Major battle unlikely from Democrats on Roberts

[Eugene]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/08/16/major_battle_unlikely_from_democrats_on_roberts/

Major battle unlikely from Democrats on Roberts

By Washington Post | August 16, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Democrats have decided that unless there is an
unexpected development in the weeks ahead, they will not launch a
major fight to block the Supreme Court nomination of John G. Roberts
Jr., according to legislators, Senate aides, and party strategists.

In a series of interviews in recent days, more than a dozen Democratic
senators and aides who are intimately involved in deliberations about
strategy said that they see no evidence that most Democratic senators
are prepared to expend political capital in what is seen as a likely
futile effort to derail Roberts.

Although they expect to subject President Bush's nominee to tough
questioning at confirmation hearings next month, members of the
minority party said they do not plan to marshal any concerted campaign
against Roberts because they have concluded that he is likely to get
at least 70 votes -- enough to overrule parliamentary tactics such as
a filibuster that could block the nominee.

more...

[Rageneau]

1. Dems roll over again. Surprise, surprise

Article says the Dems won't challenge Roberts because he has 70 solid votes. How in the hell can he have 70 solid votes without at least 25 Democrat quislings?

[ToeBot]

11. I figure he'll end up with more than 70, maybe closer to 80

After all, our Democratic Senators want to be "reasonable", Roberts is being portrayed as a "reasonable" appointee. They wouldn't want to appear fringe or otherwise be associated with NARAL. Hate to say it but this guy is going to sail on to the court, with virtually no opposition.

[Child_Of_Isis]

17. They won't challenge

because they are afraid the media will call them "liberals".

[SoCalDem]

2. They don't have the "stomach" for it, and fear being labeled

as "meanies".. They will brush the sand from their faces, and hide in the weeds, as they plot their next foray against the Bully of the Beach..

It ain't easy bein' the 98 lb weakling:(

[DELUSIONAL]

3. Reid is a MOTHER FUCKER

He is a DINO.

[saigon68]

56. There are a LOT OF DINOS in the senate.

They are worse than Mother Fuckers but i won't say what i think because any comment worse than yours will probably be deleted.

[DemNoir]

4. Good, let the voters live with the consequences of their actions

People can whine all they want about not "being tough", but the fact is
Democrats need to win some elections.

Nothing can change till they do.

[mom cat]

5. We DID win some elections...they were stolden! We need to fight like hell

for fair elections and fire any "democrat" or "republican" who won't fight for fair elections!

[Daftly]

46. Again, I don't buy this argument for 1 reason.

The major democrats running for office are silent. They are no fools, and they have connections. If there were truly widespread fraud, they would only be talking about the fraud. You cannot win a rigged game. Why would they play if they thought it was rigged? Obviously, they don't think there was enough fraud to make a difference.

If this is a non-issue and we divert significant resources from winning elections into chasing this red herring we will lose again in '06. It is a self-fulfilling prophesy. By claiming the game is fixed, many of our people will not bother to vote because they will believe their vote does not count.

I'll believe this is an issue when Dean, Hillary, Kerry, and Gore put this at the top of their agendas. Until contenders in major elections make voting reform the top priority, I am unconvinced anything is amiss.

[tom_paine]

58. You haven't been watching this situation with open eyes for very long,

have you?

First off, and I can tell you from experience, tht politics makes ones 'conservative'. Oh, not the Bushevik Meaning of the word or even the ACTUAL meaning of the word, but the meaning wehich is synonymous with overcaution.

That works against the Dems in general, and also what works is the Dems is their own internal misunderstanding of the situation, in which they still think they live in the Old United States of America and are facing other Americans, just another political movement like hundreds that have passed before.

But the Caesars are no political movement, the Caesars are finality, Caesars are the ends, and when Caeser crossed the Rubicon, as he did in 48 BC and again in 2000 AD.

But I drift from my point. Your line of reasoning "well, it would have surely come out if it was true" only applies to Free Nations, NOT to Amerika. Only to nations with a functioning media and a strong, vibrant Constitution. NOT the dying, decaying wreckage of past glories, as we have here and now.

