Reply #38: From your words to God's ears. [View All]

[Zodiak]

However, those that point to the fact that we are allowing an enigma to go on the Supreme Court for a lifetime are correct. This is a bad precedent to set. We do not have a long enough career to measure this man's judicial teperament nor his positions.
He can say anything he wants now with no consequence in the future, so his words about "settled law" are potentially empty. And remember, these words came from a Bushbot...would ANYONE on DU, in good faith, trust those words?

Wishful thinking is the standard we are applying to Roberts, and that legitimately has many of us progressives concerned.

Bush can pull the same crap with the next appointment. What if he picks someone on the hard right that has no real judicial history and he withholds documents from Congress again? Should we filibuster then? After all, the nomination in question is simply a precendent of the one before.

There are real pitfalls here for your strategy. I really would love for it to happen, but I am banking on the BFEE knowing more about politics than I do. The Democrats better understand what they are doing here, and would do well to listen to the concerned left.

But I agree, we cannot filibuster this one because we have allowed Fox News and CNN to frame this guy as calm, sweet, and good-looking. Another case of being waaaaay behind in the spin wars. We should have had counter-commercials to the ones they did for Roberts....we should have hammered home that we do not know anything about this guy because Bush is withholding the info. At this point, that would raise suspicion with the American people in light of Brown and Chertoff.

We have to learn the art of opportunism.

I want more of a fight than this, but you are right....a filibuster may not be the best thing. After this vote, the Democrats should immediately call "foul" and make a LOT of hay before Bush nominates the next judge.

The memes should be "transparency", "fairness", "experience", and "competence", and we should have a name that fits all three. And then cry that we are only following the "ginsberg precedent".

Also, the Dems have to get on the ball and nominate their own judge publically before Bush can get ahead with his. Pick a conservative, but pick a moderate one who is well-respected. It can't be that hard to do.