Skip to main content

So Bush was supposed to spend all week interviewing potential Supreme Court nominees, but suddenly rushed the nomination forward today. Is Roberts really the guy they wanted, or the first guy that was potentially palatable that could be rushed to the podium?

And for a decision so important, why rush the process longer than necessary?

Well, there's that thing about Rove.

As we all know, Rove is trapped between two wars -- one is legal and Fitzgerald could care less about Roberts, and the other is political. Tonight's announcement, and the rash of false leaks throughout the day, meant Rove got a reprieve from the steady stream of damaging stories about his involvement in the illegal outing of an undercover CIA agent.

So the administration had to act quick, and nominated Roberts to the high court.

The future of the Supreme Court is at stake, and these guys will even truncate that process for short-term political gain. Par for the course.

So who is this guy Roberts? He has only two years of judicial experience, and his legal advocacy can be dismissed as doing the bidding of his bosses.

Fair enough. I'm willing to hear the guy out. We're not going to get a Ginsburg, but I'd be happy with an O'Connor-style moderate conservative. For all we know (and for all the religious-right knows), Roberts might be that sort of guy.

But he has to be honest and forthcoming, unlike his previous confirmation hearing. The Senate must take its time deliberating over the nomination. And this is something that all sides should want, not just ours. For all the right wing knows, this guy may be the next Souter who simply pretended to be virulently anti-privacy.

As Roberts answers all questions posed, we can then decide whether it's worth opposing or not. And as that process plays out, we can make sure that Rove isn't forgotten in all the Supreme Court hoopla.

Unlike some, us progressive bloggers can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 07:04 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Damn right (none)
      eye on the prize, folks. Put the man through the wringer and make him answer tough questions, but we have the opportunity to really do some damage to the GOP if we stay focused on Rove, DeLay, Iraq etc.
    •  So which is the greater evil? (4.00)
      Rove undermining national security or Roberts undermining individual liberty (see Hunter's front page post on Roberts)?

      How do we decide which is the most important battle to fight? Do I think the announcement was accelerated due to the Rove issue? You bet.

      But are the ramifications any less horrendous because the announcement on SCOTUS was calculated?

      Forty years on SCOTUS may -- just may -- have a far greater impact on the future of this country than Rove's ravings.

      •  Liberals Can Walk and Chew Gum at the Same Time (none)
        We can keep up the heat on Rove and oppose a right-wing nutcase like Roberts.  It isn't an either/or proposition.

        Here's some information about Roberts.

        http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/John_Roberts_Report.pdf

        Take Back the Democratic Party http://www.lawlessforcongress.com/

        by fedupnyc on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:29:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yeah, but the media can't (none)
          handle mutliple headline stories.  It gets in the way of dead blonde of the month etal.
        •  anyone hear this focker? (none)
          all apologies... wanted to put this up near the top. rate me bad.

          Just now. CNN. Newsnight w/Aaron Brown. guest (amongst others) andrew breitbart. anger. hack.

          grab the scripts or video. see the hate.

          (on a more positive side: he did give dkos a plug, as snide as his comments were toward it)

          focker.

          •  We've been challenged: (none)
            http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/19/2309/38448

            "Aaron Brown just bitch slapped some wingnut named Breitbart on the SCOTUS nomination. Aaron wanted to know what the panelists would like to know about the guy, and Breitbart said, "I'm want to know if the liberal blogs can handle two issues at the same time." Aaron was PISSED. "That had nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with politics. Hmmmm...interesting that that's what YOU want to know." Amy Goodman rocked as usual."

      •  We need to think that one through (none)
        You can bet that barring any huge surprise, the man
        will be confirmed. You can almost bet the farm that
        the Democrats will not be successful at killing
        the nomination. Now if this does turn out to be
        a given and it will if as stated above no clear
        surprises, why not reserve the big fight for when
        the Rehnquist position opens up.

        It is almost certain that it will be a vacancy
        there as well before Creepy Eyed Bush is out of
        office.

        Sometimes it is best to pick your battles to win
        the war.

        So when you consider that, what makes more sense?

        To spend energy with a real tough fight in a
        losing battle and risk losing creditability when
        it comes time to fight the next one which will
        most likely be a far more important nomination.

        Or to put up a mild fight here and reserve the
        real battle for his next one.

        In the meantine we need to be cementing the
        advantages that we have in the Turblossom leaks
        and DSM etc.

        Popeye

        A Nation that blindly follows, will soon discover they no longer have a Nation. :)Popeye

        by eaglecries on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:57:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I respectfully disagree.. (none)
          Why should it be any easier for progressives to oppose Bush's nominee for the Rehnquist seat than it will be for us to fight this nominee?

          Isn't this fight arguably more important that the fight over the Rehnquist seat inasmuch as we are faced with the prospect that  a right winger will replace a Justice, O'Connor, who is moderate on social issues, though not on federalism and other issues. In the case of the Rehnquist seat, it will be hard for Bush to find someone more right wing... We can count on a nominee as far to the right as Rehnquist.

          •  Agreed (none)
            and to think otherwise, read the Neville Chamberlain manual on giving an inch and losing . . . all.

            "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

            by Cream City on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 05:46:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Lame duckness, control of Congress (none)
            The latest it gets in the Bush Presidency, the lamer he becomes as a lame duck, and the less capable he will be of pushing forward unpalatable candidates. Plus, there's the chance of gains for the Democrats in the mid-term elections next year, if Rheinquist can hold on that long.

            My take on Roberts is that he is impressively capable, and has a firm respect for rule of law. Right now, that's about the best we can get. This isn't something like Wolfowitz to the World Bank or Bolton as Ambassador to the UN where Dear Leader is nominating an utter incompetent to an important job. Or someone like Judge Roy Moore or Abu "I Love Torture" Gonzales who have shown they have no respect for rule of law ("the President is above the law" indeed, feh!). Roberts is a professional.

            I've met people like Roberts in person before, and while I disagree with them on many things, they are thorough and do not make rash decisions based upon emotional or religious factors. He will be a conservative pro-business Justice, but that isn't necessarily bad, considering that so many of the Bush Administration's more radical and unconstitutional policy proposals are bad for business and far from conservative (I mean, since when did claiming the President had the power to jail any American for the duration of the War on Terror as an "enemy combatant" become conservative?!) and when given a life appointment to the Supreme Court it is unlikely that Roberts would support them if they ever came before him. As for Roe v. Wade, my personal suspicion is that it is safe with Roberts as a Justice, because overturning Roe v. Wade would be bad for business and would be bad law, and either one tend to be unsupportable by people like Roberts.

            As for the hearings, sure, go through the motions. ZBut my feeling is that this isn't one that is worth fighting tooth and nail. Roberts really is about the best we'll get -- a conservative pro-business justice who makes his decisions based upon law and intellect rather than upon emotion and religion. I.e., a George H.W. Bush Republican, not a George W. Bush Republican. In fact, I think that was the whole point of Bush throwing him out to the Democrats... just as Nixon signed a lot of Democratic proposals into law in order to try to dissuade them from impeaching them, Dear Leader is trying to throw out a bone to the Democrats to try to keep them from going after his Brain.

            - Badtux the Political Penguin

            Religious conservatives are motivated by the suspicion that someone, somewhere, is having fun.

            by badtux on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 08:56:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  most important battle (none)
        the most important battle was last November!  We knew this was coming.  In order to hold Bush/Cheney, et al responsible for Iraq we have to win control of Congress.

        is anyone else as depressed as I am?  I've been fighting for a woman's right to choose for forty years.  Now I've lived too long to see it begin to unravel.

    •  This kills Bolton for good (4.00)
      W can't aford to piss off the Dems by disrespecting the Senate process now.

      Poor W only got Rove a 1 day repreive and spent a Supreme court nomination to do it.

      http://dumpjoe.com/

      by ctkeith on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:18:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why does this stop Bolton (none)
        Has Bush ever relented in the past about anything?  Roberts has already been through two nomination hearings for appellate positions and did not make it through either.  He only got on the DC Circuit two years ago.  Bush doesn't care about what Democrats or the country thinks.  He only cares what his donors think.  
        •  I don't believe that is correct (none)
          What "two confirmation" hearings are you referring to.  My understanding is that he was nominated in 1990 before Bush I lost, and then he never had hearings when Clinton was elected (the good ol' days), and then the only hearings he had were in 2001/2003, when finally confirmed in 2003.  So, he got through the only confirmation hearings held.  

          I also want to point out that this man is so emblematic of shrub.  He is the "stealth" candidate. Shrub doesn't want us to know anything about him. He expects him to be confirmed because he has "a good heart."  Gimme a freakin' break. People say that he has a very short paper trail, but the damning fact is that what we do know is not comforting.

          I have to get my hands on the Hamdi decision.  I hear it is a whopper.  Shrub claims that Roberts is owed a fair/dignified hearing.  I don't get how Shrub can expect anything from the Dems when it is the exact opposite with Rove.

          Will someone please make this point early and often!!!

    •  Such a smart, even-handed diary, Kos. Thanks (none)
    •  Roberts (none)
      will not answer a lot of specific questions.  But that is the right way to go.  He can't prejudice himself against future cases
    •  if Dems confirm Roberts, court will move way right (none)
      There is nothing about Roberts that suggests that he is more like Souter than like Scalia.

      Legal analysts on PBS last night were unanimously in agreement that Roberts is clearly more conservative than O'Connor.

      The New York Times lead article today makes it clear that Bush is stealthily but clearly attempting to move the court rightward:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/politics/politicsspecial1/20bush.html?oref=login&pagewanted=pr int

      Mr. Bush, and his chief political lieutenant Karl Rove, have made clear that they viewed the Bush presidency as an opportunity to build a lasting conservative legacy that would produce fundamental changes in the government, and what Republicans describe as a long-lasting political realignment. The retirement of Justice O'Connor, a swing vote on the court, presented him with a clear opportunity to do that.

      After the difficult spring Mr. Bush has had in Congress on issues like Social Security, the nomination of Judge Roberts may be an easier route to this end than some of Mr. Bush's legislative initiatives.

      Mr. Bush is also someone who relishes confrontation and political combat, perhaps never more than when he finds himself under attack, as he certainly has during these rough three months in Washington. In this case, though, Mr. Bush may have found a way to accomplish one of the overarching goals of this presidency -moving the court to the right - without a reprise of the kind of polarizing battles that have sometimes marked the Bush presidency.

      The front-page Washington Post analysis of the pick says the exact same thing:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071901946.html?sub=AR

      President Bush moved boldly to shift the Supreme Court to the right last night by selecting federal appellate judge John G. Roberts Jr. to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

      By picking Roberts, Bush displayed his determination to put a more conservative stamp on the court.

      Roberts is at least as conservative as Rehnquist, and could easily be as conservative as Thomas and Scalia. Democrats in the Senate, and on DailyKos, should be very much aware of this fact before they blanketly assume that Roberts is somehow a fine centrist choice.

  •  Bar discussion (none)
    It's about the treason.

    People are amazed that Bush is standing shoulder-to-shoulder with a man who betrayed America in wartime.

    Wilbur from Charlotte's Web turned out okay, and he was just some pig. :)

    by cskendrick on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:05:30 PM PDT

  •  I know nothing about the guy (none)
    but I wonder if there's any chance he might be another Souter, or at least a potential surprise in the direction of Souter as opposed to Scalia
    •  Don't we all think (4.00)
      that Fred Dalton Thompson or whoever did the vetting process on this guy asked him if he was personally pro-life?  Or anti-gay marriage?  No doubt.  If the President and/or his advisors got to ask these questions and got full answers, so do the American people via the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Case closed.
    •  He has to be a pervert, (none)
      time is short to find out which prevision. Let's hope it's an illegal one.

      The public understands sex, the more deranged the better. This guy is prime for strange attractions. He is way too old to have toddlers, why did he delay marriage? The one thing that these out to lunch types have in common is their contempt for women it's manifest in their decisions, but eventually disclosed in their disturbing attractions.  

      Remember, turn about is fair play.

  •  Why No Campaign to Oppose Roberts (2.83)
    Now that we know the Bush's pick is John Roberts, Democrats should not reflexively oppose the choice.

    Three considerations for liberals and progressives of all stripes:

    1. Anti-Choice History Alone is Not Sufficient for a No Vote
    2. Partisan Political Past is Sufficient Grounds for Opposition
    3. Look for a Clear Record of Judicial, Philosophical Extremism

    Using those filters, Democrats should not mount a campaign to oppose Roberts.  They should hold their fire for a more extreme choice when Rehnquist steps down.

    For more background, see:

    "Supreme Limitations: Considerations for Democrats "

    •  Come on (4.00)
      This guy is a young Scalia in training. He's barely had enough court cases to qualify as to having federal experience. This is not a serious decision - it's the mark of a President that wants to leave a lasting impression on the next 30-40 years of the Supreme Court. Kick him out.

      Timendi causa est nescire (Ignorance is the cause of fear)

      by Animal13 on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:09:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed (4.00)
        This is potentially 30+ years of damage to our country. We MUST oppose this.
      •  If you mean that he's (none)
        "barely had enough court cases to qualify as to having federal experience" as a JUDGE, then I agree with you.

        If you're talking about federal experience as a lawyer, however, you're way off base.  He's argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court.  I doubt there's more than a handful of current lawyers who have argued more.  As an advocate, he's as good as it gets.  The question is whether the advocate is capable of being a Supreme Court justice.  Stay tuned.

        Don't want to be an American idiot -- Green Day

        by jsmdlawyer on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:26:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe a pleasant surprise (none)
          There have been some pleasant surprises when excellent advocates become judges.  I remember hearing of criminal defense lawyers, who were great at getting murder defendants acquitted, becoming tough if not 'hanging' judges when they got on the bench.  Roberts clearly has a bright mind.  If getting on the Supreme Court doesn't make you feel entitled to a mind of your own, nothing does.
    •  Roe vs. Wade is Dead (2.50)
      And I don't even care. 48% of women voted for Bush so I guess this is what the country wants. Maybe when abortion is a crime people will change their minds.
      •  sadly you have a point (none)
        if women want control of their bodies they have NO business voting conservative. if they want to be property once again then they do, its that simple. women could, if they so desired wipe out the conservative majority in this country. perhaps eventually they will, if they see their rights threatened.

        life is not a dress rehearsal

        by johnfire on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:17:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  yep (none)
        Let the Repugs go all out. Let them start arresting pregnant white teenage girls from "good families" in GOP suburbs at the Canadian and Mexican borders and make them do the perp walk in cuffs. Let's see that go over and watch the hasty retreat.
        •  Yea right... (4.00)
          You mean like how they arrested rich white families who use and deal illegal narcotics?

          Political violence is a perfectly legitimate answer to the persecution handed down by dignitaries of the state. - Riven Turnbull

          by Florida Democrat on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:24:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  But the truth is (4.00)
          you would never see rich white girls doing the perp walk...when abortion was illegal they still had the means to have a "procedure" safely or take a "vacation" while dealing with their trouble. Laws like that will always affect the poor and working class.

          It is true that it is insane for any woman, or any individual who values their liberties, to vote for the neocons.