The Dems are chiefly characterized by fear. They dare not even speak truths for which they HAVE evidence, because by now they are fully aware that there is no lie that 24/7 shrieking from the Bushevik Totalitarian Sub-Media can't launder, no truth they cannot obfuscate, with ease.

And they fear. And they quail. Further, now that the chains of uninspectable unverifiable electronic "voting" is being fastened around our necks, there isn't even any evidence to find, anymore.

In order for America to work, you need people who believe in it's principles, and we simply don't have enough, at least at the higher levels, to maintain it.

And so it died a quiet and ignominious death in 2000, barely marked and not even remembered, as the Busheviks wear it's corpse around their necks like "Weekend at Bernie's".

My point is that to assume that the Dems would stand up for ANYTHING is a fallacy. Because Tyranny, whether it be in the schoolyard or the Imperial Congress, ALWAYS takes two to tango. It takes the ruthless bully, but it also takes the gutless wimp's co-operation.

To be honest, I feel pity for the vast majority of folks who cannot see what lies ahead. It's funny, because it's all there in the history books. Hell, it's even in the theaters (Star Wars I-III).

But it is only so because it is a very old and depressing story, not because George Lucas is clairvoyant or anything.

I cannot convince you, only experience and time will do so. The paradox is that, by then it will be too late to do anything about it.

And here is the paradox of your position, and I can no more prove it to you than someone in 1933 Germany could prove to HIS neighbors of what lay ahead (yes, it will likely be Kinder and Gentler this time...no firing up the ovens). But here it is anyway:

You insist that the voting system is trustworthy and true. And that the reason we keep losing elections is because we focus too much on this issue. So that when we keep mysteriously losing (and we will, rest assured we will, no matter WHO votes for WHAT) you can keep saying it's because of this distraction.

Evetually, you will understand, and like the Geramsn of 1945, you will look back with shame and wonder how you could have been so easily duped, how you could have so easily denied the evidence of your eyes.

I have no answer for you, only pity. For we are all to blame for the Death of the Old United States, but some of us are more to blame than others.

[leesa]

9. And this wimpiness is going to win elections how??? It's disgusting to

people to see them roll over again and again to have their tummies scratched with payola.

[tom_paine]

25. Imperial Amerika doesn't HAVE elections

Not REAL ones, anyway. Not at the national level.

So what then, do you suggest to win these mythical "elections"?

Might as well be campaigning against the King of Saudi Arabia (which is, of course, the essence of what anyone who opposes the Amerikan Caesars is doing) for all the good it would do.

You what Free National Elections? A people with the guts to demand FAIR elections?

Go to the Ukraine, because such is simply not possible in Imperial Amerika...except perhaps the local dogcatcher race.

Keep living in a dreamworld, DemNoir. Keep thinking the Old Post-WWII Free America lives on and that all we have to do is win some elections...until experience teaches you otherwise mayhaps a decade or more from now (depending on how fierce your denial is).

Of course, history shows us repeatedly that by the time you notice, it will be FAR too late.

It makes me laugh when people talk about national "Elections" in this country.

Like listening to Soviet Citizenry boasting how they're going to kick out Brezhnev in the big 1978 "Election".

So naive. So utterly laughable. I guess monsters like the Bushes have beenpushing people into denial for thousands of years, long before his grandaddy Prescott was laundering Hitler's money in order to keep the Germans in a similar state.

And what are we, but the living breathing reincarnation of the German Social Democrats?

And aren't we so LUCKY that it seems the Busheviks are taking the Caesar, not the Hitler path. Because they could you know. And they still may. Only time will tell.

But what time HAS already told, with 98% certainty (and yes, I pray every day for the slim 2% chance to be true), is that the Imperial Subjects of Amerika will NEVER get to choose our Emperor again.

We are window-dressing. Anf the only difference in that regard between the Busheviks and the Nazis is that the Busheviks are well aware that they dare not rig the vote higher than 55-45%.

For the moment, anyway. In not too long a time, it simply won't matter anymore.

And will I devote hundreds of hours & dollars to the "campaign" in 2006 and 2008 as I did in 2004?

