It looks like the Judiciary Committee is going to look into this whitebread judge over the week of Labor Day. It also looks unlikely that we can sustain a filibuster against him. We will ask him to pledge his support for Roe and he will refuse. Unless something unexpected comes up we won’t know how he would vote on the issue.
It looks like Bush finally did something well. He picked a judge that we will have a hard time pinning down on important issues, and he picked a nice person with a nice family, and good credentials.
I’ll wait for the opposition research to come in before I come to a conclusion about this judge. To me, he seems like vegetable lasagna: hard to get excited about.
Bush won the election, the appointment of Wonder Bread judges is the consequence. Even though this guy is as bland as a saltine cracker I’m glad Bush didn’t pull some stunt by appointing an anti-choice woman, or a corporate whore minority. This is a straight up vote on the issues, with no distractions.
Meanwhile, why is Karl Rove still employed by the U.S. taxpayers?
Answers to rhetorical questions:
Why did the f*cking chicken cross the road? Do you walk to work or carry your lunch? Truth is, if he wasn’t there, he’d just be somewhere else. He’s ugly as sheep shit in shallow water, slicker’n deer guts on a doorknob, but he’s a one trick pony.
Old philosophy final:
Why?
Because.
Of course there were no women or minorities to consider…and what with Clarence Thomas already up there they’ve got their token minority.
So there are nine justices…1 black, 1 woman, 7 white men…pretty representational of America…corporate, elite America…
pretty bland, but Bush’s handlers must have been happy with his answers to their questions and that gives me pause.
Also, we should remember that they will almost surely get another bite at the apple when Rhenquist goes. The anti-choice corporate whore you fear, may be warming up in the bullpen.
With Roberts we have a solid triumvirate with Scalia/Thomas on our hands (which was Bush’s point). If we don’t fight like hell to stop this we will be paying the price for the next 30 years.
Bush plays to his extremist base with this appointment and people on the supposed ‘left’ blogs may not have a problem with it? Get me my smelling salts, now!
with Bush being our President. I have a problem with Bush giving away lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court. I don’t care who he picks, it will be someone I wish were not on the Court.
This guy looks like he’ll be somewhere between O’Connor and Thomas. I’m not happy at all.
But I’m not sure we can do anything about it. I also have no reason to believe that defeating this guy will result in a better replacement.
Let the researchers do their work and we’ll see what comes up. For now, I’m in wait-and-see mode.
with his one sentence appraisal of the pick:
“Bush Swings For the Fence”.
I have a problem with an opposition party that won’t oppose.
I have a problem w/ a class of corporate mercenary lawyers running everything for both parties and on k-street while our entire social infrastructure rots away.
I have a problem w/ everyone saying that since it can’t be won, it’s better not to fight.
In the long run … sometimes you have to fight and lose in order to inspire those who come after to fight the next battle. All morning long, one voice after another … “the Dems have nothing to say against him …”
My only question is how long it will take them to fold, how long until the shut up and allow a voice vote so his confirmation looks unopposed on the record.
I’m expecting not long.
do you want to do?
Fight, oppose, make strong principled statements in hearings and from the floor. Insist on a roll call vote to confirm. Make the Dems who don’t care about protecting Americans from judges who bow to the will of corporations run amok show how little they care. Emphasize that the ENTIRE Republican Senate is just peachy keen with judges like that. Make the Dems who don’t care about courts rolling back the right to privacy show in a vote how little they care, and emphasize again that the ENTIRE Republican Senate doesn’t care about it either.
Fight, for X’s sake. Why is that so hard? Why is that too much to ask for? What are they being so damned careful FOR? Are they cowards? Are they secretly just fine with the US being turned into a feudal state? Have they no convictions, no spine, no need for anything other than the continuation of their current perks and privileges?
Fight, dammit.
but there is a difference between using the hearings to highlight our philosophical differences and to highlight the potential costs of the court flipping on any number of 5-4 votes…
and going after this guy just because Bush nominated him.
We have 6 weeks before the hearings start. First we need to do some research on this guy and figure out where he stands.
As for the Dems in the Senate, they’ll have to decide whether or not they want to filibuster him, and if they do, they’ll need some serious ammunition.
If they can’t maintain a filibuster, they will have to decide how to vote. I don’t think you have to vote against every nominee of the opposing party.
Finally, realistically, Bush is going to put someone on the Court. This guy might be better than the likely alternatives. He might be worse. I don’t know yet.