          •  Speaking of which, (none)
            Did you ever wonder if it was really an appendectomy Jenna Bush had in December 2000?  I always thought it was curious that Dubya didn't even stay in town while his daughter was in the hospital.  He went to Florida.  Of course, he may have needed to go there to pass out political IOU's in person to the folks who elected him.  It just doesn't do to say over the phone, "I owe you big, and if you ever need a pardon, let me know."
        •  Rich White people (none)
          have ALWAYS been able to get abortions. It's the poorer people who get shafted

          Hermaphrodite with attitude!

          by Willadene on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:36:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  It's crazy (none)
        but I honestly fear that you may be right.

        Seriously, god help our country. Things are pretty messed up right now, and it sure doesn't seem to be getting any better.

      •  By then (none)
        the name of the US will have been officially changed to "Gilead"

        "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Trudeau

        by fishhead on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:22:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed (none)
        Roe falls and thus even an greater divide ala red and blue.  In the aftermath a California Republic?
        •  We'll Gladly (none)
          take California and the Pacific Northwest.

          Canada - where a pack of smokes is ten bucks and a heart transplant is free.

          by dpc on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:30:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  ahh (none)
            The first thing the tax consuming states would do is go anti-free market (or well, drastically pro-free market, I suppose) on the liberal states.

            California, for example, obviously imports a huge amount of food for its many residents.  The middle states would stand to make a huge profit as they restricted the flow of food stuffs.  California uses much of its agricultural base for non-core food production, and would suffer greatly at first!

            I only comment because I did a survey of the economic impact if various states effectively suceeded about 3-4 years ago.  On the surface it looks like California would be very attractive as a standalone economy, but in critical things that are inelastically demanded a very cruel blow could be inflicted economically.

            •  It also exports a lot (none)
              Monterey county California is responsible for the majority of salads in the US. I think it'd do OK food wise. You don't hear about California agriculture so much since it's not a politically important state the way Iowa is, so the California's farmers are bribed with subidizies as much.
              •  Except (none)
                Except it's the type of food that is non-essential, and can be imported fairly cheaply (much is already imported).

                Grapes, fruit, vegetables, etc are great to have, but that's not what most Americans eat (sadly).

            •  Imported CA food not from red states... (none)
              Imported fruits and vegetables are from Mexico and Latin America. Beef we actually export (Harris Ranch, anybody) Milk and eggs might get a little more expensive. From the CA Water Plan Update for 2005 : "Measured by aggregate value, California is a net food shipper to the rest of the United States and the rest of the world."

              What I'd like to see is the rest of the country live without movies and television. (Hollywood boycott)

          •  Take us with you.. (none)
            Do not let the Northeastern Blue States out here alone. We will go with you..LOL!

            It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no millionaire's son, no. It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no.- CCR

            by wishingwell on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 03:08:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Response (none)
              I know you are kidding, but you can speak for yourself on that.  Here is one NY resident that doesn't want to secede.
            •  asdf (none)
              Unless we all joined Canada I'm not sure how we'd link the blue states up into a single country - we'd be non-contiguous with a whole lot of unfriendly territory in between us.

              Even if we could, we'd be abandoning the residents of Austin, Las Vegas, Miami and the rest of the blue cities in red states to a V-esque existence as resistance fighters, which would be kind of dick-ish of us. ;)

              The Devil crept into Heaven, God slept on the 7th, the New World Order was born on September 11th - IT<

              by tomaxxamot on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 09:51:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  overturn Roe v. Wade, see what we get (none)
        Perhaps the country really hasn't woken up to What It All Means yet.

        If Roe v. Wade is overturned, maybe the Republicans will learn the real meaning of the Chinese curse: "May all your wishes come true."

      •  Yep, NY and CA will keep it legal (none)
        If all of the pro-choice women had voted for Kerry, Roe vs. Wade wouldn't be about to be struck down. Time for an "I told you so" to them.
      •  That's a ridiculous claim to make (none)
        Reproductive rights are more complicated than abortion alone: custody, parenting, property rights, education ...

        75% want the govt out of personal medical and family decisions.

      •  Yup, they voted for Bush, cause he (none)
        made them feel safe from terrorists.  Stupid, stupid.  He can't keep himself safe from those evil contraptions called bikes.
      •  No kidding (none)
        The vast majority of the public does not believe that Roe will ever be overturned.  It isn't even a thought on their minds.  Unfortunately, they may be in for a real shock and by then it will be too late to do anything.  

        In reality though, I don't see Roe going down within the next 10 years.  What I do see are decisions that will create greater obstacles in a women's ability to gain access to an abortion, i.e. requiring parental notification, instituting 48 hour waiting periods, ending "late-term" abortion, continuing to remove funding, etc.  These are the decisions that will come fast and furious over the next 5-10 years.  

    •  I'll await your response to the above questions (none)
      before rating that comment.  Do you have no response to them?
    •  since when? (4.00)

      Anti-Choice History Alone is Not Sufficient for a No Vote

      The right to choose is one of the last of our party's bedrock principles that hasn't been abandoned in the name of misguided (and consistently unsuccesful) efforts to appeal to some mythological, mushy middle.  If we abandon it, then there's absolutely nothing in this party left fighting for.

      The Devil crept into Heaven, God slept on the 7th, the New World Order was born on September 11th - IT<

      by tomaxxamot on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:40:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It isn't always about abortion (none)
      Even if you think anti-choice is not a good enough reason, it isn't like it is the only thing at stake in the Supreme Court.  Don't forget about separation of church and state, rights of people with disabilities, the environment, workers' rights, etc.  
    •  marginal ratings? (none)
      I may not agree with you but think you raise cogent points to discuss.  I'm not sure why those points were rated as marginal.

      "Fear is an -ism...did you notice the transition from Communism into Islamic terrorism?" Lee Raback, Warsaw Pack "Doomsday Device", written pre-9/11

      by lizah on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 06:36:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We don't have to do both. (4.00)
    There's only one issue here. As you said, Roberts is the nominee, and he's the nominee today, because of the steam gathering behind Rovegate.

    There's only one issue here. This president lacks the moral authority to name a Supreme Court nominee.

    •  An outrageously partisan choice (none)
      From an outrageously partisan administration.

      But how do the Democrats ensure that their criticisms of Roberts harmonize with their criticisms of Rove, and the Bush Administration's handling of the issue?

      I wonder, when Roberts worked in the Reagan and Bush Administrations, did he have any involvement in Iran-Contra?

      •  You treat the nominee like a sockpuppet. (none)
        Be cordial when he shows up, but since he's not going to answer any questions anyway, don't bother asking any. Unless you want to ask him what it feels like to be used as cover after working so hard to graduate from Harvard and all.
    •  Kagro, when you say (none)
      the president lacks the moral authority to name a Supreme Court nominee, what does that mean in concrete terms?  What action would that entail on the part of Dems?

      He may (and I think does) lack the moral authority to make a nomination, but he nonetheless maintains the legal authority.

      By your logic, Bush doesn't have the moral authority to be President.  Actually, I agree with that--and not just as a result of the Rove scandal.  I never thought he had any moral authority.  I'd bet that scarcely anyone on this site thinks so.

      But he is the President (godfuckingdammittohell).  So again, what are you advocating in concrete terms?  That Dems in the Senate block any and all of his nominations?  Block everything he does from now on?

      Honestly, I'm not trying to be sarcastic at all.  I've always admired your opinions on this site and on The Next Hurrah.  And I really would like to know what you mean by your comment--in terms of future action.

      •  See above. (4.00)
        A Caucus meeting, a quick whip count, see if anyone feels wedded to their last votes to confirm him, and see where you stand, filibuster-wise.

        If the numbers aren't there, you treat the nominee like the sockpuppet he is. Nobody says your questions in the hearings have to be about his views. Nobody says they even have to be questions. If you're not going to be able to put together a filibuster, then use the stage you're given and leave it at that.

        If you've got the numbers, or think you can generate  the numbers by making the nomination be about the president's weakness, then by all means go for it.

        The Republicans consciously decided not to allow Clinton any more judicial nominees once his administration became mired in issues of perjury and obstruction of justice. This administration can't escape its responsibility for flouting the law by pretending this is a separate issue. They've made sure the nomination itself is inextricably linked to their wrongdoing.

        So, we talk about it. And about how it's such an incredible disservice to someone who otherwise would have been considered to have achieved so much by his own hard work, and how sad it will be to have been nominated to honored high office by a cowardly traitor.

        •  I get it now (none)
          I had questions for kid oakland on his "link it" diary too and he responded that "it's time to seize the moment and be bold."  Your suggestion really is bold.  And you're right, they're the ones who have linked the Rove/SCOTUS issues.

          Obviously we can't block nominations for the next 3 years, but it could be quite a stage with a lot of people watching the Bush Is A Cowardly Traitor Show.  And all its sequels.

          Thanks for your reply.    

        •  Totally doable, (none)
          all it will take is courage.  When Dems went on the offensive with SS piratization, the public followed.  When Dems went on the offensive about the nuclear option, the public followed.  This is the time for real leadership, for Dems to show that they are willing and able to stand up for this country.  The majority of the public doesn't trust Bush and smells something awfully putrid coming out of the WH.  Now's the time for the grown-ups to take charge.

          I've made it very clear, he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was.-McClellan, 2003

          by GN1927 on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 03:56:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  good point (none)
    ON how Bush cut short the selection process for political reasons. I'm sure Donna Brazile will be mentioning that tomorrow.
  •  Subject to a Bombshell, Roberts Gets Confirmed (none)
    It's pot luck.  Might be good, might be bad.  Then, Rehnquist has to resign (he should be happy knowing that Roberts, one of his former clerks, is there to carry on).  Then Bush picks Gonzales for CJ.  That could stir things up a bit and get Rove off the front page.  Hmmmm.
    •  Rehnquist (none)
      I wonder what his reaction was to all those very specific, well-sourced stories coming out from the likes of Novak about his imminent resignation.

      If they didn't come from his office, they must have come from the White House, I would think. Other sources wouldn't be trusted.

      So, If Rehnquist thinks the Bush team was getting the whole country to speculate about his health, just for the sake of some minor political positioning, how eager is he to do that gang any favors?

      I've got blisters on my fingers!

      by Elwood Dowd on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:17:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Rehnquist is Probably In On It (none)
        Planning how the Court can carry on without him to greater heights [sic] of strict constructionism.
      •  I can think of a reason (none)
        There is no guarantee that Bush will have a republican majority in the senate after next year, and there is a good chance for a democratic administration after 2008.  This year (and maybe next year) are his best chances to see his vacancy filled with another right-wing ideologue.  I don't think he would risk staying so long that he would put that at risk.

        I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' --Goldwater, 1981

        by John H on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 06:23:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Can't agree with this (3.88)
    his legal advocacy can be dismissed as doing the bidding of his bosses

    No, no, no, no.  He was the political deputy at the Solicitor General's office.  That means he was in charge of making policy.  He was definitively NOT a lawyer simply carrying out the decisions of the client -- he was in a position to determine what those decisions would be.

    I am worried about this guy.  Yeah, he's smart, and yeah, he looks good, but he also appears to be a right wing automaton.  He worked for Reagan and Bush I?  OK, fine.  But he also worked for Ken Starr.  Not so fine.  Not only that, he continued to praise Starr even after the investigation was over and everyone else had concluded that Starr was a sex-obsessed lunatic.  Guys like Roberts don't evolve -- they harden.  See Scalia and Thomas and Rehnquist.

    Don't want to be an American idiot -- Green Day

    by jsmdlawyer on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:08:08 PM PDT

    •  So? (none)
      He was the political deputy but his job was to push the policies of his boss. Why would you expect him to argue anything other than what he did, considering the official position of the Bush I and Reagan Administration. Are you suggesting that Bush I and Reagan were pro-life ONLY because of John Roberts, or that Roberts was the one who came up with the grand idea to say that Roe was bad law? Are you suggesting that the Bush Administration argued its position on Lee v. Weisman ONLY because John Roberts encouraged it to do so?
    •  He also clerked for Rehnquist. (none)
      If you want a clue about his judicial philosophy that may be a good place to look. He's a young version of William Rehnquist. Except he's a conservative catholic, so he's got some Scalia in him as well. And on top of all that he seems like a slick Republican party operative.

      Thats the impression I have at first blush. Maybe that will change during the hearing or as I read more. I hope it does because if my first impression is right, this guys going to be a terrible Supreme Court justice, at least from my perspective he will be. I believe the Supreme Court's job is to protect people's civil liberties though. Silly me.

      •  Note to Digdug (none)
        Since you can't be reached by email - I noticed that you gave me a 1 for a post you disagreed with - as apparently you have done for others.

        That is not the way we do things around here. 0 or 1 ratings are for those that are abusive, offensive and otherwise not part of civil discourse. We are allowed to disagree with each other.

        I am not troll or 1 rating you at the moment, not wanting to go against the rules the same way you have done, but I will be on the lookout in the future.

    •  looking for the libertarian reaction (none)
      based on what i can find on the guy - mostly from the dkosopedia and the PDF file kos linked to - he seems to be a hardcore conservative authoritarian.

      thanks for pointing out the solicitor general angle, as i wouldn't have known whether "doing the bidding of his bosses" was the situation or not.  of course, you might look at his choice of bosses, right?

      In private practice, Roberts has often represented corporations in suits against private  individuals or the government.  He represented Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky,  Inc., in its successful petition to the Supreme Court arguing that a worker with carpal  tunnel syndrome is not disabled such that she is entitled to accommodation at work under  the Americans with Disabilities Act...

      Roberts also served as the attorney for Fox Television, the network owned by  conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch, in its challenge of governmental regulations.   In Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Fox won its  challenge to the federal government's ownership and cross-ownership rules...

      so far it looks like he's a gung-ho corporatist, against the ADA and for greater media consolidation.

      he also appears to be against affirmative action and pro-segregation:

      As counsel for The Associated General Contractors of America, Roberts wrote an amicus  brief in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta, 32 arguing in a challenge to an affirmative  action program for Department of Transportation contractors... In another case, however, Roberts was successful in challenging a minority preference  program.  He again wrote an amicus brief for Associated General Contractors of  America, who took the side of a contractor challenging the Department of Defense's  program granting bid preferences to small, minority-owned businesses...


      Roberts co-authored two briefs on the government's behalf arguing for court supervision  to be lifted in school desegregation cases.  In a 1990 case, the amicus brief co-authored  by Roberts in his capacity as Deputy Solicitor General sought to weaken the standard and  limit the timeline for court-enforced desegregation decrees in the nation's schools.  