Of course I will. Just in case that slim chance comes through.

But I won't hold my breath for what I know to be an almost certain pipe dream.

[Daftly]

54. Post 46 N/T

[Baconfoot]

27. Totally the wrong outlook to have. The job is to promote our interests.

Not trying to convince their fellow congresspersons of the unsuitability of this person for the Supreme court is a dereliction of their duty to promote our interests.

It's not true that "Nothing can change till {the Dems win some elections}." We have on our side the better, both in the sense of being more convincing and in the sense of being more correct, arguments. What we NEED to do and what we CAN do is use these arguments to further the interests of the people of the nation.

[Daftly]

53. You are both right.

The repukes can and will run roughshod over us until the Dems start winning elections. However, if the Dems do not fight against the tide, how are they any different that the Repukes? In order to win elections, you must win the battle of ideas. There are plenty of ideas within the party, but no one is willing to tout them. Again it is the fear that by doing so, they will draw attention and become the next targets for the GOP.

Catch 22. Fight and draw the full wrath of the enemy, or skulk in the corner and wait for the janitor to sweep you out later. If you fight, at least you have the chance to win.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

6. And this suprises me, ummmm how?

Hi ho.
Out the all go.

[Triana]

7. Roberts thinks equal pay is "radical" and...

..women's right to privacy is described as "so-called" by him and Democrats choose to ROLL OVER. And because they CHOOSE to roll over then women LOSE THEIR choices - AND their rights to equal pay for equal work, rights to their own bodies, to their privacy, and their own lives.

THANK YOU VERY LITTLE AND F*CK YOU VERY MUCH DEMOCRATS!

There they go again, bending over like limple little helpless noodles.

Useless (well, most of them...)

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. Billy Jack is right

neither party is worth a shit any more.

Any person, who apparently does not believe in the right of every American to have their vote counted, has no place on the Supreme Court.

[OneBlueSky]

10. major battle unlikely from Democrats on ANYTHING! . . . n/t

.

[kath]

19. EXACTLY what I was going to say.

you beat me to it. :-(

[Lost4words]

12. someday democrat politicians will grow a spine, hopefully.

I no longer call myself a democrat, too ashamed of the party of sissies.

[Catholic Sensation]

13. and how exactly are they going to fight Roberts?

He has probably the smallest judicial track record of any Supreme Court nominee in recent history, and barring an Anita Hill type coming forward, there's nothing really in his past that can be used as a tool against him. They can't just say "no, because he's a Bush nominee we won't allow him onto the Supreme Court" and then filibuster, because then the Nuclear Option comes into effect, and then any lunatic right winger Bush nominates will be voted in because the Republicans control both Houses of Congress.

[gratuitous]

14. Getting a look at his entire record would be a start

Just like with John Bolton, the White House has sequestered Roberts' written record of his time as a publicly paid attorney for the Department of Justice.

It's an easy issue: Provide the Senate with the entirety of Roberts' record or withdraw his nomination. While the administration doesn't seem to have much use for the Constitution despite the Executive's swearing on oath to preserve, protect and defend it, the Senate takes its constitutionally-mandated role to advise and consent quite seriously. And it can't carry out that function when the president who submitted the nomination can't provide the nominee's records.

Would you hire someone for life without looking at his resume and checking his references?

[Lars39]

32. There's enough out there already to get a clear picture of Roberts:

Robert's Once Wrote of Abortion Tragedy
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/16/AR2005081600454.html

Nominee Roberts, in '84, called equal pay for women 'radical
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uscort164386084aug16,0,4059927.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines

Roberts Backed Efforts for School Prayer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/15/AR2005081500539.html

Roberts joined effort to limit voting protections in '80s
http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-11-roberts-papers_x.htm?csp=1

And the WH is sitting on some 40,000 pages that would give the total picture of Roberts.
The bush WH reassured the religious RW for a year that Roberts would do what they want.

[Dave Reynolds]

45. I agree that a fight is pointless, but damn it

every one of the "opposition" should act like it. A "NO" vote if there were doubts would be the honorable thing to do.

