZBubb]

18. What exactly did Bush lose?

He's still pretzeldent. He just got big wins on major bills in congress. He'll get Roberts on the court. The war goes on.

What did Bush lose exactly? Political capital is bullshit.

[fighttheevilempire]

15. I agree...

Dems in congress need to stop listening to the political analysts and stop being weenies. The polls show the opposition to * is astounding, so what is there to be afraid of? Stand up and represent the majority of this country. There cant be any change so long as the opposition party panders to whatever the Repubs slander and deception is this week.

[UDenver20]

20. Agreed... but

That doesn't mean we need to stand up against everything and everyone that they push. Face it - this guy is gonna have the votes when its all said and odone... I don't like it any more than you all, but unfortunately that's probably the way it is. Why play into the "obstructionist" label when that's all that we will end up accomplishing?

If anyone gets the chance, I recommend reading "The 48 Laws of Power" by Robert Greene. If you can keep from turning into a Republican in the process, you'll gain an interesting approach to picking battles.

LAW OF POWER #22 - "Use the surrender tactic to transform weakness into power."

LAW OF POWER #36 - "Disdain things you cannot have: ignoring them is the best revenge."

[bluestateguy]

4. The votes are not there for a fillibuster

But I do favor a NO vote and blunt, frank questions being asked at the hearings.

[merwin]

17. Do you think that voting NO on Roberts will accomplish anything?

Seems to me Bush appointed a semi-reasonable person to the court, which is more than any of us were expecting. I'd lay money down on him being a fair and honest person (Roberts, not Bush). Conservative, yes, but fair. We would gain SO much more by letting Roberts through with a large majority of the votes than from blocking him. If we let him through, then we have a justification for blocking the crazy candidate you know he's going to appoint once the next justice kicks the bucket.

[liberaliraqvet26]

5. a lot of friends and people on this site think im nuts but...

for some reason I see this guy turning out to be another Souter. I say we give this one to shrub and keep the focus on the lack of planning in Iraq, the appointment of a raving lunitic to the UN, Social Security and the Rove/Plame affair. We also have corruption in Ohio , Delay, Cunningham and many others. We can slaughter them on these issues in the midterms. Think about what a "D" house and Senate can do to this administration in '07/'08. Lame duck wont even begin to describe it. They can make the son of a bitch wish he lost again in '04.

Just my 2 cents

[DianeG5385]

7. I guess that's my point

I believe we are wasting time and effort messing with Roberts. I don't think he's the worst that could have been put up and we need to look at what this Hellacious administration has in its pipeline and focus on that. I think he's a Souter type, a man who respects law over ideology.

[femrap]

6. Letting this dangerous man of Opus Dei

slip thru our fingers is typical DLC....

And why couldn't they 'buy' a child here in the US? This man is extremely dangerous....but don't listen to me....when Roe vs. Wade is overturned then (lucky me) gets to say, "I told ya so." I do NOT enjoy saying that.

And just why did they go to South America to adopt? If he shoots blanks, we have a true wacko on our hands....don't be naive. His wife is a big shot at 'Feminists for Life.' Feminists for Life is like a group called 'Blacks for Slavery' or 'Penises for Castration.' So maybe her ova has 'left the building.'

This guy and his wife have major sexual perversions/problems/religious issues.

Clarence Thomas, Novak and Brownback are Opus Dei too!!!! Google Opus Dei. It is NOT mainstream.....

I am so sick and tired of dems who want to fight another day.....that day NEVER comes. Lead, follow or get out of the way!

[liberaliraqvet26]

10. opus dei is catholic, brownback is fundie...

they are all nutty but different nonetheless

[femrap]

24. I read that Brownback converted to

Catholism and is now a member of Opus Dei.....at a Catholic church in Bethesda led by Papa McCloskey....who married the Roberts. I read that Clarence Thomas and Novak are also part of this congregation in Bethesda...

What little I know about Opus Dei is that it is a word of mouth type of sect....and segregated along gender lines. Many Catholics I have spoke to have never heard of it. And I live in Catholic country....

[The_Casual_Observer]

8. Sounds like the logic employed by those heading to the gas chamber

in Poland. Nothing we can do about this one, better luck next time.

[PurityOfEssence]

9. I'm with ya. Make them deploy and give battle.

Why did you counsel Jeb Bush on how to "constitutionally" overturn the popular vote in '00 if it couldn't be faked? Hadn't he recused himself from the whole thing anyway?

What's your problem with civil rights? Why is segregation better for anyone?

Why don't you want your work for Reagan, Bush I and Starr to see the light of day? What are you hiding?

If you claim you'd recuse yourself on any case that caused you to put your religious beliefs above your then-sworn allegiance to the constitution, just where do your primary loyalties lie? Is your belief and religious affiliation more important than the Constitution? If so, why should you be allowed to be appointed for life? Can you seriously say you can separate the two?

Do you believe in evolution?

Are Christians more moral than others? Are believers more moral than non-believers? If you dodge questions like this--especially with a woefully short public record of your rulings--how are we to know ANYTHING about you?

Why have you virtually ALWAYS sided with big corporations against weak individuals? Is this to be expected of you? Can you show ANY evidence that it wouldn't be the case?

Once again, why don't you volunteer your writings for the past few Republican administrations? If they don't want to reveal them, surely you can offer them in good faith.

(You'll note that I don't even hint at right-to-choose issues; I don't think we should, and I don't think we need to. The guy's questionable enough on issues that aren't so explosive.)

The through-line should be this: they're trying to pull the wool over our eyes by nominating someone who's very young WITH VERY LITTLE RECORD. They need to prove that he's deserving of this post more than we should have to prove that he isn't. With someone who has so little record, as much should be revealed about him as can be done.

