Harry Reid: Roberts has "suitable legal credentials"

[yankeefanatic3]

Wow! What a way to begin a fight against someone who wants to overturn Roe.

Contact Senator Reid at http://reid.senate.gov and let him know what you think.

[NYC Liberal]

1. Just because he has a resume doesn't mean he's fit for SCOTUS

[BattyDem]

2. If Reid and the Dems don't fight this ...

it will be time for us to kiss the Democratic party goodbye and form a new party that WILL represent our interests! :grr:

[seabeyond]

17. bullshit. that is the battle between right and left.

why you want to win. the person that wins gets to put their person in supreme court. why we wanted to win. why we didnt want bush to win. why during the campaign people yelled for voters to think about the supreme court

this is it

[cosmicdot]

70. people did think about the SCOTUS ...

that's, in part, why Kerry won, but, the election was stolen

[BattyDem]

71. The problem is that we always fight for the Dems ...

but they never fight for us. I know that some Dems do fight very hard for us, but most of them usually roll over and play dead. :-(

[LoZoccolo]

28. And that party is...THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!

Right? That's who you'll be putting in power, at least.

[BattyDem]

69. That argument doesn't cut it anymore!

In case you haven't noticed, the Republicans are already in power and they control every branch of government ... and the media! A right-winger is about to tip the balance of the USSC against us for the next 40 years. We have nothing left to lose.

For the last 5 years, all I've been hearing is, "You have to vote for the Dem whether you like it or not because if you don't, the Repugs will win."

So ... I voted for every Dem, even when I wasn't thrilled with them. I supported them and I did everything I could to get my friends and family to support them ... and guess what? It didn't mean a fucking thing because the Repugs rigged the machines, stole the elections, ignored the rules, broke the laws, trampled on the rights of the people, pissed on the Constitution and said "FUCK YOU" to the country and the world!

While all of this was going on, the Dems (with the notable exception of Conyers, Boxer and a handful of others) sat on their asses and did NOTHING! They did everything they could possibly do to "make nice" so the Repugs wouldn't call them names or embarrass them. They looked the other way while TWO presidential elections were taken from them! They made a deal to stop the "nuclear option" by allowing several extremist judges to be confirmed and as a result, they will be threatened with that option whenever they attempt to block any judicial nomination. (Tell me again ... what did our side get from that deal?) They didn't want to rock the boat or start any trouble or cause a scene or divide the country or stand up for the people they were elected to serve. It's always the same old excuses: "We have to pick our fights intelligently ... the time isn't right to challenge the Repugs ... this particular fight isn't worth it ... we have to consider the overall strategy, not just this one issue ... we'll let this one slide, but we'll get 'em next time!" :eyes:

What is more important that a LIFETIME APPOINTMENT to the US Supreme Court?!? Any person who sits on that bench will be making decisions that will determine the course of our civil rights, personal freedom and privacy for the next 40 years! If that's not worth fighting for - if that's not a good enough reason for the Dems to stand up for us - than what is?

Enough is enough! I'm a woman - the right to control what happens to my body is NON-NEGOTIABLE and the fact that so many Dems are willing to "let this one go" because it's not worth the effort proves that women have no real representation in DC.

[Guaranteed]

3. Well, that just puts a stake through all of our hearts.

Well done, Reid.

We'll all remember you for your leadership during this difficult time.

[fujiyama]

6. I liked Schumer's response

He was very clear that Roberts wouldn't get a rubber stamp.

Even I have to admit that Roberts has impressive credentials - but that doesn't mean I necessarily want him on the court...Hopefully that's the way Reid sees it.

[Guaranteed]

9. Schumer responded to Roberts?

You're not talking about what he said a week or two ago, right?

[NYC Liberal]

12. He spoke tonight after Commander Codpiece

[KittyWampus]

42. He Is Qualified. Demonstrate How He Is Not. Without Ideological Arguments

[Guaranteed]

46. LOL is that like "without talking about the issues?"

Do you realize you're using Republican talking points?

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pepperbelly]

25. did you bother to read the entire statement before going off half-cocked?