I know, honorable politicians are like seeing Bigfoot.

[malachi]

15. Major battle unlikely from Democrats on .......... Fill in the blank.

You can choose from a vast array of topics. Should be renamed the Rover Party, they rollover on command.

[kath]

20. Is there any chance of even a MINOR battle on anything?

:-( :-( :-(

[liveoaktx]

16. Call Reid NOW

the articles from today about Roberts positions are untenable.

[LeftyElvis]

18. Dr. Dean

has got to get these lamos off their asses!!!!!!!!!

[VegasWolf]

21. Two words, "THIRD PARTY!" I'm finished with the jellyfish and will

vote for the next independent I like. The democratic party
is in for dark days. These guys have no ideology, they simply
want to keep their cushy jobs. I think 2006 will be a stinging
rebuke for these lazy democrats.

[depakid]

33. They're headed towards disaster in 2006

I don't really see any way around it.

People perceive the party as weak and standing for nothing. They're incapable of forming any sort of coherent message on a national scale- and when Dean tries to do so, prominant Dems backstab him. Every time they have an opportunity to act in concert- 4 or 5 of them sell out (as with CAFTA) and the entire party ends up looking pathetic.

If the Dems can't even stand up to the extremism here at home and protect what littl is left of what America was (or could have been) how can they fight "terrorists abroad? That's sure what a lot of people must think....

Frankly, if I'm thinking the way I am- you can only wonder what the rest of the electorate sees- and I'm not voting for my "Democratic" congressman again. Ever.

Aside from having no integrity- he's voted Republican one too many times. Unless he steps down- or the Dems get smart and run a strong primary challenge I may actually vote Republican for the first time in my life.

That's how bad it's become for the Dems. And with every sell out, it only gets worse- even as the Republicans are imploding. Sad.

[KittyWampus]

50. Prominent Dems "Backstab" Dean? What A Pantload.

want to provide links to credible sources for that baseless accusation?

Specifically, a link to something that isn't bullshit created by Mediawhores.

[depakid]

57. Hell, just about every time Dean opens his mouth

and criticizes Republicans, some DINO goes after him!

Even Obama (Mr. populist yet vote for the bankruptcy law) went after Dean last month.

Run a search on DU!

Look what happened to Durbin when he stood up- Dems hammered him too.

Nope, they're acting undisciplined and weak- and they're going down again- I wish it weren't so- but that's how it's playing out.

[VegasWolf]

22. Democrats will continue to lose elections because of a lack of balls and

they don't seem to have that "vision thing". No wonder
people think that Democrats would be weak on defense. They can't
even get defense at home to work. Since these DLC democrats are
going to continue to lose elections, why not start building a
viable thrid party? It's not like a vote is being thrown away.

[slay]

23. Let me get this straight -just because we're outnumbered they won't fight?

PATHETIC! You either stand firm in your beliefs or you don't. Is it suddenly ok to cave to republican bullshit? I am really beginning to wonder what the Dem's are thinking.

[ninkasi]

24. I'm so sick of reading, over and over....

"Major battle unlikely from Democrats on..." now it's Roberts, but they can use the first six words to preface whatever battles we should be fighting for the next few years.

We have been "saving" our strength, our resources, whatever, since this bully stole the presidency the first time. Dems in government should be even more strong and rested than even Chimp, because they have the same strategy for everything that comes along. Saving their energy for something else.

Except for a few brave exceptions, most of our Democratic representatives should just be voted out at the next available opportunity, and replaced with people who don't mind fighting for us. They can conserve their energy in private life, where just waiting for the next battle won't lose us even more freedom here, and cause us any more poverty.

[Overseas]

40. I agree with you !! Too much saving up-- while losing more and more. EOM

[barb162]

26. Imagine if the GOP were the minority party and a liberal was put

up for the SC. You think they would do this? No, they would sling every piece of mud they could and if they couldn't find any, they'd make some up.

[Daftly]

29. Look at justice Ginsberg

I would agree with this but Ginsberg was appointed without a hitch. I know that most of the Repubs are still outraged that there was no fight. Policitians are the same all over the world. Very few have a spine. Of course an opposition party should oppose a nominee they do not agree with.