      As Special Assistant to Attorney General Smith in the Justice Department, and as counsel  in the Reagan White House, Roberts compiled a staunch record of hostility to civil rights...

      he was also working against the votings rights act, it seems.

      so far this might seem like a pretty decent record to the right-wing libertarians.  but it seems that he has also been involved in trying to emasculate the establishment clause and has argued that police should be allowed to search cars without a warrant during traffic stops.  he also seems to be pretty seriously anti-choice.

      here's another fun one:

      In his second [law school] article, Roberts took on the Contract Clause, which provides that, "No state  shall... pass any... law impairing the obligation of contracts."  Roberts argued that this  clause should be interpreted to protect corporations from legislation that might increase  their obligations to their workers, such as pension protection, and not, as Justice Brennan  had asserted, to protect individuals from decisions by states that nullified rights by  reneging on contracts.
      nice.

      from what i've seen so far he seems to be an extreme conservative ideologue in the grand racist, anti-choice, anti-environment and anti-worker tradition.  and he seems never to have met a bill of rights amendment he didn't hate.  so he seems to be the polar opposite of libertarian to boot.

      since i'm a liberal libertarian, this guy so far looks like the worst choice possible.  so i'll be curious to see how non-democrat libertarians react to him.  where's ben masel?

      we'd better decide now if we are going to be fearless men or scared boys.
      — e.d. nixon, montgomery improvement association

      by zeke L on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 03:44:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hey, I haven't forgotten about Osama, either! (none)
    What was that song? Could you dredge it up, please, Kos?

    The most powerful country in the world, and FOUR FUCKING YEARS LATER, we can't catch the man who orchestrated 9-11!?!

    It's been a great month Kos! Keep it up...

    If a Dem wants to be "good friends" with that hate-mongering liar, Sean Hannity, well, he deserves a primary. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DumpJoe/

    by DeanFan84 on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:09:01 PM PDT

  •  Ever notice? (none)
    Rove and Roberts differ only in the third letter of their names (looking at the first four)?  And the letters that are the same spell "Roe"?  Ever seen them together?  I didn't think so!

    George W. Bush -- It's mourning in America.

    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:09:02 PM PDT

  •  "Honest and forthcoming" (none)
    Well, yeah, that would be nice.  But how will we know whether he's being honest and forthcoming, since he has almost no judicial record?  The safest assumption, given the way the WH operates, is that he's been privately vetted and they are certain he'll be acceptable to the winger base, which of course makes him unacceptable to us.

    All of life is an unanswered question, but let's still believe in the dignity and importance of the questions. - Tennessee Williams

    by Leslie in CA on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:09:33 PM PDT

  •  So he's been a lawyer (none)
    for most of his life which might make Bush think he can get in no problem because he can just say I was an advocate and other BS. But there has got to come a time in his career as a lawyer when he's made enough money to say I dont need to represent anti-environment/anti-choice/big business/etc groups dont you think?

    http://www.independentjudiciary.com/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=5

  •  While we may care about law, propriety and (none)
    procedure, the winguts see only a goal with nobody guarding it.  They're going to slip one of their own into the net.  We're fucked.  America is fucked.

    TK-421, why aren't you at your post?

    by Magnus Greel on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:09:57 PM PDT

  •  has everybody seen (4.00)
    this Rove news--the possibility that he lied to the FBI?

    If this diary is correct, Rove is in really deep doo doo and that's why they are trying to bump him off the front page.

    I hope Fitzgerald holds the indictments until he gets the news cycle.

    Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:10:05 PM PDT

    •  He'll get the news cycle (none)
      don't worry on that score

      'Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it'. - GBS

      by stevej on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:45:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Imagine Chris Matthews saying: (none)
      "In a surprise twist Bush rushes to announce his nomination for Supreme Court Justice. Why the hurry? Is this to distract from the recent legal troubles besieging his top advisor, Karl Rove?  Is this politics as usual? That and we'll look at his nominee, John Roberts" record as a corporate defense lawyer on Hardball tonight."

      Yeah right, somehow I can only envision this type of headline if Kerry were president.  @@

  •  Please please please (4.00)
    Don't fail us again Democrats. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT ROLE OVER AND PLAY DEAD.

    If they vote for this guy, it may drive me from the party. I expect many other people may feel the same way.

    And in all honesty, Hillary voted in support of the Iraq mess.... if she votes in favor of an anti-choice, anti-environment, anti-labor Justice..... lets just say she won't be getting my vote next year.

    •  You know (none)
      I wasn't going to say anything else tonight but let me say thank you for expressing the way I feel
    •  Amthinking the same thing. (none)
      Only I'm wondering about Stabenow.

      "Free speech is not to be regulated like diseased cattle and impure butter." William O. Douglas.

      by Street Kid on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:13:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Think bigger (none)
        Only I'm wondering about Stabenow.

        Wonder about the entire craven lot of them. Some of the centrist strategists should read some history, find out what happens when people have nothing left to lose.

        "...the definition of a gaffe in Washington is somebody who tells the truth but shouldn't have." Howard Dean

        by colleen on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:23:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  it was never likely (3.33)
      that Bush would pick a SCOTUS nominee you would approve of. So you are saying that if any democrat doesn't filibuster any Bush nominee, you are leaving the party?

      Part of being in the minority is that you don't get to pick the nominee. I'll forgive your sentiments as the left just getting used to the nomination game now that a name is attached, but I don't think trying to erect a brick wall that can be bulldozed down necessarily serves our interests.

      My feelings about Roberts - does he have a republican agenda or is he simply a conservative? Getting that nailed down is all that is important and the few brief comments I heard on NPR (where they were gushing over him - go figure) was that he's likely a conservative, but not an agenda freak.

      The hearings and other research will reveal more but we've gotta pick our battles wisely.

      All extremists are irrational and should be exposed

      by SeanF on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:35:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  As a liberal (4.00)
        I will oppose any nominee that doesn't support the basic principles (yes, I think we still have some? maybe?) of the left.

        IF WE WON'T FIGHT NOW, WHEN WILL WE FIGHT?

        It is seriously now or never. If Hillary/Schumer fail to do the right thing again, I will work to elect someone else to office. And if the Democratic Party YET AGAIN fails to stand with principle, stand with honesty, and PROTECT THE PEOPLE WHO CALL THEMSELVES DEMOCRATS, then to hell with the party.

        25,000 Iraqi civilians and almost 1.8k American soldiers have died at least partly because the Democratic party didn't have enough of a spine to oppose a fabricated, immoral war. I will not stand as part of a party that fails to protect the values that I hold above all else.

        •  ok, i'm with you, but... (3.33)
          we solve these problems by winning in 2006 and 2008, not with this fight. Ultimately, we lost this fight on November 2nd. We need to hunker down and plan for real victory, not get all worked up over something that was never going to go our way anyway.

          All extremists are irrational and should be exposed

          by SeanF on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:57:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Win in 2006/2008? (4.00)
            How many elections do we have to lose in a row before we finally take a stand? We have lost the past lord-knows how many elections precisely because we have refused, again and again, to draw a line in the sand.

            I THOUGHT Reid was doing that with the SCOTUS. I seem to remember so many people suggesting that again and again, yet I'll bet money that half the Dems will vote for this guy.

            We have to give the people a reason to vote for us. Stand up and scream "WE PROTECT WOMEN'S RIGHTS" and maybe we'll get a better chunk of the female vote next time. And the male vote for that matter.

            This is becoming chronic for us Dems. Bush totally poops the bed with Iraq. What do we do? Shoot down Dean, and nominate someone who supported the war.

            We have to stand for something dammit.

          •  BS (none)
            Do you think the Republicans in the same position would just lay down.  Hell no!  And that is why they are the majority and we are the minority.  We need to take on stand on this.  No more wussy sh*t.  

            I understand there are times to pick fights and there are times no to.  This is a time to pick a fight, especially with the White House and Republicans on the defensive anyway.  Now is the time to up the ante.  

            •  if memory serves (none)
              the repubs allowed Clinton nominees on the Supreme Court, and it didn't do their slash and burn strategy any harm.

              Unless you've got a plan to turn this into a means to bringing down the Bush administration, this is senseless. I'd say get this out of the way and let's  get back to framing Rovegate in a way that will do some real damage.

              All extremists are irrational and should be exposed

              by SeanF on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 05:41:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Your memory is self-serving (none)
                since no, the Repugs did not do so.  Hundreds of Clinton nominations languished in committee for years and never got to the floor.

                "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

                by Cream City on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 06:02:16 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  It's true (4.00)
        This is really, why for one reason, the president is really lasting in a long term way.  When Bush is gone from office, the first days of a new administration could potentially undo about 50% of what Bush has done.  That's the whole point.  It's a time of drastic internal change.  The largest portion of the government - the executive - gets anything from a few token changes to a complete working over.  

        All Bush's policies on the executive level can be reversed, and the damage undone.  And new policies that counteract and countermand laws passed by Congress can be put in place (think Bush's aggression against the EPA; all done through policy, not law).

        But Bush won.  Maybe he cheated, maybe he lied.  He won, and the other guys, they continue to win.  The 2004 election was, on a federal level, an unmitigated disaster for Democrats.  The 2002 election was, on a federal level, an unmitigated disaster for Democrats.  However you spin, it's the Republicans time to govern.  Roberts will very likely be confirmed, and probably by 20 vote or more margin.  He is sound technically, competent, and not outwardly biased or agenda oriented.  He was approved 99-0 for a very high appointment that other less conservative judges have been blocked from.

        Roberts is as conservative as Ginsberg is liberal.  She was approved 97-3 in a Senate who was openely hostile to Clinton.

        Sorry, but there isn't going to be much ground to oppose him and appear to be principled.   And an unprincipled stand can only hurt later.  What happens if Ginsberg has a stroke and has to be replaced in two weeks?  What happens if John Paul Stevens drops dead next year?  He's 85 already!  Will he make it to 88?  An unprincipled stand now could doom the effort later to appoint an even moderately balanced judge to what is a "liberal seat".

        •  Do you seriously think (none)
          that the repubs will ever again let anyone remotely "liberal" reach the SCOTUS? We won't have a new liberal on the court until we have 60 Dems in the Senate (cripes, maybe 65, if Joementum and Joe Credit Biden are still around).

          Did the Repubs come into power by being quiet, nice and agreeable?

          I don't think we'll regain power by letting them continue to mess up our country (and the world) without any real opposition.

          •  wrong (none)
            Did the Repubs come into power by being quiet, nice and agreeable?
            They certainly know when to pick their battles.  They knew that with a democrat in the White House they would not get any candidate for the SCOTUS they liked, so they wasted not their efforts on attempting to derail Ginsberg or Breyer, both of whom were confirmed with little hassle (97-3, 87-9) even though they were on the opposite side of the issue of most Senators at the times of their appointment.

            Roberts is going probably going to pass, regardless of what protests are put up.  Why?  He's qualified and ernest and respected - and it's all deserved.  

            Yeah, he probably doesn't have a lot in terms of politics with you, but so what?

  •  Plenty of time to wait and see on Roberts... (4.00)
    Back to Rovegate tommorrow.
    •  Are you suggesting... (none)
      That the Democrats should insist that the Whitehouse staff first fully cooperate and assist Fitzgerald's investigation in running its course prior to any hearings on any nominees?  Would that motivate quick and full disclosure?  And if the nuclear option were invoked, how would it look then?
  •  Souter wasn't in the Federalist Society (none)
    was he?

    I really doubt they would choose anything but a conservative hard liner.  But apparently a very charming one, which is why Scalia seems the most appropriate analogy.

    "We can win elections only by standing up for what we believe." --Howard Dean

    by Jim in Chicago on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:10:09 PM PDT

    •  I dont know (none)
      But, from my visits to the right wing sites, they got assurances from Repyublicans that both Kennedy and Souter were strong conservatives, strict constructionists, whatever the hell they call it. And look what happened. Will that happen with Roberts, I dont know. But I'm just saying.

      I'm not a big Greenspan fan. I voted against him two times. I think he's one of the biggest political hacks we have in Washington -Harry Reid

      by jj32 on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:32:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Roberts is a good choice (4.00)
    No one know how this guy will vote in the future, but there's no doubt that he's brilliant and a very capable lawyer. We will not learn much in the hearings. Roberts will say all the right things. Basically, Dems should keep an open mind, but my gut tells me this isn't the right fight.

    As for Rove, he won't get much of a reprieve. Because Roberts is not very controversial, the news cycle here will not be very long. The war and Rove will be back in the news soon.

    We should also remember that Bush could have picked an extremist like Janice Rogers Brown or Garza. He actually made a solid choice.

    Gerardo Orlando www.orlandoreport.com

    by orlandoreport on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:10:26 PM PDT

    •  I tend to agree (none)
      based on the initial analysis of Roberts. Here's another thought. Bush has been damaged lately and is even taking on water (as in gate(s) being used) so perhaps they did not feel comfortable nominating someone who would definitely spark a big fight. We'll see but this may well allow attention to shift back to Karl.

      We need a good left hook. We need Howard Dean.

      by philinmaine on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:21:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Chris Bowers sure is spoiling for a fight (none)

      "We can win elections only by standing up for what we believe." --Howard Dean

      by Jim in Chicago on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:30:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  good point (none)
      SCOTUS nominees demand us to be more principled than partisan. And he might not be that bad of a guy anyway. If someone is smart, humble, respects the institutions he serves, and isn't there just to implement an agenda, you can't clamour too much along partisan lines.

      But time will tell...

      All extremists are irrational and should be exposed

      by SeanF on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:37:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So what's in it for Rove? (none)
      I can't understand why the Rovians didn't pick someone more controversial. It's obvious that the timing is to distract from Rove's crimes, but they must have known that a (relatively) uncontroversial pick won't distract people for long. So either:

      1. It's a double-bluff: They think Senate Democrats will confirm him quickly because it'll get the focus back on Rove.

      2. They've got another distraction planned after the Supreme Court fight dies down. (Perhaps Rehnquest will resign, or they'll invade Iran. Hersh warned us that was scheduled for summer.)

      3. They're running out of time. Rove, Libby and perhaps even Bush know that the Plame affair could force them to resign at any time, so they're trying to get a nominee through while they still can.
    •  I agree that we have to choose our battles (none)
      Sometimes you do have to choose the battles in order
      to win the war.

      I have a strong feeling that there will be a far
      more conservative offering coming in the next
      nomination. We will almost certainly like the next
      one far less than this. YOu can very well bet
      that within the next three years there will be
      another opening on the supreme court.

      If the Democrats continue to give the impressions
      that we oppose everything offered up by Creepy
      Eyed busnik or the repugs, we lose all
      credibility. that makes it hard to win any battles
       and especially so in the publics eyes.  Remember
      that we still need the public including some who
      voted repug this time to be with us in the
      upcoming elections.

      After all as long as the country stays completely
      polarized as it is and has been since Bushnik
      walked into the oval office, we can not hope to
      win back anything let alone the White House.

      Even though anyone with any sense would be
      opposed to almost anything the repugs put up in
      this climate, being seen as against everything
      and every one they offer will only be seen as
      completely partisian and will not do us any good.

      Popeye

      A Nation that blindly follows, will soon discover they no longer have a Nation. :)Popeye

      by eaglecries on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 03:33:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No, he's not (none)
      or Scarborough -- who opened his show saying that Roberts said Roe must go -- and Fox would not be so happy about this.  Roberts IS an extremist.

      Fortunately for women, I think that African American organizations, at least, will do the right thing -- since the guy's anti-desegregation and anti-affirmative action history will hurt him, too.

      "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

      by Cream City on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 06:05:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  How dare Bush nominate neither a Latino or woman! (none)
    How's that for a frame?

