He is gong to get confirmed so get it over with quick & keep the

[Jon8503]

focus on Rove.

Why do you think they moved this up so quick. Keep the news media on the confirmation process or Dems blocking him.

Don't know much about him but it sounds like on his last confirmation, Dems went with him including Biden of course.

They want all of the attention on this confirmation.

I say get it over with and stay on top of Rove.

[babylonsister]

1. Agreed. If it looks inevitable, confim and move

along to more pressing issues.

[still_one]

6. no

the Rove affair will NOT go away, the special prosecuter will see to that

If we don't fight this one, then we can hang it up, because we stand for nothing

If this isn't an activist judge, nobody is...

[DireStrike]

2. Nobody cares about the supreme court pick except the politically inclined.

The only way the story will take off is if we obsess over it.

[still_one]

3. not necessarily

you have pro-choice republicans, the same ones who will overturn the veto of stem cell research

[Kraklen]

4. Unless it turns out he burnt a cross or something.

Which is entirely possible, it is a Bush appointee.

[Democat]

5. He is only 50 years old, Democrats need to fight this all the way

If we give in to an extreme Supreme Court nominee, then we are rewarding Rove for nominating him during the scandal.

We can't give in and let the right wing win just because some people think that we can't focus on two issues at one time.

If we give in on either issue, then they win.

[still_one]

7. that's right

please remember the rove issue will be dealt with by the grand jury

it has a life of its own

[Jon8503]

8. Granted but look who the dems already allowed to go thru. I

would like nothing better than to get a liberal on the court. However, give me the percentage of that occuring right now. That is just like getting a congressional investigation of Rove. Chances are slim.

I know this is a Grand Jury investigation but we need to keep this Rove issue on the front burners, in the papers, on tv every day.

Look at how Bush's numbers are dropping.

It is very important to pick your battles.

We can win the Rove battle, we already have the public understanding and knowing this guy broke the law. If we get Rove, that is one hell of a domino to start the fall.

[still_one]

16. I understand your point

but the Democrats really have to stand for something

example:

during the hearings, ask him how he would rule on roe v wade if it were up today

ask him about when he thought it was OK to prevent a doctor talking to a patient about abortion

ask him about civil liberties

these are valid questions, and if the answers are against the citizens it is the duty of the Democrats and Republicans to oppose his nomination

[Lecky]

11. I don't agree with your logic there

This has nothing to do with Rove...I don't see this as a football game. We don't fully know what this guy is like, and if you look back some conservative judges start leaning towards the middle once on the SC.

This is Bush's nominee and he does have every right to pick someone he feels will do a good job. Sure I loathe him, but that's how our country works. If we had a democrat in office they'd have every right to do the same. If our leaders go after him I hope it's for a good reason and not just for political reasons.

While I am certainly concerned about how this will affect our country in the long run I am hesitant to jump the gun just yet. We don't know much about this guy yet...

[Jon8503]

12. You did'nt Read My Previous. I agree if this guy is a really

dangerous nominee, then we have to stand and fight. However, what I am saying you already had Biden voting for him in his current position. So, I am saying the end result is he is going on the Supreme Bench no matter if you fight him for 6 months.

I say, if there is a reason to fight, we fight. Otherwise, I say we keep the American people on Rove and keep the spotlight there and let them know what a bunch of corrupt criminals are in the American White House.

[Jane Austin]

19. Are his judicial decisions extreme or is it his

(paid) filings as an attorney?

His Roe vs. Wade comments, for instance, were as an advocate for the Bush I White House, which was against Roe V Wade.

Does he have any judicial decisions relating to abortion?

[DemFromMem]

9. No smoking gun so far

Nothing in his biography will prevent a confirmation. Most of his work has been in the course of representing clients or the government. You can't infer that a lawyer holds the same views as the clients he represents. As for the decisions on the bench, we've got little to work with.

The hearings will be the place to see if we can figure out his real views and my guess is he'll hold them close to the vest.

On the other hand, decisions like this have backfired on Presidents. Souter is the perfect example of this. He was picked by Bush senior because he did not have a lot of decisions on Constitutional issues (he was a state judge). Not exactly a radical right winger. Probably wishful thinking, but it's always a risk.

[librechik]

10. he wants to overturn Roe v Wade, and he gave money to the FL recount

crime--he's in the thick of it. I'm especially concerned about the 2000 recount thing.

He stands out in that crowd because he doesn't seem like a craven perverted psychopath like the rest of them. In fact he looks like a genuine human being, unlike most of the alien genetic mutants Shrub seems to prefer, and blazingly intelligent, which will be refreshing.

That's no reason to rubber stamp him. We should fight and take some time to debate women's rights and the principal of free choice.

Sure he'll get confirmed anyway. But we need to stand on principle, always.

[writes2000]

13. Read Roberts' Own Quote re: Roe V. Wade in 2003

"Roberts on Roe

In his defense, Roberts told senators during his 2003 confirmation hearing that he would be guided by legal precedent. “Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.”

[DemFromMem]

20. Agree - to a point

I agree that he should not be rubber stamped. But we have a confirmation process and a free media and we'll learn more about him over the next several weeks and months.

What bothers me is the quick rush to define this guy out to be Satan with good hair on the basis of very flimsy evidence. The views he espoused in the course of representing his clients - be they private companies, individuals or the executive branch of the federal government - were the views he was paid to espouse. They may also be his personal views, but it is quite unfair to assume this is the case.

We basically have a couple of law review articles he wrote decades ago as a student and his decisions on the bench over the last two years.

I think it will be really too bad if we spend millions running ads portraying this guy as a wacko without any real evidence he is. That's what we would expect of Republicans. Wait until we have real evidence to go on.

By the way, historically, this type of nominee fits the mold of the surprise bad choice. Souter, for example, was chosen partly because as a state judge he did not have a long paper trail on controversial constitutional questions. I'd rather have a guy like Roberts than someone with 20 years of scary decisions. And I like the fact that this guy was in private practice for a lot of years. Good lawyers - and it sounds like he is one of the best in DC - are usually very pragmatic in the way they view the world. When I saw the list of who Bush was considering, I saw people that made me far more nervous.

As for giving money to the the recount, some of us contributed to Gore's recount effort as well. This just tells me that the guy is a Republican. Not exactly a shock. Sandra Day O'Connor had a pretty partisan background as well and she turned out to be okay. Demanding nominees be apolitical BEFORE they go on the bench (and 2000 was while this guy was a private lawyer)is not legit.

[still_one]

17. don't believe it, bush knows exactly where he stands

[Connie_Corleone]

14. The Republicans only need 5 Democrats to cross over.

I think they'll find 5 Democrats easily. The senate will still go through the "tough" confirmation hearing, activists will still write to their Democratic senators and urge them not to vote for confirmation, but in the end, Roberts will be confirmed.

[Jon8503]

15. Yes, you are correct. That is why I say keep the news media on

Rove and don't give the White House what it wants a tough confirmation hearing that we know the end result anyway.

Again, if this guy was a Priscella Owens I would say fight to the end and pull out every dirty trick there was. But there is nothing to indicate he is a individual like she is.

[MidnightWind]

18. Agreed. We can't fight this nomination

Well, we can fight it but it will ultimately happen whether we like it or not. But we can and must do something about Rove.