I’m sick of the whole “he was just representing his client” when someone brings up his brief calling for Roe to be overturned. Only an IDIOT hires a lawyer who doesn’t agree fundamentally with your case. Mobsters hire lawyers who love that lifestyle. Winger politicians hire and promote lawyers who advance their agenda.
He’s a winger. He may look like a nice man. He may BE a nice man, but no one would have had the jobs he did, and written what he did, without being fully invested in the right’s agenda. The Seatle Times (which IIRC is the conservative paper in that town) has this overview:
THAT is far from “no record”, as I heard OVER AND OVER on CNN this morning. It’s CLEAR what he is.
Oh, and I can and will oppose ANYBODY that Bush nominates, and I think the party should too. It’s not OUR JOB to settle for the lesser of two lessers. It’s our job to oppose a governmental and judicial philosophy that is causing grave damage to our country. Yes we’ll lose, but all of this triangulation gains us NOTHING.
Go toe to toe, get smacked back down. Get up, raise the gloves and wade back in. THAT is how the Republicans GOT where they are. This is such a fundamental thing in politics — why can’t the Democrats get this? The minority party opposes, the majority party has to forge the compromises after confronting that opposition. If the opposition fails, it could very well set the stage for a later victory.
plus, this man is complicit in the Iran-Contra affair too. He gummed thru his teeth in the Reagan Adm. for Goodness sake. This is where he got his start!!!!!! And yes to follow thru with all of the above criteria.
to confirm a judge to the Supreme Court that the opposing party has nominated. Ideally the opposing party has already consulted with the Senate and gotten some consensus on the judiciary committee.
I’m for using this process to highlight what is at stake so people realize that we cannot afford any more GOP presidents for quite some time. But I’m not going to prejudge this and call for the heads of any Democrats that make concessions, or that ultimately vote to confirm this guy (or his replacement).
Call it what you want. If we try to stop these judges until Bush nominates Larry Tribe, we’ll never get there. Fighting back in this context is not the same thing as a blanket opposition. If he is going to get confirmed we’ll make a fuss, but at the end of the day, some Dems will vote for him too. Look at the history of SC votes.
Right now, I don’t see anything that will cost the guy any GOP votes, and I don’t see a unified Dem caucus lining up against him.
and any Dem who votes to confirm this troglodite-in-Prince-Charming’s-clothing should be on the left’s hit list. They should be hounded in their next primary, jeered in the public square. Their name should be mud, though I think we all know which whipped curs (aka Vichy Dems) will be JUST FINE with this guy, this enabler of criminal corporations and a police state.
This is EXACTLY why the party telling us we should support Casey and Langevin is WRONG. Those are EXACTLY the kind of assholes who cross the aisle, who put a bipartisain stamp on the dismantling of our nation’s freedoms.
THIS is why Reid shouldn’t have been minority leader … he AGREES with Judge Roberts on so many issues. How can you “oppose” if you’re ON THE SAME SIDE in the culture war?
Don’t need to wait and see. I know exactly what this guy is. No matter how many times some infotainment talking head assures me there is no record, I know damned well there are PLENTY of records.
I won’t win this battle, but frankly I’m ready for the party to split if the whipped curs in DC continue as they have been. Let’s break the fucking party if Dr. Dean isn’t successful in reforming the party, in overcoming all of the obstacles they’re placing in his way. Lets form a new party around the Progressive Caucus if we can get them to join us. I’m sick of this. I’m sick of “centrism”, I’m sick of a lack of conviction, a lack of spine, a fundamental lack of ANYTHING remotely admirable about so many of “my” party’s leaders in DC.
Fight dammit!
you’re thoroughly radicalized.
I understand your position. My position is that Bush nominated a guy with all the credentials, with few enemies, and who will be hard to pin down on important issues.
This is the first thing Bush hasn’t fucked up in a long time. Most Dems seem relieved about this guy, although I think they should be anything but relieved.
Point is: if he’s gonna win, some people are going jump on the bandwagon. You can’t expect the Dems to pitch a shutout on every judicial nominee.
Again, let’s see what comes up before we freak out.
radicalized, huh?
how sad that the political conversation has become so polluted by the domination of the Republicans that merely asking one’s own political party to fight for it’s constituents, to point out that a radical political hack from the opposing party is dangerous, is to be “radicalized”.
It’s not enough that he has a record supporting unlimited police powers? It’s not enough that he’s fine w/ extrajudicial star chambers deciding the fates of human beings? It’s not enough that the only “citizen’s” who’s rights he’s concerned with are CORPORATE citizens’?
Just how BAD does a pick have to be before he/she is worth fighting? Does Bush have to nominate a klansmen in full regalia before the whipped cur party will FIGHT.