The OP is pretending that it is kissie-face but it was not. Read what Reid said. He gave them nothing.

[Lord_StarFyre]

37. I read his statement...

I'm Sorry Pepper, but I'm sick to death of feeling stabbed in the back by OUR FREAKING SIDE!

At least with the FREEKERS and the Repukes we know what we're up against.

Just ONCE, seriously, O N C E I want to see Reid stand up against this corrupt Administration and lead the charge against them.

Or even better, how about they all get to-fucking-gether and start fighting their common enemy GEORGE W BUSH!

Otherwise, why not just roll up the matt, turn off the lights, and just turn the DNC into RNC Light...

As it is now, if any one of these shrinking violets dares to open their mouth, our side trips over each other getting to a mike to demand an apology

[Pepperbelly]

51. Then what did you want, if you read his statement?

Did you want his foaming at the mouth and declaring eternal opposition before a single hearing is held or a record examined? That is not only counterproductive, it is reactionary.

[blondeatlast]

68. Anyone who thinks he ISN'T qualified has no business

offering an opinion.

Even I know he's qualified--that doesn't mean that he ought to be passed.

I read the article too; I got quite a different perspective. Interesting, doncha think?

[Writer]

5. I am very certain there's a "but" in there somewhere...

I have a teeny tiny gut feeling that's not his entire quote.

[Lord_StarFyre]

8. Yeah, there's a Butt in there all right

...It's Reid's and Lieberman's being presented willingly to the WH...

[Guaranteed]

10. Touche. nt

[Guaranteed]

11. You know, if there was ever an argument for purging DLC whores from our

party, it should be made right here.

Can't believe this shit.

[Pepperbelly]

27. Right ...

What we need to do is CUT our number of Senators by 10 or twelve. That would sure show 'em, wouldn't it? :sarcasm:

:eyes:

[Writer]

32. Hell, yes! Cut off our nose to spite our face!

Purity! Purity! Say exactly what I WANT YOU TO SAY, you damned wimps!
:sarcasm:

[Guaranteed]

41. Oh, a Roberts supporter!

Tell me, what do you like about him?

[KittyWampus]

44. apparently your not one for subtleties tonight. your either with us or

against us.

the world isn't black and white.
it's not even gray.

[Guaranteed]

45. A vote to confirm Roberts is a vote to confirm Roberts.

You may try to drag this into the grayness, but a Democrat voting for this man to the Supreme Court is straight-up wrong. Wrong.

[Pepperbelly]

53. Shit, man ...

I haven't even made up my mind about this guy yet and you want pols to jump immediately to your conclusion?

[makhno]

72. That's the problem right there

There's nothing to make your mind up about - he's a Republican nominee, what do you think his political views are? What is there to analyze in his record? He believes in a way of life and a socio-economic system that are entirely at odds with progressive thought. Thus, he is not a suitable candidate.

Your mind should be made up - nothing the right wing proposes can be a satisfying option to a committed progressive.

[Guaranteed]

40. Yeah, cuz it's great when our own Senate MINORITY Leader will

apparently vote to confirm this clown.

Besides, you're jumping to conclusions. Getting rid of DLC whores doesn't mean replacing them with Republicans- obviously, actually. Why you'd even think that we'd TRY to do that, I have no idea.

The idea is to replace them with Democrats who don't VOTE with the Republicans- in PARTICULAR ON SUPREME COURT NOMINEES. Thus, THIS is the time the argument could be made. Most definitely.

[LoZoccolo]

50. Uh, this was debunked an hour and a half before your post?

Take it easy, please.

[Tsiyu]

61. Take it easy, hmmmmmmm

hard to do when there's the thought of the government getting involved in my private life.

I want a nominee who understands the Constitution, not the party line.

I see a hardliner on abortion issues, and I see a lot of dead teenage girls and women. How many more will be killed by their partners or rapists once abortion whisks away their DNA and they have to pay child support or confess to hideous sex crimes?

Taking it easy is not an option. Not for me, at least.

