Skip to main content

View Diary: Opening the Door (281 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  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 ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site