Yup, I’m radical.
that is not what your asking.
You’re asking for the Democratic Party to go into full gear to defeat this nomination, and presumably any other nomination Bush can come up with.
That’s a reasonable request, but if we actually adopted it we would lose the argument. We can’t take the position that Bush is not allowed to appoint people to the court. He have to have something more specific to object to.
In the hearings we can raise all the issues that you have mentioned. And we’ll see how the American people respond to the prospect of Roe being overturned when they are actually confronted with the possibility.
If you have a realistic strategy, write it up. Equating this guy to a Klansman is not something Hillary is going to do.
maybe I am out of place here by saying this, but the only way I have seen this whole picture for 5 years now, is to fight fire with fire.
that he can’t stack the court with radicals, and this man is a radical. How bad does somebody have to be before they’re “worth” fighting? Do you think the Republican’s fretted like this when they were opposing FDR’s attempt to stack the court?
We would lose THIS fight, but maybe reenergize the party. If we’re always going to lose, and never going to fight, why should ANYBODY stand in line in the rain to EVER vote for this party again? Over and over, the party says: “this fight isn’t worth it.” When they DO fight, like in Bolton, they make the fight about SENATE PEROGATIVES! In other words, they fight when it’s about THEIR POWER. Otherwise, it’s just not worth it.
I think I AM offering a reasonable strategy. We live in unreasonable times, against a cultural and political movement that wants EVERYTHING. There’s no reasoning, there’s no “compromise”. If the party wants to be viable, it’s gotta be like Rocky … bent, bloodied, hurt … but still FIGHTING. Getting up ONE MORE TIME, EVERY TIME. We need the Republicans to end up like Apollo Creed, turning around in disbelief to his opponent weaving unsteady and nearly blind but FIGHTING. What the hell is more American than that?
My god, if this group of Democrats were running DC during Watergate, Nixon would have finished his term. If this group of Democrats were in power in the 1940s, we would have never entered the war. If this spineless Vichy party was in power when Pearl Harbor was attacked, they would have sued for peace.
Here is one of the things Salon has to say about Roberts, and, IMHO, it’s an extremely compelling reason to be very afraid of him. All this talk of him somehow being in the middle between O’Connor and Scalia is wishful thinking.
In the case of the twelve-year-old girl who was arrested, handcuffed and booked for eating a single french fry in a Metro station, he found that there was no unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
Roberts wrote that the Metro’s mandatory arrest policy was not unconstitutional in part because it would not have been “regarded as an unlawful search or seizure under the common law when the Amendment was framed,” that is, under the law as it stood in 1791. He described this inquiry as “the usual first step” in assessing Fourth Amendment cases, but really it is not. Instead, it is part of an approach to the law put forward by Justice Scalia, one that has been used inconsistently at best by the Supreme Court, garnering a clear majority’s support in only one Fourth Amendment decision. It is an approach that would in essence freeze our rights as they were in 1791. And it is contrary to a great deal of modern Supreme Court case law that is dear to most Americans — from protection against wiretapping to protection of the right to choose.
Why Roberts chose this approach and whether he indeed supports this narrow type of history-based constitutional interpretation of course remains to be seen. But what his approach is to interpreting the Constitution may well turn out to be the critical question in his confirmation hearings — not whether he is adequately accomplished. This is largely because of the way in which President Bush has gone about choosing all his previous judicial nominees. And it means the ball is firmly in the Democrats’ court.
Pretty scary stuff.
Did you see Schumer during the Dem’s press conference last nite? He opposed Robert’s nomination the last time around, so I think that was an indication that there is going to be at least a bit of a fight if Roberts refuses to answer questions about vital issues.
As for Mr Wonderbread/vegetable lasagna (Boo must be hungry today), it’s not over yet. He’s looking like Mr Clean now, but so did Kerik. And, Dems ought to be making noise about the fact that Roberts upheld the enemy combatant military tribunal sham while serving on the appeals court. He’s not untouchable and nobody’s that white bread.
The truly scary wing of the Supreme Court has been Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist. My gut feeling is it will now include Roberts, giving the scary wing a 4 seat minority. Replace Rehnquist with a wingnut and they will still have a 4 seat minority. If Souter, Ginsberg, Stevens, or Breyer go down for any reason over the next three years we have an absolute disaster on our hands that could severely cripple this nation for a century or more to come.