    If Bush is impeached then Kerry's loss will have been worth it!

    by NYFM on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:10:54 PM PDT

    •  I must admit I was surprised (none)
      I was SURE it was going to be a woman, so the republicans could use "Democrats HATE women!" or a minority, so they could use "Democrats HATE minorities!" Heck, maybe they'll keep the frame and just make it "Democrats HATE white males!"
    •  I agree (none)
      First thing I thought when I heard his name was, "He didnt listen to his wife!" Not that I thought he would. He might get a woman for Rehnquist, but still, there was something appropriate about nominating a woman to replace a woman.

      I'm not a big Greenspan fan. I voted against him two times. I think he's one of the biggest political hacks we have in Washington -Harry Reid

      by jj32 on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:38:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  from my perspective (none)
    This nomination could be a good thing, given we were going to be stuck with a conservative anyway.

    My guess is that there are some moderate GOP women who are disappointed that the President didn't nominate a female; our 50-50 male/female country will have a 8-1 supreme court representing it.

    So, in my mind, this makes Senator Clinton a bit more of an attractive candidate for president.

    •  Dear Lord, using SCOTUS to pimp Hillary? (3.00)
      who has virtually no chance to win anyway?

      Stay on target, keep your eye on the prize, as in keeping Roe v. Wade intact and making us look like winners/mainstream.

       

      •  The GOP (none)
        will overreach, they will turn off America if they try to instigate an attack on women in this country. Let's keep in mind that polls consistently show that a majority of Americans support Roe v Wade. So for them, this will be an uphill fight, and one they are very likely to lose.

        We have lots of ammo rightnow, we should not squirrel it away in a useless fight by becoming the Single Issue Party.

        •  I agree (none)
          Just see how the elections work out for them if Roe v. Wade is overturned. It won't be forgotten.
          •  The GOoPers (none)
            are too smart to let Roe just fall dramatically. First, the Supreme Court votes aren't there to totally overturn it. But even if they have the opportunity to replace Stevens, my guess is that Bush goes with someone who would chip away at and basically neuter Roe, but let it stand. This would satisfy the base for a while (you're basically buying time until they snap and want birth control banned) and doesn't alienate the mainstream. Although most people like Roe, they also want regulations on abortion. How far this could go before a backlash could happen is anybody's guess. This is a much more dangerous situation than Roe simply falling, which would probably lead to a political apocolypse.
            •  I think you're right (none)
              They're trying to bring RvW down with a wimper, not a scream.

              We always have had some form of reproductive restrictions in legislation, such as laws against incest. These are common to all cultures and probably most, if not all of them, are just fine with everyone here.

              The next big thing here, though, is the real potential for reproductive slavery. Every time these wingnuts have made an antiabortion law, they often leave out rape and incest exceptions. That had the effect of legalizing an illegal conception.

        •  Roe v Wade with restrictions (none)
          Remember, most polls show that although most Americans support abortion, they don't support it unconditionally...teens without parental consent (no), late term (no), government funding (no).

          George W. Bush - Often wrong, but never in doubt!

          by auapplemac on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 05:10:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  well... (none)
        <quote>Dear Lord, using SCOTUS to pimp Hillary?</quote> Uh, no; the President didn't ask me for my input. :-) <quote> who has virtually no chance to win anyway? </quote> I don't agree; but that is an issue for another subsection. <quote> Stay on target, keep your eye on the prize, as in keeping Roe v. Wade intact</quote> Well, just how is that going to happen so long as we have this administration in power and a 55-45 split in the Senate? Stick a fork in Roe v. Wade; the only solice here is that we might start doing better at the state legislature level and that the GOP might start fielding more pro-choice candidates at the state level. I agree with others that we should keep the heat on Rove and the DSM issues; even if we probably won't get Rove sacked.
    •  All this Hillary SHIT today - WTF? (none)
      Dang

      Don't you understand the term Clintonista?

      Hillary is a far from DailyKOS friendly candidate as anyone could get.

  •  A voice of reason (4.00)
    Thanks for your calm, reasoned post.  
  •  amen kos! (none)
    you got it exactly right.  i just hope reid has the cajones to fight if we need to.
  •  freep this poll (none)
    Will Roberts make a good S.Ct. Justice?

    Three choices: yes, no, I want to know more about him.

    Right now:
       47% yes
       27% no
       26% need to know more.

    I voted need to know more, even though I have learned quite a bit about him in the last two hours.

    click here to freep

    Keep on the lookout for other polls!

    Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:13:48 PM PDT

  •  Roberts: Eating French Fries is a Crime (4.00)
    You've got to be kidding:

    On the D.C. Circuit, Roberts voted with two colleagues to uphold the arrest and detention of a 12-year-old girl for eating french fries on a Metro train, though his opinion noted, "No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation." In another case, Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion that suggested Congress might lack the constitutional power to regulate the treatment of a certain species of wildlife.

    So, I take it that the Bush Administration believes that leaking the name of a CIA agent is no big deal, but a child eating french fries on the Metro, now that's a problem.

  •  I hope someone's keeping track of possible (none)
    questions for Roberts.  On the subject of partisanship, here's one:

    Mr. Roberts, you worked as Deputy Solicitor General under Kenneth Starr and knew the man.
    Did you support Kenneth Starr's Whitewater investigation?

    Which results do you find were most worthy of that expenditure of time and money?

    That's just for starters.

    The rhetoric of the right wing is being fixed around the policy of disinformation.

    by MoronMike on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:14:47 PM PDT

    •  You're right on. (none)
      We've got to keep finding these questions, and more importantly, suggesting them to our senators.

      "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model which makes the existing model obsolete."-Buckminster Fuller

      by georg on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 03:10:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This doesn't buy much time (none)
    as a short-term distraction. Sure, it dominated the news today, and probably will do the same thing through tomorrow. Maybe Thursday. Certainly the Sunday blabfests will focus on the nomination. Unless something newsworthy surfaces on Judge Roberts, media coverage on him will quickly hibernate until the confirmation hearings actually start.

    But there's no way that the Senate is going to start hearings on this until after the August recess. The administration has played one of its main trump cards, and at best it will win a week's reprieve from the media coverage of Rove/Plame/Wilson/Treason-gate.

    -dms

    •  I'm not saying the Dems should lay down (none)
      on this nomination just yet, just that, if we do, it takes the starch out of any "distract them from Rove" strategy the thugs might have been hoping for.  In any event, the thing that fuels things like Rove-gate is a steady drip drip drip of news (perfect for a leak case, dare I say it), which shows no particular sign of abating so far, so Rove may be back front and center soon enough.
  •  Rove puppet theater (none)
      No surprise here, Rove didn't go to last night's fancy WH party, but Clarence Thomas did.  I took that as a signal he was up to something.  His picture is on the cover of Time and Newsweek. Hardball was going to do Rove Rage all this week.  Guess what?  They didn't do the segment on Fitzgerald they were supposed to tonight.  It was all SCOTUS frenzy all day long. Rove can't afford to alienate the base now.  Bush will go to Crawford for August.  Probably the terrorist cells in Europe will do who knows what after Aug. 15th.  We have the DSM to keep hammering.  Fitzgerald has his work to do.  The senate has their work to do.  No telling what Rove and Libby will be doing.  Can't let them control what we focus on and wouldn't it be sweet if Hackett won?

    Winning without Delay.

    by ljm on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:15:39 PM PDT

  •  Don't you all get it? (4.00)
    This isn't some simple election. We can't just wait 2 or 4 years and try again. This is a nomination to the SCOTUS! We are talking about decades of damage to our country.

    IF we support a woman's right to choose, we MUST oppose this.

    Have you not learned that there is no such thing as compromise? In today's politics, you either COMPLETELY WIN, or COMPLETELY LOSE. And anyone on the left, who supports women's rights, environmental rights, labor rights, MUST OPPOSE THIS IN ANY WAY POSSIBLE.

    Or have we lost already? Alot of the above posts sure make me feel as if we have.

    •  we've probably already lost (none)
       but I'm with you man.  This is 30 years.  The guy is 50... very young....

      30 years of decisions.....

      •  yeah, you can't win by losing (none)
        and we've probably already lost this one in 2004.

        But an electorate is shaped by the iron heel of the oppressor.

        Try recalling your Republican rep and see how it goes. The fact that base treason doesn't warrant more impeachment talk in Congress is a good enough reason right there.

      •  30 Years?? Try (none)
        40 easy, if medicine never makes another discovery.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:51:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Let's adopt a success strategy (4.00)
      What kos outlines is a way to win.

      How we fight is critical here.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:44:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We Lost That Specific Fight Last Year (none)
      You're exactly right about the implications, and for some reason I'm the only one who looks at medical science evolving over the coming two generations and pointing out that his term could be decades longer than anyone to date.

      There's just no way to stop the admin now. If Roberts is their drop-dead favorite, they'll simply go nuclear and cut off debate.

      The other problem with fillibustering Roberts is to know what choices would be offered later. This is the moment the Republicans have been working for for 40 years. Every tactic available to us can be easily beaten by them. We don't even have an enemy empire to scare them into cooperation.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:46:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wow (none)
        That's the thing... I guess we already have lost. Thank you to the moderate 7 for selling out our only way to fight this b.s.

        Historical context people... some of you must see what is going on with our country right now. We might as well go down screaming, I mean forchristsake, what good does rolling over and playing dead do if your party is dead already.

        •  Unless something comes out... (none)
          We don't have the numbers here.  That's the point.  If we had 3-4 more Dems in the Senate it might be a different story.  I don't see 4-5 Pubs voting against this guy.  

          As of now, there's not enough dirt to fillibuster either, and even if we did have the numbers, the Republicans would sound justified doing the nuclear option.

          •  To me (4.00)
            that is no excuse not to fight this. Failure be damned, we have a moral obligation to fight.
          •  Yes, so don't roll over in case something (none)
            comes out.

            I remember all those here who said roll over on Bolton, we don't have the votes, let it go. . . .

            Gimme Barbara Boxer any day to the rollovers, the ones incapable of multitasking and keeping more items on the agenda (media studies say we can handle 7 to 10 issues at a time, for pity's sake), the ones who want to Neville Chamberlain this fight. . . .

            "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

            by Cream City on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 06:11:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  yeh, we get it (none)
      We also get that the Democrats are outnumbered by the Republicans in Congress. That means we have to think strategically. That means we can't just let our heads explode -- because that's exactly what BushCo wants.

      If you make going ape shit over this nomination a test of loyalty to women's rights, you are limiting the strategic moves the Democrats can make. The best shot at blocking this nomination, involves focussing on issues that will weaken the support Bush has from his base and break the grip BushCo has on most of the Republicans in Congress. If we can do that before Roberts comes up for a confirmation vote, we might actually be able to block this.

      If the Democrats use their time in the spotlight to talk about a woman's right to choose, that is going to fire up the Bush base and do nothing to gain additional support from Republicans in the Senate. The way to demoralize the Bush base is to force them to confront the moral abyss of the Plame outing. The way to forge new alliances in Congress is to make Republicans who care about the future of our country confront how the Bush administration is weakening our intelligence functions, straining our military, and draining our treasury.

      This is not a sneaky plot to throw women overboard. It's politics. It's strategy. Sometimes the best path for reaching a goal requires you to temporarily move away from that goal. The ability to do this is what separates humans and a few other intelligent animals from sheep and flatworms.

      I used to live in the United States of America. Now I live in a homeland.

      by homeland observer on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:59:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Get a supermajority and impeach the bum then... (none)
      Besides, Presidents have tried to pack the court for years... it DOESN'T WORK.
    •  The democratic party (none)
      is mocked for standing in a circle and shooting each other.  Now, I understand that this is because we argue and think, and we aren't very good at regurgitation of talking points memos.  But, until hearings begin, we can't go off on this guy.  It discredits our arguments and makes us appear as 'moonbats' who will oppose anything the president does.  Well, he's the president, and he gets to pick the supreme court nominees.  There's nothing that can be done about it, lest the senate starts rewriting the constitution.  And none of us want that.  When the hearings begin, then we can rant if we need to, but if these justices hang on another three years, and then leave en masse, I sure as shit don't want the Republicans to cut down every pro-environment (which is the issue of the future, period) nominee we present.  We can't go off our rockers here.

      "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model which makes the existing model obsolete."-Buckminster Fuller

      by georg on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 03:17:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Pro-Choice Republicans (4.00)
    I hope that groups like NARAL draw a line in the sand for Chafee, Snowe, Collins and the like and say in no uncertain terms - if you vote for this man, you will not get our endorsement.  If you think you already have it, we can take it back.  
  •  Agreed (4.00)
    that partly it's a diversion for the media. But there's another angle that's a possibility too. Thom Hartmann said that maybe Rhenquist is just holding on until after O'Conner's replacement is in place. That will keep her out of the debate over who gets the big seat. Also, I agree with what he says about the "fascist play."

    Pennsylvania just passed a law that was swiftly signed by the governor the same day that allows the municipalities to be trumped by the state when the state sees fit. Those folks don't want factory farms and sludge in their back yards and were making some headway in (I kid you not) denying corporations individual rights. So without public hearings on the issue, quietly and swiftly the legislature and Grendell (sorry but I'd take Casey any day over this bloke) brought the hammer down. We can't have any of that now...

    Hartmann's article: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0705-31.htm

    "If you don't know where you are going, you might not get there." --Yogi Berra

    by vlogger on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:16:14 PM PDT

  •  Check him out (none)
    This is a stealth appointment unless the Dems are really tough in the hearings.  The bad news for Rove, right now this is a non-controversial nominee right now.  Rove will be back on the front page in a day or two.
  •  Bush may be overreaching (none)
    I think there's a good chance that Bush has blundered with this choice. The choice, and the timing, present some major political vulnerabilities.

    More at this shamelessly plugged diary.

    Yes, liberals are elitist. They believe everyone should be able to join the elite.

    by Compassionate Conservationist on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:17:06 PM PDT

    •  The fact that Bush had the balls... (4.00)
      to nominate a hard right, white male in the first place.... makes me disagree. This is DKos, the heart of the online democratic base, and half the people on here are ready to roll over and play dead. We are really, really, really screwed.
      •  Oh my God I was thinking the same thing (none)
        Twilight zone...freaky
      •  Balls or bluster? (none)
        The man always has that Texas swagger. It could be because of his marvelous, ongoing leadership. Or it could be that he's simply punch-drunk.

        Even if the situation urgently called for compromise -- and it very well might -- he'd probably do just what he did. He simply doesn't know how to compromise. That quality used to be a strength. I argue that it's going to become his major weakness.

        Yes, liberals are elitist. They believe everyone should be able to join the elite.

        by Compassionate Conservationist on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:31:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Play dead? (none)
        I don't think so. When you're in the minority, you have to be agile and concentrate your available firepower where it will do the most damage (Turdboy, Iraq, DeLay). Now is not the time for Pickett's Charge redux.

        Rightnow, Rove and the WH are looking quite shitty in the eyes of many Americans. We have a number of issues we can gash them on. Turdblossom will be front and center in another day or so, every day this happens, the closer we get indictments from Fitzgerald, the more we bloody the Goopers.