[barb162]

41. I agree and thought of that but she was a big exception and the

last thing the GOP could do back then was attack this teeny little fragile "schoolmarm-looking" woman who looks like you could knock her down by coughing hard. They knew it would have hit them back in the ass if they attacked her and I think that's the only reason they didn't.

The GOP has gotten openly nasty the last several years in the sense they make up dirt. The way they kept the Clinton investigations going on for years with the different special prosecutors when they KNEW there was nothing on Whitewater. Their goal is (1) to tarnish the Democrats and (2) make themselves the party of purity and moral values

[tom_paine]

28. You know, those spineless turds are the one who DESERVE to be enslaved

And yet, they will continue stuffing their faces with creme' brulet while the Old Republic is taken apart at the joints by the most ruthless criminals to EVER rule America since King George III in 1776...perhaps EVER.

They make me sick unto my stomach, these German Social Democrats, these craven worms, these people who so utterly exemplify the fear and moral bankruptcy of those who have quailed before tyrants since human history began.

All they want is their creme' brulet, and they care only marginally more about us than the Imperial Monsters who consider us animals, cattle, or "fodder units" (as our Emperor-in-Waiting Jeb calls us).

There may be a handful of True Americans remaining in the halls of the Imperial Congress, or perhaps Paul Wellstone was The Last of the Americans.

In either case, it matters not. Not a whit. Without a majority, or even a substantial minority of people in Imperial Amerika who believe in freedom (rather than just wave the murdered corpse around like "Weekend at Bernie's"), freedom will never again return to these shores.

And all we have left is to mark the time between now,when it is possibel to deceive ourselves that we are free, and the penultimate and ultimate phases of the Nero/Caligulan generations of Bushes removes even the last ability to deny what is.

The Spineless Democrats will echo disgracefully throughout history, as their spiritual antecedents, the German Social Democrats of 1933 also echo.

[femrap]

30. The Democrats have betrayed us...

Only Boxer and Kennedy will give Johnny Bob Jr. a hard time. I don't know how I am going to get through those Hearings...I won't be able to watch. I remember watching Anita Hill and then in complete disgust, thomas was approved.

Johnny Bob doesn't think women deserve equal pay....how Unamerican is that? I wonder how much he paid the mother(s) of his children? He bought them in South America....His attitude is very scarey...women are nothing more than incubators to him. This guy is a member of Opus Dei....a non-mainstream weird Catholic sect that thomas is also a member...a parish in Bethesda led by Father McCloskey...

The above two items should be investigated...but you watch, nothing will be mentioned.

Roe v. Wade will be overturned....I have no doubt. And getting birth control will become difficult. Women will be shoved back into kitchens without their shoes...

I just want to leave this country....because I don't recognize it anymore.

[fshrink]

31. In comparison to

the 2000 and 2004 "elections", and the backing down that followed, twice, such skirted battle still lowers the bar of what is to be expected. Maybe the only battles worth fighting are minor ones? And among those, the battles you are handed to amuse the audience? And, after all, why even be so adversarial? "Reaching out" is so much smarter and safer.

[CityDem]

34. Waiting for the next one

The dem senators are saving all their political capital to fight the next SCOTUS nominee. BWWWWAAAAAAA!!!! Other than Bolton (who gave them plenty of material), the dem senators have been wimps. AWOL could nominate Himler for SCOTUS and 25 dems would support the guy. Our party leaders suck.

[bvar22]

35. ...expend political capital in what is seen as a likely futile effort ....

"no evidence that most Democratic senators are prepared to expend political capital in what is seen as a likely futile effort to derail Roberts."


These Senators haven't been paying attention.
Democrats who have STOOD UP for their constituents against the Republicans have GAINED political capital!!

[TankLV]

42. Boy are they in for a rude awakening when I and thousands of other former

and current dems refuse to "spend OUR political capital" by sitting out the next elections (we would never vote for a repuke, so what choice do we have?).

Vichy Dems strike again.

Wait for something more important - WELL, YOU FUCKTARDS, EVERYTHING SHOULD BE IMPORTANT!

