Skip to main content

View Diary: Opening the Door (281 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Oh, good, I feel better now (4.00)
    Chris Bowers sniffs out the truth behind Roberts' testimony:

    Confirm Them gushes about Roberts wiggling on privacy:

    Roberts' answer was brilliant. He made a statement that will satisfy most Americans about privacy while leaving himself enough wiggle room to move the Court on that issue in the future.

    And if people have any doubt about what Roberts said on privacy, check out this piece from Confirm Them a few minutes later (emphasis mine):

    A top-flight, leading conservative pro-life lawyer with a vibrant Supreme Court practice whose name most readers of this forum would know just walked into the room where I'm sitting. He was thrilled about Roberts' answers during the dialogue with Specter and indicated his strong approval and endorsement. <bold>He explained that Roberts's answer was carefully framed to provide a basis for revisiting and overturning Roe in the future.</bold>

    Any questions?

    The liberal blogosphere needs to beam these quotes, and any other quotes of this type, around the world at the speed of light - unless we want the prediction that these answers will "satisfy most Americans" to come true.

    •  Just saw that; you beat me to it. [n/t] (none)

      The public wants what the public gets, but I don't get what this society wants -- Paul Weller

      by jamfan on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:10:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry (4.00)
      I am not buying it.

      As my post suggests, that is utter nonsense.

      Why would they be beaming at an answer that recognizes the right to privacy in words that came straight from Griswold?

      Folks, think for yourself. don't let the nonsense from idiot Wingnuts let you misunderstand the moment.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:10:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Remember, Confirmthem is an alter-ego of redstate (none)
        Of course they're going to be spinning this as anti-abortion.  This is a group that tried to minimize the Katrina damage by talking about aborted fetuses.  

        Roberts will almost certainly be an improvement over the late Chief Justice (who, like Roberts also apparently was a nice guy).

        If he's going to get up there and lie his ass off (which I doubt), there's not much we can do about it.

      •  Meh (none)
        The entire right wing has been based on lies for several years.  You are trying to say the lying is in the base but not in this candidate (i.e. they are claiming a victory where none exists).  It seems more parsimonious to conclude the lying is also in the candidate (i.e. he's giving good answers that he won't stick to).

        Liberal: A person who thinks there are things that are more evil than taxes.

        by RequestedUsername on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:17:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Gosh (4.00)
        You seem to have decided awfully fast that it is the wingnuts who are being played for fools, and not us.

        In the discussions on stare decisis and other issues, you have often pointed out that this is a political blog, and not a legal one.  Politically, when the other side is gloating about something they think they are getting away with, you probably want to highlight it, whether or not you happen to agree with them from a legal standpoint.

        Unless you have made the decision to go ju-jitsu on us I don't understand what your POLITICAL goal is at this particular moment.

        •  Come on (none)
          Roberts' answer on privacy should NOT make them beam.

          It makes no sense.

          Gosh, if you don't see that, then hw else do you explain Roberts' opening the door.

          With due respect, you cited Confirm Them to give us your reaction. I find that approach to be utter bullshit.

          Chris should note it, but not let that be the basis for his analysis.

          We make our own judgments.

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:28:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  My reaction (4.00)
            Well, first, here is how SCOTUSBlog summarizes Roberts' testimony:

            9:52 - Specter asks about Roberts' reference in a memo to the "so-called right to privacy." Roberts - I do believe that the right to privacy is protected in various ways; the 4th A; the 1st A; 3d A; and in addition the Court has over a series of decisions going back 80 years has recognized that it is a component of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, not merely procedurally but also as a substantive matter as well.

            Working from that, as opposed to being able to hear the actual testimony, I have two reactions:

            1. Of course there is a "right to privacy" in the sense that, for example, the privacy of your home is protected from unreasonable searches and seizures.  No one denies that.  If I were a total wingnut, my answer would probably sound something like "sure there is a right to privacy, as specifically enumerated in the 1st, 3rd, and 4th amendments," and I would hope everyone just focused on the first part of my answer.

            2. Recognizing that there is an 80-year line of substantive due process cases does not say anything about whether you agree with the rights identified in those cases, or whether you would seek to narrow the scope of substantive due process as a Justice.  Now if he said that he agrees with the substantive due process line of cases, THAT would be newsworthy.

            Ninth Amendment, friends, it's all about the Ninth Amendment.  Saying there is a "right to privacy" is meaningless without some statement of which substantive interests are protected by that right.  If you believe abortion is murder, for example, there's surely no right to murder people in private, so the "right to privacy" would not protect abortion in the slightest.
            •  Damned right it's the ninth amendment (none)
              We need  to follow up on this. He's got to address the ninth amendment privacy rights, or its meaningless.

              Should also address other "unenumerated" rights.

              I like to think of the Republican Party as an Iceberg--large, white, cold-hearted, not too swift, and can't change direction.

              by DyspepTex on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:47:00 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I Agree (none)
          Saying that the Court has recognized some right to privacy says nothing about the scope of the right, and no one believes that states want to start regulating marital purchase of contraceptives again.

          What was he going to say, Armando? "I do not believe the Supreme Court has recognized any right to privacy"?

          •  What was he going to say (none)
            The idea of weaseling around it and discussing minutia and running out the clock does not strike you as an alternative?

            And you miss my larger point. He has OPENED THE DOOR.

            The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

            by Armando on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:31:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not really (none)
              Between weaseling around for two days and just restating the basics of Griswold, he took the obvious choice.  