        I'm going to trust Reid and Dean on this one.

        •  You really think so? (none)
          I'll be amazed if Turdy doesn't walk. Crimes don't mean very much when you control the entire system.... we're living in a matrix here people, lol....
        •  And by the way (none)
          as a Dean supporter, I wonder what makes you think Dean will lay down over this. Did I miss an email or something? I thought our man from Vermont was a fighter.
        •  I agree, (none)
          and if we can prove the gross negligence of the administration while the senators are all at home visiting with their constituents, they'll vote him down anyway.  Keep our eyes on the prize; the current administration is unfit to govern.

          "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model which makes the existing model obsolete."-Buckminster Fuller

          by georg on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 03:21:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Mountain Top Removal: A-Ok by Roberts! (4.00)
    awwwwww come on...

    The Guy's a monster.  Read the Wikipedia and weep:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts

    Abortion

    In a brief before the Supreme Court (Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, (1991)), Roberts wrote:

        "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. As more fully explained in our briefs, filed as amicus curiæ, in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 110 S. Ct. 2926 (1990); Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 109 S. Ct. 3040 (1989); Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986); and City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983), the Court's conclusions in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."

    It is likely that Roberts's own opinion on abortion and birth control will be questioned during his confirmation hearings before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
    [edit]

    Enviromental regulation

    Roberts has often, both in his public and private work, taken a position against government environmental regulation. Roberts argued against the private citizen's right to sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations in Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation.

    Roberts has also argued on behalf of the National Mining Association in support of the legality of mountaintop removal, in the case Bragg v. West Virginia Coal Association.

    •  hardcore authoritarian to boot (none)
      he also seems to have argued against the fourth amendment, the eighth amendment and the first amendment; not to mention the establishment clause, and the government's use of the contracts clause and commerce clauses to safeguard workers' rights.

      i would expect the real libertarians (i.e. the ones who aren't just republicans in drag) to be vehemently opposed to this guy as well.

      we'd better decide now if we are going to be fearless men or scared boys.
      — e.d. nixon, montgomery improvement association

      by zeke L on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 03:59:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This guy doesn't look "Bork-able" to me (4.00)
    but that doesn't mean Senate Dems can't tar him with the burgeoning problems BushCo is having with a majority of Americans:

    1. Roe is gonna be on the chopping block with Roberts. MAKE SURE Americans know this! Harp on Bush's attack on privacy at every turn.

    2. Roberts uber-conservative postions are out of the mainstream. MAKE SURE Americans know this! BushCo DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT about regular Americans, and this nomination proves it yet again.

    3. Bush's corporate cronies are cheering tonight knowing they're getting one of their own on the court. MAKE SURE Americans know this! Let them expect more public-be-damned decisions supporting rampant corporate destruction of communities, our environment, and our health.

    This is a moment when an aggressive opposition party can dig a bigger hole for Republicans. We're not going to stop this nomination, but we can make it incredibly unattractive, and rope Roberts good and tight to the theo-fascist Ruthugs up for election in 06.
  •  No scales or horns (none)
    Roberts is going to be hard to defeat.  Little judicial record, advocacy record as an attorney that tells us who he worked for and what they wanted, but not much else, apparently a good legal mind.

    I don't see the votes to sustain a filibuster, and probably there are enough Dem votes for him to approve him.  

    He won't speak to his beliefs, regardless of the questions - no one will speak thusly who is proposed by Bush.

    If I were a senator, I'd vote against him, but wouldn't let this nomination dominate my time since the outcome seems clear for approval.

    I regret another strict conservative on the court, but that is inevitable.  He doesn't seem to have wingnut scales and horns.

    We need to focus on gaining ground in the House and Senate, and last-ditch opposition to him doesn't seem like the way to get there.

    I hope we don't let this nomination drive out PlameGate, WMD lies, and Iraq from the news.  Those are a big part of the way to gains in Congress, not Roberts.

    "pay any price, bear any burden"

    by JimPortlandOR on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:18:38 PM PDT

    •  Little record (none)
      But what record there is, in every case, is not one I agree with.
      •  Agreed (none)
        but it's their nominee.  The ball is in their court.

        "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model which makes the existing model obsolete."-Buckminster Fuller

        by georg on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 03:24:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Right and one other issue is next elections (none)
      Yes there are other things that we could lose by
      putting up a heroic but losing battle here over this.

      While it sounds like being ultra loyal to our party
      to demand that we fight to the end over this, it can
      also bite us in the ass if we do so.

      We do not need any more of a label as against
      every thing without concrete reasons that the
      majority of people will buy. I do not see that
      possibility in this case.

      we would do better to focus on the weakness that
      they have offered up and work on those in the best
      way to accomplish our goals without being seen as
      completely partisian.

      Remember that while another ultra conservative is
      the last thing any of us want to see on the court,
      if we oppose this one through to the bitter end it  
      leaves us much less ability to defeat the next one
       which in all likelyhood will be far wose for us.  

      Lets focus on the things we have our teeth into
      and dig in to gain some seats in both houses in
      2006.

      those are after all our only real hope here.

      Popeye

      A Nation that blindly follows, will soon discover they no longer have a Nation. :)Popeye

      by eaglecries on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:04:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  They picked one that will be difficult to hold up (none)
    That's what they want in this nominee (along with the short-term Rove distraction).  He's conservative & his ultimate confirmation in '03 went through without a peep from the Democratic side.

    From the AP article tonight:

    Roberts' nomination to the appellate court attracted support from both sides of the ideological spectrum. Some 126 members of the District of Columbia Bar, including officials of the Clinton administration, signed a letter urging his confirmation. The letter said Roberts was one of the "very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation" and that his reputation as a "brilliant writer and oral advocate" was well deserved.

    So now the GOP can say: "Hey, the opposition didn't have a problem with him in '03.  Why all the fuss now?"

    His closeness to Rehnquist is creepy.  But all we can do is hope that the SC has a moderating affect on him.  But by choosing someone under the radar, and not a current administration member or recently controversial judicial appointment, Bush hopes that most folks will shrug their shoulders & say, "Hey, he ain't so bad."

    Maybe this is their "moderate" choice & they'll go completely nuts & put Santorum on the bench when Rehnquist goes in the next 3 years.  Yikes.

    Red State Liberal

    by ajc on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:19:08 PM PDT

  •  I bet Bush doesn't get much sleep to night (none)
    man was he geeked. He was a jaw waggin' fool. Its too bad there were no questions. At the first mention of Rove, he would have flipped his lid.
  •  Rove-gate was a distraction? (none)
    I hear Kos on this. It sure seems like the timing is extra convenient for Rove.

    But what if the Rove thing is all BS? Remember the Dan Rather memos? He's fainted death before. We already know he's not even the one being investigated. What's the worst that could come out of the Fitzgerald investigation? Given the fact that House will remain Republican until at least 2008, there's no chance for impeachment or anything like that.

    Let's not forget that the Rove issue itself could be a distraction away from what we were talking about right before it. That's right: Tom Delay. Anybody remember him? Or the fact that polls showed he could lose his own district over the ethics scandals?

    What if Rove is the decoy and the real issue is sneaking an anti-abortion judge into the SC?

    The way I see it, we can't afford to drop either one of these important issues.

    Political violence is a perfectly legitimate answer to the persecution handed down by dignitaries of the state. - Riven Turnbull

    by Florida Democrat on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:19:42 PM PDT

    •  I don't think so (none)
      because rovegate hasn't really distracted us from the SC, has it? After all, we're talking about it now.
      If bush needed a distratcion, since they control both congress and the WH and fox news, I'm sure they could whip something else up.
      •  I'm not so sure... (none)
        We're basically giving him Roberts because we want to push the Rove thing. Dispite the fact that he's extremely conservative, anti-abortion and pro-large corporations, anti-environment, I haven't heard a single deal-breaker from anyone on the "left" yet.

        One year ago, a guy like Roberts would've been a "non starter."

        Would this be such a "done deal" without Rove going on in the background?

        Political violence is a perfectly legitimate answer to the persecution handed down by dignitaries of the state. - Riven Turnbull

        by Florida Democrat on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:29:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We're not giving him jack... (none)
          The position is we wait and see what happens.

          It's not like the confirmation vote is going to come on Friday.  We've got a couple months for this to play out, maybe more.

          •  Amen, (none)
            and what if it isn't really Rove-gate but Cheney-gate?

            "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model which makes the existing model obsolete."-Buckminster Fuller

            by georg on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 03:27:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Rove gate already hurts Bush & Rove (none)
      Everyday Bush and Scott McClellen are on tv caught in lies. It has exposed the big lie Bush is a straight shooter to even the reality challenged.
  •  Momentum on our side. (3.66)
    Shut down the senate.  Go nuclear.  

    Who did Rove betray today?

    How did the Iranians find out we can read their codes?

    Where did the 5 billion in cash Saddam had go away?

    When the government has nothing but lies and security gaps, it has lost the right to govern.

    Just shut it down now.

    GUARANTEE:: if they accept him, he is an unamerican disaster waiting to happen.

  •  I doubt he's another Souter. (4.00)
    It sounds like you're being hopeful more than anything. Souter was an outsider who nobody really knew anything. Roberts is an insider who is a member of the Federalist Society and who vehemently opposes Roe vs. Wade.

    He hates affirmative action as well and says that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to Bin Laden.

  •  The 'I <HEART> O'Connor' crap must end (4.00)

     


    It’s just as pathetic as it was two weeks ago:


    Pathetic Senate Democrats’ Embarrassing ‘We ♥ O’Connor’ Line

     

    Grok Your World

    grok: to understand something in a deep and empathic way

    by John Driscoll on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:21:09 PM PDT

  •  Jeff Greeflield of CNN is such a putz. (none)
    If this is the way CNN is going to be reporting on Roberts, people are going to be thinking, "Hey, it's not Bork, so it's okay."

    and shit like, Republicans won the election, so we get to decide on a guy who has 30 years to fuck up 50 years of progressive ideals.

    and "we don't know what John Roberts thinks."

    That's because Putz Greenfield hasn't done his homework.

    The rhetoric of the right wing is being fixed around the policy of disinformation.

    by MoronMike on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:22:20 PM PDT

  •  He has a little judicial history (4.00)
    WaPo: Court Rules Military Panels to Try Detainees:

    The appellate court swept aside the lower court's decision in what amounted to a general endorsement of a legal theory that the president has broad powers under the Constitution to decide how military detainees are to be handled during a time of conflict.

    "On the merits, there is little to Hamdan's argument" that the president's establishment of the commissions illegally tramples the prerogatives of Congress, the three-member panel said in a decision written by Judge A. Raymond Randolph and joined by Roberts and Senior Judge Stephen F. Williams.

    The panel said courts should defer to President Bush's decision in 2002 that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to detainees Bush declares as enemy combatants and that, in any event, the conventions are not enforceable by U.S. courts in lawsuits brought by foreigners.

    This guy has 25-30 years on the courts!

    "The purpose of representative government is to curb 'the excesses of the moneyed interest'."-- Thomas Jefferson

    by digital drano on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:22:34 PM PDT

  •  Roberts nomination (none)
    I wonder if we will get to hear Joe Biden declare this guy "The Real Deal", as he did with Roberto Gonzolez.

    The more I know the less I understand.

    by gartie on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:25:35 PM PDT

  •  Dems are doing great so far (4.00)
    seriously.  By not coming out throwing punches, the brew-ha-ha is delayed until the nomination hearings begin.

    When are those?

    So w/ out us fueling the fire, won't the story die (what new news will there be) until the hearings begin, and we can get back to Rove.

    This is total Harry Reid.  Let Bush punch himself out.  This is the biggest punch he's got right now, and the best thing, is to just let it go by now and deal with it when we have to.

    Don't show your cards, my stormin' mormon.

    Get up on your SoapBlox - The NEW blog framework

    by pacified on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:28:27 PM PDT

    •  Agree totally. (none)
      Let the repugs go on and on about how "mainstream" Roberts is, and about how all the D.C. lawyers love the guy, yadda yadda.

      The key will be how he answers questions at the confirmations hearings.  That's when the Dems have to pounce and confront him with his true record and stated opinions on an assortiment of issues.  

      And the first Democratic Senator who asks how he WILL vote in the future about something is going to get a nasty email from me.  The man has a record--Biden et al should use it.

      And now, back to business:  It was reported that Judith Miller has been complaining of rotting away in jail, but the jailer told her she already had a big head start.  

      The rhetoric of the right wing is being fixed around the policy of disinformation.

      by MoronMike on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:36:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I got this bio of Roberts on DU (none)
    "John Roberts

    Nominated to: Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

    Status of nomination: Confirmed 5/8/2003
    May 8, 2003: The Committee voted out Roberts 16-3.

    Alliance for Justice Resources:

    • Alliance for Justice to Senators Hatch and Leahy Re: Deborah Cook and John Roberts
    • Alliance For Justice Full Report on John Roberts

    • Born 1955, Buffalo, NY
    • B.A., 1976, summa cum laude & J.D., 1979, magna cum laude, Harvard University
    • 1979-80, Clerk for Judge Friendly, Second Circuit
    • 1980-81, Clerk, Associate Justice Rehnquist, Supreme Court
    • U.S. Department of Justice
    o 1981-81, Special Assistant to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith
    o 1989-93, Principal Deputy Solicitor General
    • 1982-86, White House Counsel's Office, Associate Counsel to the President
    • Hogan & Hartson, LLP, Washington, DC
    o 1986-89, Associate
    o 1993-present, Partner

    General Background. Mr. Roberts, a partner at the D.C. law firm Hogan & Hartson, has long-standing and deep connections to the Republican Party. He is a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association and worked as a political appointee in both the Reagan and Bush I administrations. President George H.W. Bush nominated Mr. Roberts to the D.C. Circuit, but he was considered by some on the Senate Judiciary Committee to be too extreme in his views, and his nomination lapsed. He was nominated by President George W. Bush to the same seat in May 2001.

    Reproductive Rights. s a Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. Roberts co-wrote a Supreme Court brief in Rust v. Sullivan,1 for the first Bush administration, which argued that the government could prohibit doctors in federally-funded family planning programs from discussing abortions with their patients. The brief not only argued that the regulations were constitutional, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, but it also made the broader argument that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided - an argument unnecessary to defend the regulation. The Supreme Court sided with the government on the narrower grounds that the regulation was constitutional.

    Environmental Issues. As a student, Mr. Roberts wrote two law review articles arguing for an expansive reading of the Contracts and Takings clauses of the Constitution, taking positions that would restrict Congress' ability to protect the environment. As a member of the Solicitor General's office, Mr. Roberts was the lead counsel for the United States in the Supreme Court case Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, in which the government argued that private citizens could not sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations.