[Pepperbelly]

52. in Nebraska, Louisiana, Arkansas or Florida?

These guys have a pretty good idea of what will work with their electorate and what will not.

[Guaranteed]

64. Then what use do we have for them?

If all they're doing is voting against us and further undermining our platform, why should we support them?

[Pepperbelly]

65. how much support have you ever given to pols from Nebraska,

Louisiana or Arkansas?

[Writer]

24. Yeah. I suppose there's always poor intentions.

Nothing's ever straight-forward. "They're" always up to no good.

Even if they're on our team.

Edit to include his ENTIRE QUOTE WHICH SOME OF US HAVE FAILED TO LOOK UP: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-07-20T004926Z_01_N19218666_RTRIDST_0_USREPORT-BUSH-COURT-DC.XML

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[KittyWampus]

43. then why don't you read the whole statement?

[Lecky]

7. We should stand by our principles

...but it would be ridiculous for the democrats to start attacking this guy right off the bat.

Anyway it doesn't sound like he wants to overturn Roe V. Wade which I know is a biggie with a lot of people here. I'm not going to make my decision yet, when I don't know anything about this guy.

[Dragonfli]

30. Here is some info.

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

The guy really is anti Roe v Wade, seems rabidly pro-corporate and anti-environment.

At least that's what I got from what I've read so far.

[Pepperbelly]

33. Durbin asked him if Roe was settled law ...

and he said that it was settled and even affirmed.

That was when he was confirmed for the DC circuit.

But who can say? He could be lying his ass off.

[necso]

13. "suitable legal credentials"

is roughly equivalent to "a suitcase full of legal credentials".

It is a diplomatic style of talking. It is restrained and polite, without saying anything but the obvious, that this guy has a resume.

And what? Harry is supposed to start off frothing at the mouth?

Besides, if the Band of 14 holds up, Harry's got deuce-trey (a bad hand -- that is, too few votes to do anything.)

[Guaranteed]

14. Yes, he's supposed to start frothing at the mouth.

Yes, he's supposed to show leadership and tell people that, as a DEMOCRAT representing 49% of the country, he won't stand for this.

[necso]

22. Well,

you are certainly entitled to your own definition of leadership.

But until one has a good idea how the votes are falling and where this guy might be vulnerable, I see little value in posturing (at leadership). And I see little value in pissing people off before you have to.

This guy is not getting confirmed tomorrow. And probing for weaknesses in (relative) stealth and calm has certain advantages.

[Guaranteed]

39. He has weaknesses on the issues.

That's our justification, after all.

It's not as if what we believe has no basis in reason. He doesn't have to be a child molester.

[necso]

47. To beat this guy, we need

republican votes (or absences). To try to filibuster him, we need to break the Band of 14 (which might lose us the filibuster).

Considerable craft (and maybe luck) will be necessary to pull off either of these (and which requires keeping the filibuster in the latter case). And being diplomatic (at appropriate times and circumstances from appropriate people, of course) probably helps more than it hurts.

And to get enough republicans to break ranks, we could use some goods on this guy -- because I am not confident that his position on issues will be enough to sway enough republicans. Plus, he is probably going to lie his ass off in the hearings, but in a way that he can get away with. -- Because who knows his (quite possibly somewhat carefully managed) record better than him.

Delay, dig for dirt, try to sway (or bargain for -- such as we can) any vote that we can.

...

The problem is inexorable.

Can we stop the nomination from getting to the floor? No, with high confidence.

Can we win a vote? Probably not, unless we can come up with something. (Some threat to Roe, one that many will wish to see -- and will see -- as vague and unlikely, will probably, as a guess, not be enough.)

Can we filibuster? Probably not, we would have to break the Band of 14, and get enough votes to save the filibuster, which we couldn't last time. (The higher stakes probably don't help us here -- but this needs explored)

But certainly we need to make our Senators aware that we see a real threat here.

[Dragonfli]

15. Judging by the aim of the spin.

They do not seem to expect much of a fight on this one.
I'm having a bad feeling that deals have already been made.

