They've got the 5 votes needed, it's a slam dunk. Not the fight to pick.

[jazzjunkysue]

Right now on MSNBC on Idiot Scarborough, Beschloss just called it, no way will they not get the 5 lousy dem votes they need.

We need to keep fighting about Plame and let this go. Unless this guy's got a dead ex wife in the freezer, we'll look really bad if we try to make stuff up about this squeaky clean guy.

He also sounds way too intelligent to send poor american women to back alley abortionists. It takes an ignorant bigot to do that, and this guy doesn't sound like he needs the repub party to float his boat. He won't need to piss off 70% of the country.

Anyone who's read me knows I'm a died in the wool librul, but, this one just isn't actionable, or winable. We could do lots worse.

[timber84]

1. i agree

[converted_democrat]

2. He personally said he thought Roe vs. Wade should be overturned.

Rehnquist is sick he'll be leaving soon. If they confirm another conservative then say bye- bye to Roe vs. Wade.

[ruggerson]

22. He said that as a lawyer representing an administration case

he also said in his first confirmation hearing that he would have no problem upholding Roe V Wade as it was settled law.

[kevsand]

29. In the first confirmation hearing,

he wasn't being appointed to the Supreme Court. Of course he said he wouldn't overturn a SC precedent. It wouldn't have been his place to do so. Now it would be. And we already know how he views the legal issues. He will look for the opening to overturn.

[djg21]

45. This is conjecture.

Keep in mind that Justice Stevens was appointed by a Republican president (Ford), as was Justice Souter (Bush I). You just don't know for sure how a nominee will end up voting once he/she is sitting on the Court.

Moreover, it's really unfair to castigate an attorney for making an argument on behalf of a client. Lawyers are routinely called upon to advance arguments and take positions on behalf of clients that they may not personally agree with.

Roberts has impeccable legal credentials, and he's respected and well-liked within the legal community (and by members of both parties). Given that he was just unanimously confirmed by the Senate in 2003 when he was appointed to the D.C. Circuit, I cannot imagine how he would not sail through confirmation.

[flamingyouth]

3. We could do worse?

Yes, I suppose Bush could have reanimated Genghis Khan for his nominee...

[liberalnurse]

4. I'm pushing for the fight.

Democrats must unite! We have to pressure them!

[helderheid]

5. we have a lot of fights on our hands but I think the most important is

Rove and DSM which are tied.

[Booster]

7. Amen, I'm with you - it's the big enchelada.

[liberalnurse]

13. We can multi-task.....

If *bush can dish it out...I can fight it too. We just need to keep the Senate on task, Democrats united. The Rovegate issue is being handled by the Grand Jury.......We can take all of these issues on.

[napi21]

6. I happen to agree with you on this one.

I've been agruing on several other threads that I breathed a big sigh of relief when the name wasn't Luttig (sp). I think the Dem Senators should ask the tough questions, and demand answers to them, but I don't think this is winnable unless something really objetionable comes out in the hearings. I'm not saying lay down and play dead, but we shouldn't TRY to make ourselves look bad just for principles sake either.

[oxbow]

30. Gonna be atleast 5 weeks before the hearings even start

plenty of time for any skeletons to come out. Either this guy is squeaky clean, or Rove made a serious miscalculation.

[ScreamingMeemie]

8. I 'd like for all who say this to look into the eyes of my daughter and

America's daughters and tell them that their rights...their lives, aren't "worth it this time".

Man this makes me angry. For me, all or no one. We all should have a voice.

[flamingyouth]

9. Amen!

This guy is 50 years old! He could conceivably sit on this court for up to 40 years... that's almost two generations of women. :applause:

[Bouncy Ball]

40. And it's not just the women around while he's ON the bench,

but the women around while any decisions handed down still stand, which could conceivably be longer than HE lives.

[Lecky]

14. As far as I know we haven't lost any of our rights.

[ScreamingMeemie]

15. We haven't but we're allowing that possibility by not putting up a fight.

And that is not worth it, given the current over zealous climate.

[Lecky]

21. I'll fight with you, but we haven't lost anything yet.

I want democrats to become a stronger party so we can win some elections. If there is nothing found wrong with this Roberts guy, he is going to be confirmed. There is not much we can do about that.

[KittyWampus]

31. Life Isn't Always Fair. Sometimes Things Get Worse Before They Get Better

as a woman, I'd have no problem laying that reality in front of anyones daughter.

[DistressedAmerican]

10. Anyone That Does Not Fight This Is A Sellout And Deserves

to lose their job. I plan on reminding my senators of that first thing in the morning.

[djg21]

47. I tend to disagree.

I think that any Senator or Representative who opposes the confirmation of Roberts or any other nominee in the absence of a legitimate, good-faith basis for doing so is doing a disservice to the Party and deserves to lose their job. The fact that Bush is a Republican who we don't like just is not a legitimate, good-faith basis.