I hate all this "triangulation" and "stratergizing" - what ever happened to FIGHTING BECAUSE THE CAUSE IS JUST, EVEN IF YOU ARE LIKELY TO LOSE?

Bahhhhh.

[MisterP]

36. THIS is why a majority is utterly worthless!

IWR? had a majority
Patriot Act? Dem Senate (didn't even read what the Bushites prepared in suspicious anticipation of their New Pearl Harbor)
Schiavo? 80% didn't want Congress's involvement
CAFTA? REPUBLICANS were voting en masse against it!
And before I'm condemned for weeping for my party (funny how if you weep for your country here it's a-okay), I heartily applaud Boxer and Dean's recent stands against "Womens is Bad" Roberts and the Imperial Occupation, respectively

[FlemingsGhost]

37. Destroy the DLC, or get used to bending over. (n/t)

Flem.

[geek tragedy]

38. Wimps. eom

[Caleb]

39. Can't really blame the Dems

They don't have much to work with. The WH isn't releasing his documents.

[Lars39]

43. Here's what's already known about Roberts:

Robert's Once Wrote of Abortion Tragedy
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

Nominee Roberts, in '84, called equal pay for women 'radical
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uscor...

Roberts Backed Efforts for School Prayer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

Roberts joined effort to limit voting protections in '80s
http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-11-ro...

And the WH is sitting on some 40,000 pages that would give the total picture of Roberts.
The bush WH reassured the religious RW for a year that Roberts would do what they want

[Robbins]

44. Dems

Why bother having hearings If they are going to vote for him? Let's
vote now so we know who the true Dems are.

[Daftly]

48. They don't have any ammunition on him

1.) His judicial philosophy is not a criteria by which appointees have historically been rejected.

2.) We don't have much evidence of his true judicial philosophy even if that is a basis we wanted to pursue. (Which it should be)

3.) So far he is squeaky clean. No Anita Hill has shown up yet. No scandals have appeared. Links to the federalist society and Opus Dei are not illegal though they tell us a lot about him.

Frankly, it is difficult to Bork someone when you know nothing about them. A U.S. president has the right to nominate who ever he likes. Simply knowing the president is a buffoon is not enough leverage to stop a nomination. I oppose the nomination because I know what type of nut job the guy in charge would nominate. That does not mean there is a basis to build the necessary support to stop that nomination.

That was quite a rope a dope the repukes pulled with the nuclear option. Brown and the others were seated in order to save the filibuster for this situation. Now that there is a supreme court nomination, the nominee is one that the Dems are unwilling to filibuster.

I don't like feeling like a dope that's been roped.

[mvd]

49. He's been really chummy with Reagan and Bush II

That's not something that can be used against Bush with his cabinet positions (though it's weasely as always with Bush,) but with a Supreme Court nominee, it is something to start with. The Repukes have framed things to their advantage that are harder to frame than this.

[Daftly]

52. Nepotism, though distasteful....

does not make his nomination invalid. It doesn't even cast a shadow on it. In order to shoot down the nomintaion you must convince enough people that he will not be a good judge. You have to find cause that will cast questions on his competency, judgement, or moral fiber. It is not enough to prove he will not side with us. It is not even enough to prove that is interpretation of the constitution is not main stream.

This is why Roberts will be confirmed.

[mvd]

55. Well, it does cast doubts on his judgment

If he's too close to who nominated him. If Roberts believes in the same interests Bush does (where corporations beseige the common person,) it's a start.

[mvd]

47. Well, how often have so many papers been denied

to the party that doesn't have the Presidency? I believe the hiding of these papers could be reason enough to filibuster. And can't they wait for the hearings to decide anything? I agree - lots more spine from the Dems needed on many things.

[IndianaGreen]

51. WP doesn't identify the Democratic Senators and their aides

for all we know, WP could be talking of people like Lieberman, Bayh, and Biden, and presenting their views as the views of the Democratic Senators as a whole.

We could be bursting our spleens over nothing!

Let's force these cockroaches into the light. Who are these people the WP is quoting? Let them feel our wrath!