    As a lawyer in private practice, Mr. Roberts has also represented large corporate interests opposing environmental controls. He submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the National Mining Association in the recent case Bragg v. West Virginia Coal Association. 3 In this case, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit reversed a district court ruling that had stopped the practice of "mountaintop removal" in the state of West Virginia. Citizens of West Virginia who were adversely affected by the practice had sued the state, claiming damage to both their homes and the surrounding area generally. Three Republican appointees - Judges Niemeyer, Luttig, and Williams - held that West Virginia's issuance of permits to mining companies to extract coal by blasting the tops off of mountains and depositing the debris in nearby valleys and streams did not violate the 1977 Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.4 This decision was greeted with great dismay by environmental groups. In another case, Roberts represented one of several intervenors in a case challenging the EPAÂ's promulgation of rules to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions.5

    Civil Rights. After a Supreme Court decision effectively nullified certain sections of the Voting Rights Act, Roberts was involved in the Reagan administration's effort to prevent Congress from overturning the Supreme Court's action.6 The Supreme Court had recently decided that certain sections of the Voting Rights Act could only be violated by intentional discrimination and not by laws that had a discriminatory effect, despite a lack of textual basis for this interpretation in the statute. Roberts was part of the effort to legitimize that decision and to stop Congress from overturning it.

    Religion in Schools. While working with the Solicitor General's office, Mr. Roberts co-wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the Bush administration, in which he argued that public high schools can include religious ceremonies in their graduation programs, a view the Supreme Court rejected.7

    Pro Bono. Mr. Roberts has engaged in significant pro bono work while at Hogan and Hartson, including representation of indigent clients and criminal defendants.

    Other Information. Mr. Roberts is a member of two prominent, right-wing legal groups that promote a pro-corporate, anti-regulatory agenda: the Federalist Society and the National Legal Center For The Public Interest, serving on the latter group's Legal Advisory Council.

    Mr. Roberts lists his net worth as over $3.7 million.

    1 500 U.S. 173 (1991).
    2 497 U.S. 871 (1990).
    3 248 F.3d 275 (4th Cir. 2001).
    4 30 U.S.C. §1201.
    5 State of Michigan v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 254 F.3d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
    6 See City of Mobile v. Bolden 446 U.S. 55 (1980).
    7 Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992).

    The following organizations have taken an official position on this nominee:

    Organization Position
    Alliance for Justice Opposes."

    Bye bye, Roe and Wade. Nice knowing you.

    Priscilla Owens, you've got company, since this man loves big business about as much as you.

    I think, #1, that it's laughable that this guy is being nominated for the highest court in the land when he's likely never even worn a black robe in his life and, #2 after Bush paid us lip service by saying that he'd "consulted" with about 60 senators (I wouldn't be surprised to hear later that 55 of them were the GOP senators). Then, out of the blue, probably desperate for a distraction from BlossomGate, nominated the most completely unqualified assclown so the GOP can rail against the Dems for not playing ball.

    JP
    http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com

    Defending bad taste and liberalism since 2005.

    by jurassicpork on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:31:12 PM PDT

  •  Federalist Society Member (none)
    ick! Sigh......that means it is all about states rights??? Borq is a federalist, Ashcroft is a federalist.

    Well there will likely be another Supreme Court Vacancy soon!

    inspire change...don't back down

    by missliberties on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:32:37 PM PDT

    •  States Rights is the Smoke (none)
      States rights is the smoke screen the federalists stand behind.  This GOP, led in large part by federalist society lawyers have systematically striped power from the states by defunding, medicare and education, forcing them to shift greater burdens for essential services onto state and municipal tax roles, thus weakening the ability of the states to act in dissent to the federal line, ie: no child left behind and funding abortions for indigents.

      These decisions force states to pull back funds from municipalities to fund statewide programs as in Pataki's mandate to confiscate a percentage of upstate county property taxes to fund downstate services and medical expenditure offsets.  This makes them more dependent on federal block grants disbursed to counties for essential services.

      Direct to agency grants like DHS's aid to firefighter's program dilutes the states authority to mandate service levels, training uniformity, interdepartmental training and response aid by making it harder for the states fund and thus mandate emergency service policies response levels, equipment and apparatus.

      Reduced federal funding of school building programs makes local authorities more beholden to federal agencies like HHS for school and hosptial expansion grants.

      States rights is the smoke screen, the federalists want to consolidate federal power, undermnining the states independence by defunding them at the core and sending back specifically earmarked funds.

      All of this is in direct conflict to the definition, goal and power base of states rights as a bulwark against too much power over the states rights by the federal government discussed by Madison and Hamilton in the federalist papers.

      Dissent when neccessary, is the duty of the patriot - the lib pat

      by the lib pat on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 03:22:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You know, the "culture war"... (none)
    ...is a bad thing, and it's Very, Very Wrong to use it, even for enlightened purposes, but it might be worth noting that Roberts was a freshman at Harvard, in Heart of Evil Liberal Boston (trademark Rick Santorum, all rights reserved) in 1973 or so and stayed there, as an undergrad or law student, until 1980 or so. I was in college then, in a city not nearly as Heart of Evil Liberal, and there weren't hardly any kids having any fun who didn't commit many, many acts of "youthful indiscretion."
    •  Well.. (none)
      Well... Bush himself is a former drunk and admitted pot smoker who, although it's never been confirmed, has been accused of snorting yayo. And he's the frickin' president.

      Remember- youthful indiscretions only matter if you're a democrat.

  •  Snap decisions from Bush (none)
    Please tell me no is in fact amazed by this. :)

    Wilbur from Charlotte's Web turned out okay, and he was just some pig. :)

    by cskendrick on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:33:23 PM PDT

  •  Good post! (none)
    I might get some negatives for this but I'll still say it.

    Platform of fear or not, Bush won the election. He gets to choose and he has chosen.

    Now, is Roberts a nominee where we ought to expend all our firepower? We don't knnow. We should hear him out and decide, not go forward with a set agenda of fillibustering him.

    What happens if Renquhist has to be replaced and Bush chooses James Dobson (j/k!!)? Another fillibuster? It'd be a PR uphill battle for justifying 2 consecutive fillibusters.

    So like Mr.Kos says: paitence, keep the cockroach Rove and PlameGate in the light and eyes/ears open on Roberts.

    •  The other problem is (none)
      if you filibuster every single person, there's just another 20 right behind him or her waiting for the job.  I kinda doubt that we're going to successfully filibuster every W nominee until '08 when we can possibly win and come up with different nominees.  Given that reality, it's not a question of "good or bad" it's more or less "how bad"?
  •  Umm.. (none)
    But he has to be honest and forthcoming, unlike his previous confirmation hearing. The Senate must take its time deliberating over the nomination. And this is something that all sides should want, not just ours. For all the right wing knows, this guy may be the next Souter who simply pretended to be virulently anti-privacy.
    To me, this would have a lot more teeth had he not just endured a confirmation battle with a very similiar Congress and received a 49-vote margin of confirmation.

    Seriously.  Any attempts to fight the guy now risk going down on "Bush-hating", and chances are there may be some truth to it.  What's changed in the last two years that would disqualify him from the federal bench?

    If he wasn't forthcoming in his latest confirmation he should have received just even a single vote against confirmation.  

    We all know whats going happen.  Republicans will throw softballs.  Democrats will ask him to prejudge hypothetical cases and then lambaste him no matter he says, especially when he refuses to comment directly on some test case or circumstance of a case.  Whatever things are dredged up in his past will be passed around again and again until anything he said at a dinner party of rotary speech will be made into some undying profession of his hate for liberal values.

    •  Huh? (4.00)
      Seriously.  Any attempts to fight the guy now risk going down on "Bush-hating", and chances are there may be some truth to it.

      So we should just allow Bush to nominate any unqualified asshole for the highest court in the land without putting up a fight when this guy's tried just barely enough federal cases to even qualify for the court just to keep from rocking the boat? Did you read the brief bio that I'd just posted? This guy's a radical. He's just not loud about it. Anti-abortion, activist to the point where he'd love to see Roe v Wade overturned, pro-big business, yadda yadda yadda.

      Who gives a fuck if the GOP sees this as Bush-bashing? If they're not able to make a clear distinction between Bush and the people whom he (ill-advisedly) nominates, then the Repugs shouldn't be holding elected offices.

      JP
      http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com

      Defending bad taste and liberalism since 2005.

      by jurassicpork on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:47:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Given the choice between an AJ (none)
    from Texas and Tulane and one from the more liberal environment of NY & Harvard, I'd have to choose the latter, barring any other information, and there doesn't seem to be a heck of a lot of other information.  Very Souteresque, but perhaps a right wing version threreof.

    The double Harvard gives us some information about him:

    1-  Very bright.  This year, 1 candidate in 23 was admitted to Harvard College, IIRC.

    2-  Workaholic.  No other way you can amass the grades and extracurriculars needed for admission.

    3-  Profoundly social/politically skilled.  Unlike Cal and more recently Yale, Harvard College still pretty much weeds out innovators, ie shit disturbers. You have to be very capable of sucking up without losing yourself, a very neat hat trick. And from the little we know about Roberts's background, he is a very skilled practitioner at this very hat trick and at a very high level.  There seems very little doubt that he has been on the SCOTUS track from early on.

    THis gives us worries but it also gives us hope. Because he has been playing the game, we don't really know with much confidence what he will do until he has done it.  I wouldn't give you much for predictions.  Who knows what he will do when he is liberated and doesn't need to suck up and can think for himself...and has to read the Constitution in depth every day, a very liberal document.   That may yet brainwash him, too.

    Which minority group would Jesus hate?

    by NorCalJim on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:34:08 PM PDT

    •  TNR's Dossier - Could Have Been Worse (none)
      John Roberts, 49. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C., Circuit. Top of his class at Harvard Law School and a former law clerk for Rehnquist, Roberts is one of the most impressive appellate lawyers around today. Liberal groups object to the fact that, in 1990, as a deputy solicitor general, Roberts signed a brief in a case involving abortion-financing that called, in a footnote, for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. But it would be absurd to Bork him for this: Overturning Roe was the Bush administration's position at the time, and Roberts, as an advocate, also represented liberal positions, arguing in favor of affirmative action, against broad protections for property rights, and on behalf of prisoners' rights. In little more than a year on the bench, he has won the respect of his liberal and conservative colleagues but has not had enough cases to develop a clear record on questions involving the Constitution in Exile. On the positive side, Roberts joined Judge Merrick Garland's opinion allowing a former employee to sue the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority for disability discrimination. He pointedly declined to join the unsettling dissent of Judge David Sentelle, a partisan of the Constitution in Exile, who argued that Congress had no power to condition the receipt of federal transportation funds on the Metro's willingness to waive its immunity from lawsuits. In another case, however, Roberts joined Sentelle in questioning whether the Endangered Species Act is constitutional under Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. The regulation in question prevented developers from building on private lands in order to protect a rare species of toad, and Roberts noted with deadpan wit that "the hapless toad ... for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California," and therefore could not affect interstate commerce. Nevertheless, Roberts appears willing to draw sensible lines: He said that he might be willing to sustain the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act on other grounds. All in all, an extremely able lawyer whose committed conservatism seems to be leavened by a judicious temperament.
  •  Great post, Kos (none)
    This is exactly right. We should not look at this as either/or. We can, and will, continue to tackle both, with equal intensity.

    The Supreme Court is directly related to the future of this country. It means everything.

    Karl Rove is also about the future of this country. Can politicians go this far? Can corruption and criminal behavior in the White House go unpunished? Can Karl tarnish the White House and get away with it?

    This is where we must stand up tall, and fight for our country.

  •  Take a deep breath and prepare for the long term (none)
    Roberts is likely a judge who will uphold absolute corporate and government power over the individual-- i.e., no privacy, no right of political speech, no protest that disrupts companies or property-- i.e. he will be part of the corporate war against freedom and individuality that have been American ideals for hundreds of years.

    But this is a long term fight. In order to save the country, we need to get past the fog of the federalist society-- that only governmental power that serves the rich is legitimate.

    So, the key to Roberts at this point is not whether we can defeat the nomination or not, but what our vision of America is and how he helps or opposes the traitors and criminals who would destroy the America we love.

    Until the vast majority of Americans wake up to the criminal nature of the gang in the White House, we will not prevail, and even then, it may be a bloody fight.

    But the steps before us now are to articulate our vision of a responsible, caring, just, and free society, based on respect and trust:  in short just about the opposite of everything Bush and Rove have ever stood for.

    Roberts is not the be all and end all, but his power will partly depend on how much the popular mood turns against his rightwing ideological schemes.  So, we must start with the popular mood, and determine whether Roberts is dangerous to American freedom, equality, and democracy or not.

    "Ah, what an age it is when to speak of trees is almost a crime for it is a kind of silence about injustice" (Brecht)

    by tsackton on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:41:54 PM PDT

  •  Letters (2.66)
    Dear Democratic Senators,

    It could be worse.

    Confirm him. There are bigger fish to fry, and he seems reasonable enough. Save the energy for when Rehnquist dies.

    This man won't roll back Roe v. Wade (you heard me), and he is not a fundamentalist Christian zealot.

    A prolonged opposition to Judge Roberts would be a political disaster. A reasonably thorough confirmation is in order, and should be carried out.

    In short, don't play your hand until it's time. It isn't time.

    Dear Progressives,

    Stop your bitching, the lot of you. It could be much worse. What, you thought he'd select a liberal? Someone from the 9th Circuit, maybe? Have you forgotten that the liberal party is entirely out of power right now?

    He is a conservative, but a reasonable one with respect for the law. He won't roll back abortion rights, he won't turn the president into a dictator, etc. Swallow him, and be better for it. Be thankful that it's only the one, so far, and be thankful it isn't Gonzales or a guy from Texas who thinks executing retarded black men is fun.

    Conserve your strength for the next fight.

    •  Wrong - Oppose Him (4.00)
      He is an anti-environmental, federalist.  There is more political capital to gained by openly opposing him and exposing his legal record than rubber stamping someone who they know will be contrary to the interests of the party (Dem) and the nation.

      This is the next fight!

      Dissent when neccessary, is the duty of the patriot - the lib pat

      by the lib pat on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:54:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hm (none)
        You say: "There is more political capital to gained by openly opposing him and exposing his legal record than rubber stamping someone who they know will be contrary to the interests of the party (Dem) and the nation."

        Right. Have you been paying attention for the past decade? There's nothing to be gained by opposing him, and everything to lose. A quick approval will short circuit the idea that Democrats are obstructionists and place a not-too-terrible man in the Supreme Court.

        Face it, it could be much, much worse.

    •  I beg to differ with you. (none)
      This man won't roll back Roe v. Wade (you heard me), and he is not a fundamentalist Christian zealot.

      This is the time in which closet fundamentalist Christian zealots and conservative whackjobs have been emboldened to come out of hiding. People didn't think that Dick Cheney was all that conservative until Ronald Reagan took office.

      SC appointments, I'd like to remind you, are lifetime appointments and, at this guy's age, he could be on the court for 30 or more years during which time Roberts could inflict untold damage to our country with his pro-big business, anti-abortion, anti-environment lockstep conservative mindset. Who knew, during their own confirmations, that Thomas, Scalia, Rehnquist and O'Connor (a former liberal!) would commit the travesty of justice that they did in December 2001 when they stopped the Florida recount and basically appointed Bush the President?