              The door is always open for these questions, Armando -- the Senators can do whatever they want.  I just don't know what you think is going to be revealed here.

        •  As for my political strategy (none)
          my post is title Opening the Door.

          I have a suggested line of questioning.

          How can I make it plainer?

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:30:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  cause the don't understand english (none)

        inspire change...don't back down

        by missliberties on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:38:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Let me add (none)
      That Chris speaks of a "general right to privacy" and that simply is not consistent with Griswold.

      I assume that is what is leading to his confusion, he is unfamiliar with the jurisprudence in detail.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:11:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thing is, (none)
      at this point strategy and honesty march hand-in-hand.

      I trust Armando's opinion on this (though where the hell's acbonin? I wanna hear him, too). Armando's not exactly Redstate or ConfirmThem, and he's not exactly naive. So this honestly sounds like good news to me.

      I'm not a lawyer, though, so much of this goes over my head. But strategically, frankly, our best option is to write screaming Front Page articles such as,  "JOHN ROBERTS: ABSOLUTELY PRO-CHOICE!" and "ROBERTS SUPPORT ROE." If we get nervous over what they're saying on Redstate, you think they don't worry when we celebrate. If this is genuinely good news, we oughtta applaud Roberts. If this isn't genuinely good news, we oughtta applaud that much harder: that's the best way to drive a wedge between him and the theocrat right.

      Let there be sharks - TracieLynn

      by GussieFN on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:13:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  For the record (none)
        I am a lawyer, too, and at this point I am somewhat more skeptical than Armando.

        The thing is, we'll never know for sure, unless and until Roberts is on the bench and starts writing opinions.  The question is what we do at this moment.  Certainly, the plausible-sounding answers he's given so far make it much harder to filibuster him than if he had denied that a right to privacy exists.

        •  As a non-lawyer, (none)
          all you can do is find a lawyer your trust, then close your eyes and think of England.

          Seems to me there's some reasonable disagreement among lawyers on dKos (and I guess that's utterly to be expected), but I suppose my real point is:

          If Armando's right, that's great.

          If Armando's wrong, that's even better, because though countless Americans will suffer, I'll be able to write a daily diary entitled: "Armando Was Wrong."

          Oh, wait, no ... I mean, if Armando's wrong, and they're pulling the wool over even his partisan eyes, then we're fucked in terms of blocking this nomination anyway, so we oughtta be thinking about political strategy. And what's the best political strategy, given we're not realistically gonna filibuster a nominee about whom even dailyKos is split? It's using him as a wedge against the right.

          I guess I don't see a better option than singing his praises, unless we learn something really alarming.

          Let there be sharks - TracieLynn

          by GussieFN on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:29:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hold up (none)
            I am dong nothing here but describing what the man testified to and suggesdting that it opens the door for Democrats to pursue this in detail. I even suggest a line of questioning.

            I do object to NOT acknowledging the man's testimony - for the pragmatic reason that then you do not accept that he has indeed opened the door.

            The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

            by Armando on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:40:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, but I think my point holds: (none)
              Even if not for reasons of accuracy, we oughtta trumpet Roberts's 'pro-choice' stance for reasons of politics.

              But I guess I did misrepresent what you're saying. For which: oops.

              Let there be sharks - TracieLynn

              by GussieFN on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 09:02:51 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Me too...and me too (none)
          I mean, I'm glad he didn't say he doesn't believe that there exists no Constitutional . . . just like I'm glad he didn't pull out an Uzi and blow everyone away.

          The bottom line, from a legal perspective, is that he didn't commit to anything that "opens the door" or "binds him" or anything like that.

          I'm sick of spinning sh*t in my head, trying to make myself feel better -- I've done that with debates and polls (and those f*cking exit polls) and it serves no purpose, IMO.

          Roberts is conservative. He's not SDO'C. He's not. We have to face that. I think he's better than Thomas or Scalia and I am glad that he was nominated for Chief Justice so either of those won't. But again, that may be making another silly assumption. Who knows how bad this can turn out?

          Sorry to rain on the parade but I think one sentence talking about a constitutional right toi privacy -- viewed in conjunction with his REPEATED dodges of Roe -- doesn't make me feel any better.  

          "I voted for Bush in 2000," said Kutcher. "Boy, did I get punk'd."

          by samlang on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:54:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Context is everything. (none)
          (As a lawyer) the context in which somebody is speaking is everything.  What somebody says when he has no reason to lie counts for a lot more than what somebody says when he does have reason to lie.

          The real point is that whatever Roberts says right now doesn't mean very much because of the context.  Roberts has tremendous incentive to say whatever will get him confirmed, whether it is true or not.  If there is a difference between what he says now and what he said before it's possible that it's because he's gotten smarter, but it's much more likely that his story changed because he wants to be confirmed.

          The Bush White House: Where being right gets you fired and being wrong gets you the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

          by Tod on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 10:01:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Confirm Them is an interesting site.... (none)
      I must assume that the "Them" referred to would be the second nominee.

      Given the fact that the second nominee has not yet been nominated, why is it so crucial that we confirm "them?"

      RedState, I know. But, they don't even care who gets nominated. They just know that the nominee is going to be a great guy/gal.

      Hey, Mr. Custer-you mind if I be excused the rest of the afternoon?
      --Larry Verne

      by Big Nit Attack on Tue Sep 13, 2005 at 08:19:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Confirm them (none)
        was originally started in reference to the judges who were blocked during the nuclear option fight.  Now it's just a clearinghouse site for confirming any old person Bush decides to appoint.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site