I'm hoping this isn't going to be a "grass roots only" defense of the fundamental rights of all women in America.

I'm hoping that there is still a party that will rise to the occasion and fight for our rights, our freedoms and our environment.

I'm Really, Really hoping...

Because if this country moves any farther to the right, we will cross an idealogical border and become what will some day be described as a full-blown Corporate Fascism.

..That Scares Me
.........how about you.

[smartvoter]

16. Isn't Reid pro-life? nt

[radar]

18. On AmericaBlog his resume...

Is about 2 years - as a judge.

Employment/background:
2003-present: Judge, US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit;
1993-2003: Partner, Hogan & Hartson LLP;
1989-93: Principal Deputy Solicitor General, US DoJ;
1986-89: Associate, Hogan & Hartson LLP;
1982-86: Associate Counsel to the President, White House Counsel's Office;
1981-82: Special Asst to the AG in the US DoJ;
1980 -81 Supreme Court of the United States, Law Clerk to Hon. Wm. H. Rehnquist

Wait a minute. This guy has ONLY been a judge for 2 years?
http://www.americablog.org/

[sleipnir]

19. Being a judge is not a requirement for the court.

Many have sat on the highest bench with no previous experience.

Lewis Powell and Warren are two of the most recent

[redacted]

20. I don't know what to think yet. Look at this. . .

<snip>

Liberal groups, however, say Roberts has taken positions in cases involving free speech and religious liberty that endanger those rights. Abortion rights groups allege that Roberts, while deputy solicitor general during former Bush's administration, is hostile to women's reproductive freedom and cite a brief he co-wrote in 1990 that suggested the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 high court decision that legalized abortion.

"The court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion ... finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution," the brief said.

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."

http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050719/APW/507190507&nocache=1

[rogue emissary]

21. Here's Harry Reid's full quote.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said he will not "pre-judge" Roberts. "The president has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that is not the end of our inquiry," Reid said.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-07-20T004926Z_01_N19218666_RTRIDST_0_USREPORT-BUSH-COURT-DC.XML

[Raiden]

23. "...but that is not the end of our inquiry"

I wish people would stop taking things Reid says out of context. He is a great leader for us.

[Writer]

26. Thank you. Let a few of us eat our words.

I thought the quote seemed a little short. I'm glad someone actually LOOKED IT UP. :eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

29. "but that is not the end of our inquiry" IS THE REST OF WHAT HE SAID

Nice fucking try.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pachamama]

56. Excuse me? "DUers are seldom Doers?"

Guess this is an example of "speaking for yourself"...Please don't pass such nasty statements and judgements about a community of people you purport to be a part of.

I find your statement incredibly insulting and ignorant....I for one did bother to look up both Reid's statement and background on Roberts. I also went down to a Planned Parenthood protest yesterday in San Francisco outside of City Hall with my baby to say "My Daughter's Future - HER CHOICE".

Yeah, guess that defines lazy and pathetic in your book...

What did you do? :eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

58. Just my experience, that's all.

And if you went and did some stuff, I'm not talking about you then.

[Rebellious Republican]

34. Reid did not give them a Damn thing, patience is a virtue........

Why does everyone insist on slamming the SCJ pick right off the bat.

We have five weeks to pick him apart, I think the Dem responses I have seen so far are right on the money.

Don't give the repubs what they want, a fucking circus right from the git go.

Yes lets turn this into a full blown three ring circus so we can get entertainment news value attention turned away from equally important business like DSM, Plame, Death and Destruction in an illegal, immoral, unprovoked war.

Slow down folks, give them a chance to handle it, we have other fish on the stove cooking at the moment as well.

Man, Its amazing how many suckers take the bait so fast. Lets hope cooler heads prevail, we have a huge fight on several fronts.

And we probably have a few trolls out in force tonight to help feed the flames.

:crazy:

[bklyncowgirl]

54. Good post. Don't take the bait.

Reid is very good a playing the "reasonable" game and then quietly inserting the stilleto and twisting it.