At any rate, Roberts is not worth going to battle over (although like BooMan, I will reserve final judgment until this guy is thoroughly vetted). We should make the usual noise in confirmation hearings and expose him as a wingnut, but ultimately vote NO but not filibuster. Roberts is the price of losing 2004. Roberts is probably the single biggest reason I fought so hard and gave so much money. Roberts is probably the single biggest reason that losing was so tough on me. To a lawyer who represents individual consumers, usually against big business, Roberts is precisely who I did NOT want to see on the bench.
Meanwhile, while we take our medicine, the battle that has much more traction and potential for impact must continue to be fought.
Good post, BooMan. Impressive.
In addition to Roberts’ suspiciously thin judicial record and his suspiciously fat corporate connections, progressives, Democrats, Americans, and especially women should be asking why Bush appointed a man to the seat held by the first woman to be appointed to the Supreme Court.
With two women on the court, the more than 50% of the population that’s female has 22% representation. With only one woman there, that drops to a whopping 11%.
This is yet another Bush slap at equality.
From ABC’s Note:
Major non-Roberts events today:
At 10:00 am ET, President Bush speaks on the Patriot Act in an address to the Port of Baltimore. Matt Cooper and Normal Pearlstine attend a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on media shield legislation at 9:30 am ET.
At 10:55 am ET, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) hosts a pen and pad briefing focusing on the week’s agenda.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee holds a 10:00 am ET hearing on accelerating economic progress in Iraq.
Alan Greenspan delivers his semiannual report on monetary policy to the Senate Financial Services Committee at 10:00 am ET.
At 10:00 am ET, the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Global Climate Change and Impacts holds a hearing on U.S. climate policy and a $5 billion 2006 budget request for climate-related science and technology.
RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman travels to Michigan for several grassroots events, including an informal discussion at Mott Community College and a dinner in Saginaw.
Vice President Cheney presents the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Awards at 10:30 am ET alongside Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez.
I notice that tomorrow’s 10am Senate FRC meeting is to focus on UN Reform.
Which of course, reminds me of Bush’s last newsworthy nomination, Yosemite Sam…I mean John Bolton.
How is he going to come back into the mix? You know he will. They’re throwing everything including the kitchen sink at us right now to try to get attention off Rove.
A recess appointment.
Look for the news on August 1.
Oh, I hope he goes for it. He’ll definitely pay politically for that choice.
But boy, it sure is starting to look like he’s willing to pay out the nose politically to really f*** stuff up in the wider world.
So far he hasn’t paid a dime…lol. But really, he has nothing to lose here. He will continue to do whatever the hell he pleases. What a disgusting piece of worthless crap. Bush that is.So arrogant the whole bunch of them. Let’s start calling them The Untouchables?
Yeppers. They have to get Bolton in under the scope because the bubble is about to burst and Bolton is connected to this whole damn Traitorgate.
I happened across a fun little strip from those far-sighted clip-artists at Get Your War On. They posted this on Sept. 29 2003:
Once again, BooMan…
Let US begin framing things.
You say:
“It looks like Bush finally did something well. He picked a judge that we will have a hard time pinning down on important issues, and he picked a nice person with a nice family, and good credentials.”
And…
“Bush won the election”
And…
“I’m glad Bush didn’t pull some stunt by appointing an anti-choice woman, or a corporate whore minority.”
And…
“Meanwhile, why is Karl Rove still employed by the U.S. taxpayers?”
We MUST pound home the literal fact that “Bush” did NONE of these things. He may believe he made the decision…but had he disagreed, he would have been “swayed”. If indeed he was even in the loop until the final decision had already been made.
He is a puppet.
A frontman.
A political boy toy.
Discredit him every chance that you get.
AND…
Karl Rove is NOT “employed” by U. S. taxpayers. He is employed by BushCo, which STEALS the money from American taxpayers to pay him.
Say it say it say it say it SAY it.
Over and over and over again, until it sinks in on the subconscious level where most people really make their “political” decisions.
It is the only way that we will win.
DIS the motherfuckers until they shrivel up and blow away in the wind of public opinion.
Later…
AG
Roberts came from the Bush 1 administration. Do you think poppy had anything to do with this? He was functioning as prenut at the time when Reagan was loosing it too…remember??????
I’m of two minds. I’m not happy with this selection, but perhaps the next appointment is the one to we will need to go to battle for. It could have been better and could have been worse. It will be very interesting to see how the hearings go.