The Constitution gives the President the right to nominate whomever he/she pleases, but the Senate doesn't owe him anything. They can advise him on what he's doing, and his people are seated ONLY after their consent. It's murky who has the burden of proof, but such a statement pretty much confirms that it's on both parties.

Rip the fuck out of this stealth monarchist; it's not going to fritter away any capital. This is important.

[femrap]

25. I love your wording....

'rip the fuck out of this stealth monarchist.....' Sounds good to me....

I would harp on the fact that he has very LITTLE EXPERIENCE!

If the dem Senators don't grill this guy and show that he is completely NON-mainstream....I don't want to be a democrat anymore.

I am so tired of only Boxer and Kennedy standing up and fighting...

I still want to know more about the Roberts' adoptions....it smells.

[ClassWarrior]

12. What capital?? We have nothing to lose. Let's sink the corporatist!!

NGU.

[wli]

13. Opus Dei, Federalist Society, clearly goose-stepping fascist thug

Remind me where the waste is? Leave no front unchallenged.

[zulchzulu]

14. After Bush appointed Bolton, we must stop ALL appointments and...

...focus entirely on impeachment proceedings for Bush and Cheney.

SHUT DOWN DC and impeach them. We have to draw a line in the sand and fight like it's the Last Battle.

The American people would support it. The media won't... this time, we should not care what they think.

[gulfcoastliberal]

16. 1st is was "save the fight for the SCOTUS" now it's save the fight for '06

What, pray tell, is a more important fight that that over an extreme theologian Scotus nominee who may change the American landscape beyind recognition over the next 30 years? I'm glad you buy into the repuke talking points on him, but I think they're a fallacy - a trojan horse. What is more important than this in 2006? Next thing we hear it'll be "why waste precious capital contesting 06 elections", we have a bigger battle in 2008. A prime example of no integrity, spineless, apeassment dem strategy guaranteed to lose. I shall now ignore this post.

[Raiden]

19. WHAT!? This is the Supreme Court we're talking about!

The Supreme Court is *extremely* important, at least as much as a Dem majority in Congress. If Roberts was being put on a district or appeals court, I'd say, yeah, probably not worth fighting too hard on. But if we don't win the House or the Senate in '06, the Supreme Court will be our only recourse to keep the thugs in check. This is too important not to fight on, IMO.

Roberts could possibly be the swing vote on cases regarding abortion, the environment, civil rights, corporate abuse, etc. for thirty + years; and he is unfavorable on each of those issues. It may not be that important for you, but this is one of the very BIGGEST issues we are currently facing... We have no choice but to fight

[gratuitous]

21. Yeah, no sense fighting is there?

I mean, shoot, what does anyone ever win by fighting, especially for a principle against a corrupt political machine? Better to just go along to get along, and focus on the next fight that really matters, 2006. Or if 2006 isn't a big enough fight, let's wait until 2008. Or 2012, that'll be the really important fight, although my chicken entrails are kind of indeterminate whether 2012 will really be all that critical. Maybe we should keep our powder dry for 2016, and then we'll REALLY unload on 'em! Hope nobody has any kids that will reach draft age in the next 10 years, because Democrats can't be bothered to fight for anything for a little while. Just hang in there, poverty-stricken, and the working class, and the uninsured, and the environment, and public education; we'll get around to finding something worth fighting over, uh, real soon.

The Roberts nomination is an easy fight: Turn over his records. The Senate has asked for his complete record from his days as a political appointee in the Justice Department, and the White House is stonewalling. The president clearly doesn't want the Senate to be able to carry out its constitutional duties of advise and consent on appointees. The Bolton disgrace shows that well enough. And this administration (launching the Iraq war, the cover-up of conditions at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay) has shown over and over again that it is not to be trusted.

A simple records request, that's all the Senate is asking for, and the White House is refusing to let the Senate make a fully-informed decision on the Roberts nomination for a lifetime appointment. Is Roberts another Souter? Or another Thomas? Nobody can tell without a thorough examination of his entire record. There is no attorney-client privilege for Roberts' work as a politically appointed attorney in the Justice Department, and even if there is, the Senate is not bound by that privilege, as a co-equal branch of the federal government. Former Senator Fred Thompson used that very argument in favor of bringing out the records of the Clintons and their personal attorneys during the neverending Whitewater investigation.

So, under the well-establish Goose-and-Gander Principle of Senatorial Prerogatives in Investigation, the White House MUST turn over the entire record of Mr. Roberts' service in the Justice Department. If the White House refuses again to supply the Senate with a full disclosure of a nominee's record, the Senate should again decline to act on the nomination because it cannot fulfill its constitutional duty to advise and consent based on consideration of anything less than the full record.

Or should the Democrats simply fold again, because principles are too abstract and difficult a concept for some of our slower citizens to grasp?

[McCamy Taylor]

22. Stealth Scalia sucks! Luckily the Far Right thinks he is Gay, now! Ha!

[Kitsune]

23. There is no ammunition in politics!

Saying that we somehow weaken ourselves later by taking a stand now and calling a waddling, quacking avian a duck is ludicrous at best. It does not weaken you to stand up and say what you think. It does not weaken you to have a spine and to let people know it. To the contrary! What have the Democrats been doing for the last 5 years? Saving their capital! For what?! Absolutely nothing! If there were some mystical quantity known as "capital" to be spent, we would have 30 times what the Republicans have by now! We would have won every election in 2004 by looking at the Republicans cockeyed if capital was something that could be saved up for a rainy day!