This lets the Democrats continue to focus on Rove and the lies and distortions that led us into this bloody quagmire in Iraq.

It also gives time to build up a case against Roberts.

[Rebellious Republican]

60. Thank you bklyncowgirl. N/T

:hi:

[yodermon]

35. damned by faint praise

if you ask me.
don't worry.

[DistressedAmerican]

36. Reid Is A Prolife Sellout! I Have Said It From Day ONE!

Hate the guy!

[Pachamama]

57. Hey DistressedAmerican! Please don't be so quick to judge Reid so harshly

I realize there are times that Reid may not be as strong on issues that you or I may like, but I have to say that if you read the entire context of his statement and consider that its NOT a rubber stamp of Roberts and consider that his and the Dems strategy is to not "Pre-judge" Roberts, it doesnt' give the GOP much to talk about right now (while they want to avoid talking about Rove and Traitorgate). You can't pick a fight with someone if they aren't arguing with you (at this time). Reid and the Dems strategy is to wait until the hearings and debates. In the meantime, Reid and the Dems can let all the various "thinktanks" and organizations on both sides fight it out. Smart if you ask me.

Remember, don't know how you feel about Barbara Boxer (I love her), but she is a good friend of Harry Reid and I have actually asked her about him and she says he is a good loyal Democrat and American. I respect her judgement.

Namaste

:hi:

[LittleClarkie]

38. I saw his response

It's better at this point for him to say that Roberts has the credentials, but that further research will be needed and that he looks forward to doing that research, than to come out with a kneejerk.

Otherwise he will be framed as obstructionist and partisan. But his statement does NOT mean he's supporting Roberts by any means. He's just playing the "reasonable" game.

[TankLV]

48. I think this time Reid is correct.

I will call his office and let him know.

[Cocoa]

49. contact Reid about an out of context quote?

why would I do that?

[mmonk]

55. Reid is in no way saying the nominee

is acceptable, but only saying he has the legal credentials. The fight is to come but not at this minute. I have to hand it to the right, they sure know how to play us.

[ibegurpard]

59. Reid is handling this well.

Keeping a low profile right now will give Democrats more credibility come hearing time.
Signalling staunch opposition off the bat is exactly what they are expecting and why they have their right-wing loonies like Ann Coulter bashing him...they're expecting us to play our role bashing him as well...thus making him appear moderate by default.

[depakid]

62. If you all don't know this man's character by now

then I don't know what it's going to take.

He's sold us out time and time again. The guy's the poster child for defeatism and as long as he remains majority leader, Bush will get whatever he asks for. He's nothing but Nevile Chamberlain with a big (and equally impotent) mouth....

[Tommymac]

63. Spinning it like Reid is giving up is disingenous.

Read his statement - Reid is giving nothing away.

I question the motive behind those who are jumping his bones and the Democratic party AS A WHOLE by taking the MSM reports at face value. Why are you doing that? You all know the MSM is not on the People's side.

The Democratic Party IS changing...the elevation of Howard Dean to Party chairman is an indication of that. But it takes time to change....and effort on We The People's part to help keep that change moving forward.

Get the facts before codemning Reid and the Party. He did a great job with the Rove amendment just last week...a brilliant political play that put the party in a win/win situation. Let's give Sen. Reid a chance ... the hearing won't even start until September.

Excerpt from his statement, bold highlight for emphasis is mine.

http://reid.senate.gov/record2.cfm?id=241027

"John Roberts has had an impressive legal career. Both in government and in private practice, he has been a zealous and often successful advocate for his clients. He has argued many cases before the Supreme Court and is respected for his legal skills. By all accounts he is a very nice man.


But while these are important qualities, they do not automatically qualify John Roberts to serve on the highest court in the land. Nor does the fact that he was confirmed to serve on the court of appeals mean that he is entitled to be promoted. The standard for confirmation to the Supreme Court is very high. A nominee must demonstrate a commitment to the core American values of freedom, equality and fairness. Senators must be convinced that the nominee will respect constitutional principles and protect the constitutional rights of all Americans."