      Never, EVER underestimate the importance of the SC confirmation process. The Democrats have let enough unqualified idiots into the Supreme Court over the last few decades. And if they choose to fight this guy and Bush's choice to replace Rehnquist, I'll back them 100% and will be glad and relieved that they're finally showing some fucking backbone.

      JP
      http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com

      Defending bad taste and liberalism since 2005.

      by jurassicpork on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:58:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Roberts's birth order (none)
        This may sound like an odd question, but does anyone know what Robert's birth order is in his family of origin? There are very strong statistical studies showing later borns end up being less conservative than first borns. In Born to Rebel, Frank J. Sulloway has a fascinating chapter showing how this has played out with Supreme Court nominees. In the absence of enough to go on this could be one predictor, not guaranneed-- but something to go on. Sulloway writes (sorry if this isn't formatted right, this is my first post):

        "Over the last two centuries, Democratic presidents have shown a consistent tendency to nominate laterborns to the Court. Republican presidents have manifested the opposite trend. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson together made four appointments to the Court. All four were lastborns. As a result, the Warren Court eventually boasted 9 later born justices and no firstborns. With Richard Nixon's election to the presidency in 1968, Republicans held the power of Supreme Court appointments for the next fourteen years....These four Republican presidents added 6 firstborns to the Court, out of their 10 available appointments....Let us suppose that a Republican happens to nominate a conservative last born to the Court. This president runs the risk that his appointee may become more liberal after joining the Court, something that happened to President Eisenhower. In 1953 he nominated Earl Warren, the younger of two children, to the Supreme Court. As a previous Replublican governor of California, Warren seemed like a safe bet. After taking his seat on the Court, however, Warren had a change of heart. Later, as chief justice, he presided for sixteen termns over the Court's support for wide-ranging social reforms."

      •  No (none)
        We have to carefully choose our battles, pick the spots where we stand.

        Our ability to fight is severely limited by numbers, and if you think the filibuster will save us, you're wrong.

        We can use the filibuster just one more time. That's it. Then it's gone--they'll take it away, and we'll have nothing.

        Let's make that last one count. This guy may be a conservative, but he at the very least isn't frothing at the mouth. As I've said, it could be much, much worse.

    •  That is using your head and not letting emotions (none)
       genghis conn
      That is using your head and not letting emotions and
      I for one agree with you.

      What many fail to realize sometimes is that one of
      the reasons that we have been on the losing side
      lately is because of letting emotions instead of
      logical and good strategy determine our actions.

      While no conservative is going to be good for us,
      the fact is scream all we want and this man is still
      going to be confirmed unless something pops up
      between now and then or unless something turns in
      the hearings.

      Until then all the screaming just builds more fuel
      for the fires of discord and leads more to believe
      that we are the evil ones. That hurts our
      possibilities of winning other battles.

      You have to remember what and who we are dealing
      with here.

      Come on folks use your heads.

      Popeye

      A Nation that blindly follows, will soon discover they no longer have a Nation. :)Popeye

      by eaglecries on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:38:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What was J. Roberts role in Bob Jones litigation? (none)
    In Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), the Supreme Court ruled that the IRS could revoke the charitable tax exemption of a group of universities that had engaged in racially discriminatory policies.

    The Bob Jones case became especially notorious as a result of an attempt by the Reagan Administration to revoke an IRS rule provided that "`a [private] school not having a racially nondiscriminatory policy as to students is not `charitable'.

    Foot note #9 to that decision discussed the agressive role that DOJ took when the case was before the Supreme Court in arguing that the IRS ruling was unlawful and would be revoked, mooting the case.

    Judge John G. Roberts apparently was the special assistant to the then Attorney General during the crucial 1981-82 period when the government took this position. The Senate should demand that he explain his role in shaping DOJ's stance in this case...

    I think that this issue might be worth pursuing.

    (I wrote a diary about this issue which I'm afraid is about to disappear because of lack of interest or because it hasn't been noticed.)

  •  I say.. (none)
    confirm the guy tomorrow, then say "oh, and about that Rove thing."

    The problem here is I guarantee the guy is hardcore. As I see it, they had two choices.

    1. Bring on a guy that would make the Democrats giggle with delight, and hope they go into "that George isn't such a bad guy after all" mode. Never gonna happen with these thugs.

    2. Bring on someone hardcore enough to start a serious fight (distraction), but not so hardcore that its obvious. I'm guessing that's what we got.

    I don't really think we should go to war over this guy, unless incredible info arises regarding him. We won't win in the end, and it will provide the distraction they so desperately want (and need). Experience tells me there is no way to tell what this guy is going to do on the court anyway. When they get on, they usually go their own way.
  •  Inappropriate (none)
    I don't care if his number is listed.  It's completely inappropriate to post someone's personal info here.
  •  Bush is weak right now (none)
    To me, the message right now is this:

    We will decide on Roberts in due time when we answers the Senate's questions.

    But for now, the one thing that's clear is what a sign of weakness this nomination for Bush.  

    Bush wanted to nominate his friend Abu Gonzales.  But the exposure of Karl Rove as the leaker of a covert CIA operative and Bush's subsequent failure to live up to his word and fire him, has left Bush politically vulnerable.

    Right now, the only people he has with him are his base.  They didn't want his first choice, Gonzales, but Bush right now is too weak politically to stand up to them.  Instead he has made the choice he didn't want in order to keep his base together as he prepares to fight the political fight of his life -- trying to explain to the American people why he stood by his man instead of standing by his word.

    I know that's a bit long winded, but it could be done in one sentence if need be.  Regardless, I think the message of this nomination is that Bush is too weak to appoint who he wanted.

  •  Ha! (none)
    He lives right next to a fucking golf course. What're the odds for a Republican, huh?

    JP
    http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com

    Defending bad taste and liberalism since 2005.

    by jurassicpork on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:50:44 PM PDT

  •  Yet again, I'm torn. (none)
    Perhaps it's because you can't really know how a lifetime appointee will behave until they are confirmed and appointed.  

    I haven't had enough time to digest this guy's record.  His stance on Roe bothers me, but I found myself thinking about the percentage (depending on the polls, 68% to 71%) of Americans who think Roe should be upheld.  It seems a pretty comfortable margin yet it's the smaller things, the weakening of the foundation of the original decision that could one day find people scratching their heads and wondering how it could possibly be that Roe got overturned.

    In my heart of hearts, as it stands tonight, I feel that karma is not with us on this one.  I can just sense from the comments made here and the commentary on cable news that arguments are already being framed for Roberts.

    With that, I lean towards keeping an eye on the larger goal.

    The revolution is coming... and we ARE the revolution.

    by RenaRF on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:56:54 PM PDT

  •  Not immediately opposed (none)
    We should have fair and thorough confirmation hearings. We have to fight this battle again when Renquist retires -- may as well sharpen our game now -- and we need to know who we're putting on the Supreme Court for the next twenty or so years, too.

    But it seems, at first glance, like John Roberts is no Clarence Thomas. And it seems to me that he sets a reasonably high standard for Rehnquist's replacement. I'd like to know more about him, but I don't think he's a radical conservative activist -- and we are going to get a conservative. Two of them, actually.

    The worst reaction would be to hysterically oppose Roberts before learning more. Remember, it's a double-header.

    We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are. - Anaïs Nin

    by Valentine on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 02:59:25 PM PDT

  •  nitpicky grammar correction (none)
    It should be

    "we progressive bloggers"

    not

    "us progressive bloggers."

  •  You're right Kos. Great Post.! (none)
    Let's be patient...there's no need to throw unnecessay darts at Roberts at this time. That would surely come at the confirmation hearing.
  •  "par for the course" (none)
    indeed.  this is payback and a covering of one's ass, one's political base.

    Jesus: "Destroy this temple" - Gospel of John

    by The Gnostic on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 03:09:33 PM PDT

  •  Roberts argued for Native Hawaiian rights (4.00)
    The Honolulu Advertiser reports on an interesting case that I had forgotten Roberts was involved with, which also has rather coincidental timing with another issue about to hit the senate floor tomorrow.

    Roberts is known in Hawai'i for his work on Rice vs. Cayetano, a case that challenged a 20-year practice allowing only Hawaiians to vote for trustees at the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, an agency that administers programs to benefit Hawaiian.

    Roberts represented the state, which lost.

    On the other side of this case was Ted Olson and other Federalist Society lawyers who were and still are trying to dismantle all Native Hawaiian programs. So I find it interesting that Roberts was arguing for the state, in favor of native rights, and against the conservative position in this case.

    The conservative JudicialSelection.org has this summary of the case and Robert's arguments:

    In a case concerning the Fifteenth Amendment, Roberts unsuccessfully argued that Hawaii could limit voters to only "Native Hawaiians" in the election of nine trustees that administer programs specifically for "Native Hawaiians." Robert's argument was twofold.

    First, the provision was no different than any other attempts by Congress and the states to honor the special obligation to America's other native peoples.  Second, the provision "does not violate the Fifteenth Amendment--and is not subject to strict scrutiny under the Fourteenth [Amendment]--because it does not draw any distinction `on account of race.'"  The Court found otherwise and held that limiting the vote to only "Native Hawaiians" violated the Fifteenth Amendment.

    Why the timing of this is particularly interesting for us in Hawaii is that as soon as tomorrow the Senate may take up debate on a measure known as the Akaka bill (formally the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005) that is essentially a response to Rice v. Cayetano (and other similar cases that have attacked Native Hawaiian rights), which would give Native Hawaiians some form of "federal recognition" similar to native Americans and Alaskans, to try to define them as a political class rather than a racial group, and protect Native Hawaiian programs against these types of lawsuits.

    This is a very complex issue, but as long as I'm on the subject, folks here might find this interesting, as it has been getting some media coverage (NY Times article on Sunday) and it might poke up between all the SCOTUS coverage in the next few days, and it also has some interesting political implications.

    A piece yesterday in the conservative Hawaii Reporter says:

    [Republican Governor Linda] Lingle and White House administrators are telling Republican Congress members that Lingle wants to be elected to the U.S. Senate, and passing the Akaka bill would cinch the deal with Hawaii voters. Republicans in Congress are being told if they want one of Hawaii's U.S. Senators to be a Republican after either U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye or U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka leave office, they'd better vote for the passage of the Akaka Bill.

    One of the two main sources of opposition to the bill are the conservatives who have been attacking Hawaiian programs, who call the bill "race-based." A good sample of their talking points is John Fund's editorial in the WSJ yesterday. It seems to me there is a sort of contradiction of interest in this. They are against the bill, yet the bill's passage might increase the chance that a Senate seat from Hawaii could go Republican. And Democrats generally want the bill to pass, but they probably don't want to give Lingle a way to win or at least neutralize any more of the Native Hawaiian vote, which is a sort of swing vote that may vote more on their interests than by party affiliation.

    The bill will be assaulted by a number of amendments from DOJ via Sen. Kyl, but latest indications are that 6 Repubs will join all the Dems in passing the bill. It has passed the House in previous years and is expected to pass again.

    If it does pass, it will most likely end up directly in court, and make its way to the SCOTUS. It would be ironic if Roberts ended up on the bench when it gets there, having argued on the side against the conservatives who have been attacking the programs that this bill is designed to protect.

    FYI, I should also note that just because conservatives are against this bill doesn't mean progressives should automatically be for it. There are many in the local native Hawaiian and progressive community in Hawaii who do not support the bill, including myself, and there are a lot of problems with it.

    For those who are interested in more background, I have been following this bill closely on my blog for some time, and there are tons of recent articles, background info, and commentary there for your entertainment and edification.

  •  Where are the Greens? (none)
    Roberts ruled against the arroyo toads and for
    slicing off the tops of mountains.

    He is a grade A anti-environmentalist.

    Oh, not that it matters much. :-(

    To thine own self be true - W.S.

    by Agathena on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 03:13:22 PM PDT

  •  Corporate shill who hates individual rights (none)
    Roberts argued against the private citizen's right to sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations in Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation.

    Roberts has also argued on behalf of the National Mining Association in support of mountaintop removal, in the case Bragg v. West Virginia Coal Association.

    In the unanimous ruling last October in Hedgepeth v. WMATA, Roberts concurred with the majority in upholding the arrest, handcuffing and detention of a 12-year-old girl for eating a single french fry inside a Washington Metro station. "No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation," Roberts acknowledged in the decision, but he ruled that nothing the police did violated the girl's Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment rights.

    (above from his wikipedia bio)

    Roberts also was part of the legal beagle team that fought against Florida & Gore in the 2000 recount.  Bush is loyal to his friends, as always.  "You put me in office, now I'll put you in office."  So what else is new?

    •  If Congress can really show (none)
      nepotism, it's one thing.  I don't know if this is it.

      "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model which makes the existing model obsolete."-Buckminster Fuller

      by georg on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 03:42:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Inside source (none)
    I know a guy who is a good friend with the nominee in question.  He told me today that Roberts is a mainstream conservative and highly respected in the legal community.  Principled, with integrity, and brilliant.

    Bush knew he had to pick a consensus nominee.  The Wingnuts may not be so happy.

    At least we'll have a conservative who is respected and will not be a partisan.

    •  The wingnuts (none)
      are orgasmic. Check out freeperville or redstate if you don't believe me.

      Sorry to pop your bubble, but <pop>

      •  Yeah (none)
        They're loving this. They must know things we don't know. It's quite possible this guy has an under the radar relationship with Dobson & co. Hell, Dobson may have even given Bush the go-ahead on this.

        This is their man.

        •  Either that (none)
          or they are as clueless as we are and will dance at being able to avoid discussion of breaching security for a few days.  Must be tiring to bullshit so much.

          "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model which makes the existing model obsolete."-Buckminster Fuller

          by georg on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:11:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  well (none)
            the freeper thread I checked had well over a thousand posts in it. they've done their research, and they've won yet again. they are ignorant in many, many ways, but I don't think celebrating his nomination is one of them.  

            One posts comes to mind: "Christmas in July! I havn't felt this good since the election"

      •  the evangelicals I know (none)
        are 100% thrilled, emailing that babies will no longer be slaughtered in the US.

        This guy obviously has personal contact that are telegraphing this everywhere.

        All they care about is Roe V Wade, but on that, at least, I think they are absolutely confident that this guy will vote to overturn it.  They are saying things like "George Bush proves once again he is a man of God".

  •  Top 5 Robert's moments (none)
    From the paper mentioned above...

    1. Roberts argued for Title X regulations that prohibited U.S. family planning clinics not only from providing abortions, but also from counseling clients about abortion or even referring them to facilities that provide abortions.

    2. Roberts argued that public high schools should be allowed to conduct religious ceremonies as part of a graduation program.

    3. Roberts represented Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc., in its successful petition to the Supreme Court arguing that a worker with carpal tunnel syndrome is not disabled such that she is entitled to accommodation at work under the Americans with Disabilities Act - even though her injuries were caused by working on the line! What a nice guy.

    4. Roberts served as the attorney for Fox Television, in its challenge to the federal government's ownership and cross-ownership rules.