(That title popped into my head last nite and I had to use it somewhere…)
I tend to disagree. If Bush really wanted to succeed in taking Rove’s name out of the press, he would have picked a controversial nominee at this point so Dems would be screaming long and hard while the Republicans could throw around their favourite words like “obstructionists”, “upperdown votes”, “uniter not a divider”, “smear campaign” etc…
With the choice of Mr Wonderbread, Bush has thrown out a softball that has no press legs since everybody will just have to wait for the confirmation hearings to get excited about anything SCOTUS now – not that there won’t be any opposition – but, if Bushco wanted to divert attention away from other major screw ups like the war and Rove, he chose the wrong man at the wrong time. Politically speaking, in the midst of these crucial times, I don’t think he did anything “well” here at all.
Even though this guy is as bland as a saltine cracker I’m glad Bush didn’t pull some stunt by appointing an anti-choice woman, or a corporate whore minority. This is a straight up vote on the issues, with no distractions.
Have no doubt that if opposition research turns anything up, the GOP will be labeling Democrats “anti-Catholic” so fast it would make Linda Blair’s head spin.
Looking at Roberts last night on TV, one phrase kept running through my mind: “The banality of evil.” I think this guy is bad news. He should be opposed at every level, as all of Bush’s nominees should be. I am not for any compromising on the part of Democrats now. It is always the Democrats who make concessions, I’m sick of it.
It is just like this bozo who says we should bomb Mecca — despite cries of outrage he will not apologize. Rove did not apologize for his remarks about liberals either. Durkin not only apologizes, he cries. Oh for God’s sake!
And this crap about making people apologize is getting out of hand anyway. Don’t ask the jerks to apologize — use the opportunity to counter what they say with facts and fire.
The right understands something the left can never seem to get. In the arena of public politics, what you do is ultimately less important than how you do it. It is the style with which you do a thing that ends up getting support from the public. If you cave in, you lose. If you “value” opposing points of view, you lose. If you push your points with thoughful reasoned analysis and debate, you lose. If you stand tall, even for doing something outrageously wrong, like calling to bomb Mecca, people will remember that you were “firm” and “resolved” and these are the qualities that people think they want in a “leader.”
Dems should fight Roberts with everything they have, and if the suceed in shooting him down, they should do the same thing to the next one, and the next one. And when people spin it as obstructionist, we will counter it with passionate rhetoric about principles. Why do the dems roll over every time the right attacks with lying spin? Where is the fire in the Democratic party? Don’t we have even one great orator who can speak truth to power?
Liberal values are good, they are not a thing to apologize for or compromise on. If we can’t start acting like we actually believe that, then what possibly do we have to offer to the fence sitters who may be swayed to our side if only they saw some genuine conviction on offer.
All thought to be reliable conservatives when appointed.
You give a guy a lifetime position and sometimes things change. Doesn’t always happen, Clarence Thomas is exactly what we suspected he would be.
But this scorched earth, burn their villages and ravish their woman approach suggested by some is flawed. We are killing them in the polls, their two evil geniuses Rove and DeLay are right in the gunsights of prosecuters. You filibuster Roberts on the basis of some twisted principle of fight at all cost and lose, and you have lost the power of the filibuster forever. And confirm the stupid “Democrats are just obstructionists” theme.
Save your anger for areas where it matters like Iraq, or Rove. Roberts looks to be perhaps the least dangerous of a dangerous list. Luttig, Wilkinson or Brown would all have been much worse.
I’m trying to figure out why this post, and the basis of this whole diary, is so irksome, and I think I’ve got it.
You see, I’ve had it with “giving a guy” a lifetime appointment to a position of power that will have a major impact on my life, when these same “guys” comprehend little about my life, and also won’t even bother to try and understand.
And I’m angry at the notion, mainly promoted by those in power or close to it, that who a person is will have nothing to do with the way that person interprets laws. The lie of impartiality.
And I’m angry that this country is held captive by those in power, who write and uphold laws aimed largly at protecting themselves from the rest of the country. How willing a person is to overlook that relationship is often correllated to how near he himself is to the aforementioned power.
Roberts and those like him go right to the heart of the issue.
So Rove and Delay are finally getting their comuppance — their prosecution has been a long time coming. Why? Because the loopholes in the laws are there to protect them. They and others would have been found guilty a long time ago of various crimes if the laws of the land were not written and administered by their friends — people just like Roberts.
Fitzgerald is not the norm, he is an exception, and it is only because of that that this case is going anywhere at all. We are benefiting from a fluke. I don’t want to see future matters of justice also dependent on a fluke. And that is exactly what will happen if we don’t start reshaping what constitutes the basis of our legal principles in this country. That’s why it matters and why Roberts is not acceptable.
Oh, and also, I guess I’m a bit angry at having to even explain this last point to a liberal.