[Nevernose]

66. They've been taking quotes of his out of context all day long

I saw Faux do it late this morning. He was tlking on the floor about the SCOTUS for several minutes, and they played a one second, cut-to-hell sound bite.

[Nevernose]

67. READ HIS COMMENTS YOURSELVES

All of them. Does it sound like he's bending over, or just waiting until the actual confirmation hearingsa?

Last night the President announced that he will nominate Judge John G. Roberts of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to the United States Supreme Court. I congratulate Judge Roberts on this high honor.

Now the Senate begins the process of deciding whether to confirm John Roberts to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the final guardian of the rights and liberties of all Americans. Serving on the Court is an awesome responsibility, and the Constitution gives the Senate the final say in whether a nominee deserves that trust. We should perform our constitutional role with great care.

John Roberts has had an impressive legal career. Both in government and in private practice, he has been a zealous and often successful advocate for his clients. He has argued many cases before the Supreme Court and is respected for his legal skills. By all accounts he is a very nice man.

But while these are important qualities, they do not automatically qualify John Roberts to serve on the highest court in the land. Nor does the fact that he was confirmed to serve on the court of appeals mean that he is entitled to be promoted. The standard for confirmation to the Supreme Court is very high. A nominee must demonstrate a commitment to the core American values of freedom, equality and fairness. Senators must be convinced that the nominee will respect constitutional principles and protect the constitutional rights of all Americans.

The expectations for Judge Roberts are especially high because he has such large shoes to fill. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has been a voice of reason and moderation on the Court for 24 years. She has been the deciding vote on some of the most important questions in our society – questions of civil rights, civil liberties, the right to privacy and the First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion. Justice O’Connor should only be replaced by someone who, like her, is firmly in the constitutional mainstream.

To gather the information it needs to make this decision, the Senate turns first to the Judiciary Committee. I am confident that Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Leahy will ensure a thorough review of Judge Roberts’s record and his views. Clearly a judicial nominee should not comment on pending cases, but there are many other questions a nominee should answer. I encourage Judge Roberts to be forthcoming in responding to the Committee’s questions and in providing written materials requested by Senators.

In the end, Judge Roberts must demonstrate to the Senate that he is a worthy successor to Justice O’Connor. To do that, he must win the confidence of the American people that he will be a reliable defender of their constitutional rights. John Roberts has argued many cases in his career, but this is the most important.

Ever since Justice O’Connor announced her retirement I have called on the President to choose a nominee who can unite the country, not divide it. It remains to be seen whether John Roberts fits that description. I hope that he does, and I look forward to giving him the opportunity to make his case to the American people.

[makhno]

73. You bolded the entirely wrong part

Here, let me help:

Ever since Justice O’Connor announced her retirement I have called on the President to choose a nominee who can unite the country, not divide it. It remains to be seen whether John Roberts fits that description. I hope that he does, and I look forward to giving him the opportunity to make his case to the American people.

It's a given Roberts will pass without much of a fight. Remember a confirmation (Condi's?) a few months ago when some Democratic figurehead (Schumer or Levin, I forget) gave us a cute performance about her supposed lack of qualifications or whatnot, but then went on straight to vote for her? Same shit, different nomination.

This is wrestling, folks, not boxing. I fail to see how anyone can be surprised that the plutocratic leadership of the Democratic party isn't particularly unhappy about an anti-labor, pro-capital Supreme Court nominee. While you all are worrying about the Roe v. Wade decoy, this is all about moving a consensual economically conservative ideologue to the bench.

[Nevernose]

74. It's called "being polite"

And, by the way, "I hope that he does" refers to "it remains to be seen whether John Roberts fits that description." It certainly sounds to me as if Reid is saying in the politest possible terms "First we give him a fair trial, and THEN we hang him." Reid's given every indication so far that this won't be easy, he's just couched it in courtesy. Could we please wait until the hearings begin until we throw in the towel on our party?

And as far as the criticism of Reid is concerned: would you rather have Daschle back?

I agree with you, though, about what we should be worried about -- the economically conservative aspect of it.