    5. In 2000, Roberts stated, "I don't know how you can call [the Rehnquist] court conservative". OMG!

    At least he didn't pick Abu Gonzales or Michael Luttig who argued today that it was OK to detain U.S. Citizens indefinitely without charge because the U.S. is now a battleground in the war on terror. As the Onion says, "Holy Fucking Shit!"
    •  Hey this guy supports tribunals (none)
      From WaPo: Court Rules Military Panels to Try Detainees

      The appellate court swept aside the lower court's decision in what amounted to a general endorsement of a legal theory that the president has broad powers under the Constitution to decide how military detainees are to be handled during a time of conflict.

      "On the merits, there is little to Hamdan's argument" that the president's establishment of the commissions illegally tramples the prerogatives of Congress, the three-member panel said in a decision written by Judge A. Raymond Randolph and joined by Roberts and Senior Judge Stephen F. Williams.

      The panel said courts should defer to President Bush's decision in 2002 that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to detainees Bush declares as enemy combatants and that, in any event, the conventions are not enforceable by U.S. courts in lawsuits brought by foreigners.
      ...
      Hamdan's lead civilian counsel, Georgetown University professor Neal Katyal, denounced the decision as "contrary to 200 years of constitutional law." He said it "places absolute trust in the president, unchecked by the Constitution, statutes of Congress and longstanding treaties." He added that it undermines the protections of the Geneva Conventions in ways that could harm U.S. interests in the future.

      Bush may leave office, but his stink will still be on the SCOTUS for the next 25+ years. Hey they could overturn the 22nd Amendment creating Presidential term limits...Bush forever??

      "The purpose of representative government is to curb 'the excesses of the moneyed interest'."-- Thomas Jefferson

      by digital drano on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 03:46:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Focus (4.00)
    With Roberts nomination, and one of the worst the last 100 years, it is important that we not lose focus on other important issues. The temptation will be for some to go after Roberts on one issue such as abortion. This will energize the religio-fascists and will lead to more support for Bush on other issues. When we attack Roberts we have to go after the full range of his background - the environment, individual rights, party hack, prime fund raiser for the RNC etc and his apparent inability to see beyond his biases.

    In addition we have to find a way to keep focus on Rove and his apparent crimes, Bush's culpability therein etc. In many ways this is a clever, not brilliant, move by Bush/Rove and will show his base that he is thinking of them. He will gain some support from middle of the roaders as well. If we do not keep pressure on the administration in other areas as well, Bush/Rove might well steal another victory.

  •  i've created a petiton to Arlen Specter (none)
    If you agree with it- please feel free to sign it. The text is as follows (especially looking for PA voters):

    To:  Honorable Senator Arlen Specter

    We, the undersigned, will take a serious hard look at the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court of the United States and are asking for you to do the same. Some of his positions as both an advocate and parts of his judicial philosophy have been antithetical to our values. If Judge Roberts is planning to bring these beliefs to the Sumpreme Court, he will be acting as a radical judicial activist on a multitude of issues. We oppose such radical activism, whether it is from liberal or conservative philosophies.

    We understand that you have been attacked by some of the most extreme elements of your party for your commitment to moderation. It is your commitment to moderation that has brought us to making this request of you. Indeed, one of the undersigned had the opportunity to work in Pennsylvania during the 2004 election in a predominantly low income African-American neighborhood. He observed voters wearing Kerry and Specter buttons because the voters believed that you are a fair man who would represent all of them, and not just the special interests of a few. This nomination is an excellent opportunity for moderation to win out over extremism and decrease the divisions in this country.

    Please understand that this is not an attack on Judge Roberts, the person. By all accounts, we understand that he is a nice person to know personally. Our concern is that his believes maybe at odds with mainstream values such as fairness and privacy. It was our hope that President Bush would choose a moderate conservative nominee similar to Justice O'Connor that would reflect the hopes and aspirations of all Americans as embodied in the U.S. Constitution. These ideas go beyond affirmative action and abortion into the heart of being Americans. These are beliefs that no conservative or liberal should abridge. It is clear from Judge Robert's own prior actions that he may intend to act as a judicial activist. Therefore, we are requesting that you oppose his entrance as a justice to the Supreme Court if it becomes clear that he will act in such a manner.

    Thank you for your consideration.

    Sincerely,

    Here is a link:

    http://www.petitiononline.com/ft12rc24/petition.html

  •  He's a standard repug nutbag (none)
    With an anti Roe v. Wade woody.

    (His wife doesn't look like she's gettin' any either.)

    Gotta disagree with Kos on "hearing this guy out." He's a smokescreen for Karl.

    ...no hell below us, above us only sky.

    by rightiswrong on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 03:34:02 PM PDT

  •  RIght wing pundits hold luv fest (none)
    Okay everyone - I've been watching Charlie Rose and the wingers are loving this guy. Reid is vaguely neutral.

    What do they know?

    25-30 years folks! And if bush gets another nomination, the court would be right-wing for the next 1/4 century.

    "The purpose of representative government is to curb 'the excesses of the moneyed interest'."-- Thomas Jefferson

    by digital drano on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 03:35:45 PM PDT

  •  Ewww! (none)
    They're trotting Novak out to talk about Roberts on CNN.  I guess Rove really is on hold (for today anyway).
  •  No hurry (4.00)
    Maybe take the Leahey demenor - no hurry. Sandra said she will sit till a new judge takes a seat. Absolutely no urgent need to abide by Bush's admonition to move this through swiftly.
    Meanwhile, as todays new evidence seems to indicate (the State department memo was highly critical of the WH bullshit AND Rove lied to the FBI in his initial testimony)the whole shootin' match might get scuttled by some pretty damn serious colapse of the W club.
    Call me an optimist (who can't spell)
  •  So the official word should be (none)
    to let the process unfold...taking a strong stance on "wait & see" as a party (vs no stance at all, which means chaos and weakness). That gives time for us to hear what Fitzgerald comes forth with, and when he does, to consider using the nomination as a bartering tool. Want an easy vote on Roberts? Remove Rove & bring in Congressional hearings...
  •  yo zach (none)
    same page it seems.
  •  on the other hand (none)
    Roberts is clearly going to get confirmed. If it were possible to hold party unity on this issue, it might be clever to put up no resistance whatsoever and try and suck political attention away from the nomination.

    Problem is, he's smart and qualified. In that sense, indeed, he's no Clarence Thomas.

    "When I came to this town, my eyes were big blue stars. Now they're big green dollar signs." - Jean Arthur, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"

    by brooksfoe on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 03:46:24 PM PDT

  •  From what little we know (4.00)
    he seems like a straight, tow-the-party-line Republican.

    Expect Roe to get overturned, if not in the next few years, then def. within a decade.

    Will the backlash come then?

  •  Can I get an Amen (none)
    True that -

    Thanks Kos.

    I am the federal government.

    by mateosf on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 03:54:05 PM PDT

  •  Anyone know what the fundies think? (4.00)
    The freepers are downright thrilled about this pick, which has me worried.

    Is Roberts on the Focus on the Family/Dobson/Robertson/Falwell wish list?

    Please say it isn't so.

  •  Roberts (none)
    He argued close to forty cases before the supreme court.  Kos' book of business is twelve losing candidates.   He is a shoe in.  
  •  We knew this was coming (none)
    Lookit, everyone knew that this day was coming and we knew that the nominee would be not to our liking. But, if The Chimp was a little smarter, and was looking out for his "Brain", he would have thrown a really crappy nominee at us, one that would divide the Senate and get our knickers in a twist. This guy looks as though he will sail through, given the current Senate...

    ...but since this Roberts guy doesn't have a lot of "news" interest, we're looking at a ROVE'ing good August! Let's make the best of what we've got to work with.

    The news happens 3 hours sooner on the "left coast"

    by bleeding blue on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:15:01 PM PDT

    •  screw rove (4.00)
      I'm more concerned with my female friends having a right to choice. Outing Plame was a crime, and I hope Rove gets booked for it, but this is a much, much much bigger story in my book.

      I'm thinking about the good of the American people here, not the good of the dem party. And plus, Rove will prob walk anyway.

      •  I understand, and am on your side, but... (none)
        ...I'm afraid that given the political orientation of the US Gov't these days is such that the rise of such as Roberts is inevitable. But remember, the majority of people of this country are pro-choice, when push comes to shove.

        Call me a dreamer, but Rove is toast. I can only hope that he will be the last of the line of scumbags that started with Lee Atwater...for the good of the nation.

        The news happens 3 hours sooner on the "left coast"

        by bleeding blue on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:58:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I just got off the phone... (none)
     with a good friend of mine who lives in DC and worked for a while as an attorney for Hogan and Hartson, Roberts's old firm.  I asked her if she knew Mr. Roberts and she said no, but she was good friends with two people who worked for him directly.  She told me that his reputation was impeccable, and that he was well liked by his staff.  He was considered to be very fair and quite brilliant.  

    My friend is as crunchy left as any of us here, so she would not be shilling for the right. She thinks this might be a crafty Rovian move, in that, as conservative as he is, it will be difficult to find any skeletons in his closet.

  •  Don't take anyone's health for granted (none)
    People are very quick to assume that an appointee will serve for decades. Some have even posted that Roberts might serve until 90. I think people are putting too much stock into the possible length of a lifetime appointment. He could live to 115. Or he could get cancer next year. You never know. I'm not very persuaded by the age argument, in spite of the fact the current justices have been serving for a long time.
    •  Maybe... (none)
      ...he'll turn out to be a Souter, O'Conner, or maybe even a Warren. You can't always tell how these guys pan out for the long run. (But given the outlaws in charge of D.C. these days, that might be too much to ask...)

      The news happens 3 hours sooner on the "left coast"

      by bleeding blue on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:27:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A difficult, Lasting lesson (4.00)
    The evidence on the guy is perfectly clear - in the context of the last half century's jurisprudence, John Roberts is an extremist.  He is so extreme, the religious right - yes, those extreme religious right fanatics we inversely gauge ourselves against - are celebrating tonight.  They are celebrating the fact Mr. Roberts will move this country back to the "traditional values" that existed prior to the FDR court.

    Frankly, I think Roberts along with Rehnquist's successor will do just that. We are about to witness a gradual, but definite regression of jurisprudence.  Our children will learn first-hand many of the injustices and inequities that exited under Constitutional interpretation that was in force prior to the 1940's.  This, I feel is inevitable.

    You see, I believe this last Presidential election was the moment which will define American jurisprudence for the next 30 years.  We lost that election, but should not have.  We could have been and should have been the ones celebrating tonight as the concept of a living Constitution was secured for generations to come.  We could have been the ones resting more easily tonight knowing that our children would grow up in a country where the progressive values we hold so dear would endure.

    This should be a lesson for all Democrats.  Republicans have already learned the lesson.  Winning elections is what matters. Winning elections at nearly any cost and with any coalition is what matters.  The Democratic Party has failed spectacularly in this respect the last 20 years and we pay the price tonight and for the next 30 years.  

    The only question now is - how much longer will it take for Democrats to learn this lesson?

    •  Very moving stuff (none)
      I'm afraid I don't have an answer to your question, but rather just another question: What will we progressives do if the party continues NOT to learn that lesson?

      Right now at least, I stake my hope in my perception that the world as a whole is still moving forward, and in some way becoming a more connected, humane, reasonable place.

    •  Well, we tried (none)
      I often feel isolated from the action here in the 7th Congressional District of Washington State. Our Rep. is Jim McDermott, who is one of the safest seats in the country. What can I do here, everyone's a Democrat. I donate, caucus up, all that stuff. It's up to you guys in the RED states that have to get into the local school board races, run for state rep. ect. I'm sorry, but the burden is on your shoulders...get're done!

      The news happens 3 hours sooner on the "left coast"

      by bleeding blue on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:43:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you could always move to a red state yourself (none)

        "People got used to being Domesticated Animals"

        by nNYKeith on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 05:14:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why? (none)
          This is my "Home Sweet Home", born and raised here in the land of the setting sun, in the same town that spawned Kurt Cobain...moved to the "big city". I love it here, why don't YOU come here? Come here and be with your people...the coffee can't be beat! The family discussion around the dinner table when I was a kid was like an Anarchist Platform Committee...I love it here the the Great Northwest!

          But in all seriously, I should do more...maybe when I retire, I'll put myself up as a volunteer in the struggle in an alien state. I want fight for what's "fair"...against what's "Right". Can't do it right now. All I can do is call into the radio stations, write letters to the editor, ect.

          In the meantime, there are some fights we can win, and some fights that we will lose. I think that we will lose this SCOTUS fight, but maybe we can win the Rove fight. What that gets us is beside me, other than the satisfaction. Which will be enough for me!

          The news happens 3 hours sooner on the "left coast"

          by bleeding blue on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 05:52:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Let's act on our learning over 5 years. (none)
    All I ask is no more benefit of the doubt to people who surprise us at every turn with how unwilling to govern responsibly they are.
  •  OKAY, let's go back to the world according to Bush (none)
    With Dubya picking the replacements for the rapidly aging SCOTUS, we can go back to the America as it was in what, 1920? Not a bad time if you were young, white and chaste!

    Why, if you were a young'en, you could look forward to that high school diploma, if your folks could afford your time away from the farm. After all, your Papa didn't have to get beyond the 8th grade: "Professor..what MORE do you need to know...I could really use your help picking rocks out of the south quarter, IF'N you can drag yerself away from them-thar books..." You sure didn't need Pell grants back in those days...everything you needed to know you could learn from your Dad.

    Yep, you sure didn't need any Federal Assistance back in those days to further your knowledge. No sir, that was a free country, in those days.

    But at least you didn't have to go to school with "negros". What do they need to to know about "book learnin'" anyway! "'J'st git'em all hot'n bothered about their place" Papa would say. "They's got their own schools, it's good enough for them, for what they need's ta know".

    But oh-oh, one day, "Sis" got a little too friendly with that handsome young hand that came around to the farm looking for odd work. Papa said "Is you in a family-way? Gol-dern-it, you go stay with'en your Aunt Sadie, until that ungodly product is passed from your body, and passed oft'ta an orphanage. Only then we'll accept you ta home, an' maybe try ta' pass you off ta' some man unsuspectin'" Boy Oh Boy those were the days!

    And remember the forests that spread for hundreds of miles: "You can cut down trees forever, they just grow back. If not, we'll plant some more" That's what the companies told us back then. And if some poor sucker got caught up in the choker line, those darn union "goons" would come in and demand that the company take care of his whiny-assed family. Back in the day, the company would tell'em to "go fuck yourself", and there'd be nothing that they could do about it...

    ...Well, that's the way it was, let's do what we can to prevent it's return. This guy Roberts is the first one to come down the pike. The Chimp will have a couple more to present us with. I don't know if we can stop this, but we don't have to go down easy.

    But we still have ROVE!!

    The news happens 3 hours sooner on the "left coast"

    by bleeding blue on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 07:06:35 PM PDT

  •  Roberts and Rove (none)
    The Supreme Court bores people, much as the MSM likes to push it.  Absent some juicy scandal, Rove will be back on the front page by Friday.
    Drip, drip, drip...
  •  I must agree (none)
    it was about Rove. It is working also. There was not one word in the St. Petersburg Times about Rove, other than a small op-ed piece. The distraction is in place. Don't let it happen.

    Is W the mark of the beast?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site