In this instance, Bush made a very shrewd pick -- Robert's legal credentials are unassailable, and while he is a conservative (what would you expect from a Republican administration), he is not an idealogue. Unless some skeleton falls from a closet before his confirmation, there is simply nothing to fight! In fact, the guy was just unanimously confirmed by the Senate in May 2003 when he was appointed to the D.C. Circuit. To challenge his nomination now, in the absence of something big, would be obstructionist and unduly partisan. Moreover, if there was a skeleton, it likely would have been found before 2003.

It appears that some elements in our party would object to any nominee selected by Bush. IMO, this is not helpful.

[CoffeeCat]

11. I agree...

I feel like a total schmuck for saying this--but I feel that this is not a fight in which Dems should engage.

Maybe I'm a total lame-ass--but my feeling is that Junior determines the nominee. He's got the power. He's the pResident.

We can fight--if the nominee is unqualified, outrageously extreme or if there is something really controversial in his past (like coke snorting, stealing an election, being a former raging alcoholic--haha).

The fact is--Bush is a conservative. This is a conservative judge. He gets to pick.

Roberts is extremely intelligent, experienced and well qualified.

I disagree vehemently with his comments on Roe v Wade. Those views scare me.

However--the sad fact is that Junior--as despicable as he is--gets to pick. Ideology cannot be grounds for launching a massive fight.

I know many will probably think I'm a total disloyal wussy, but it's how I feel.

I feel defeated and sad by this, but I accept Roberts.

[Lecky]

18. How are you a lame ass? You are being rational :)

The best thing we can do is start winning elections.

[kevsand]

26. "Ideology cannot be grounds for launching a massive fight."

Then what is, pray tell? Especially when that ideology is rejected by the overwhelming majority of the country, and threatens the very health of generations of women to come.

Bush doesn't get to pick. He gets to nominate. Then the Senate gets to approve. This guy will be there for twenty or thirty years. We should leave nothing to chance. The country is behind us on this one. We lose nothing by fighting him, and everything by winning that fight.

[Lecky]

12. Yes lets focus on winning please

Don't waste your time over this, we knew it was coming...

[tmooses]

16. This decision was made because of what happened on 11/2/04.

We all knew what the stakes were at the election and at least 2 Supreme Court picks was part of what was up for grabs-that's why many of us were working nonstop to elect Kerry even though we had our doubts about him. IMO I don't think Bush should have won without some type of unfair advantage or vote fraud but that is not something that's going to change. I think we should be focusing on 2006 and what effect this Rove
investigation is going to have on the elections.

[Spinzonner]

17. But his history and views have to be thoroughly exposed

It's important to make him stand behind those views publicly and to make it clear that the Republicans support those views and the Democrats oppose them.

It's about making the Republican Party and its members wear those views for the next Congressional election and particularly activate women voters over it. It's about motivating them to take back the government from the Republican party or risk losing reproductive rights.

[KittyWampus]

32. BINGO! A Voice Of Reason In The Crowd

[djg21]

48. maybe its just semantics . . .

but you are describing the "confirmation process," albeit, in partisan fashion, and not a "confirmation fight" or "war" or "battle" etc. I don't think that merely asking questions or obtaining answers from the nominee will satisfy the apparent bloodlust held by some who participate on this forum.

[mike_c]

19. sue, I'm going to respectfully disagree....

A significant majority of Americans favor reproductive rights, and are strongly opposed to overturning Roe v Wade. Unless Roberts flat out states in open hearings that he is pro-choice-- which isn't going to happen, ever-- he is a poster child for the arrogance of the radical right. The longer he's kept in the spotlight, the more that message will sink in: "The Bush administration is trying to stack the court against reproductive rights." Once he's confirmed, it's back to business as usual, but as long as the dems fight his confirmation, that meme will be reinforced. Even a majority of republicans are uncomfortable with that. Yes, he will probably be confirmed anyway, but the fight will do a great deal of damage to the RW, and the longer it's prolonged, the greater that damage will be.

[Sgent]

23. Reading his past

especially his probono work for criminal defense, gives me a slim hope.

I think he's probably left of Renquist, the question his how left.

Additionally, by anyone's standard he is extraordinarily well qualified as a lawyer -- moreso than many current justices were.

I don't like his politics, but Bush could have given us worse.

[SmokingJacket]

20. They don't really want to overturn Roe.

They like to pretend, but they won't do it.

Maybe I'm wrong, but this is what my gut says.

I say hop back on Rove, he's the evil behind this operation, and he's a perjurer, and when he's gone, Bush will fall apart because nothing's left. Cheney is also an evil genius, but no politician.

Eye on ball.

[Lecky]

24. That's what I think as well

[PaDem]

25. Your gut is spot on.........

Roe v Wade will not be overturned.

[kevsand]

28. You can't possibly know that for sure.

Put enough of these guys on the court, and Roe is history. Do we really want that on our consciences?

[jazzjunkysue]

44. I agree. They'll never find Bin laden, for the same reason. They need

a stupid excuse for their stupid ideology, that really covers their true mission: Hate. If they get their law, they lose their battering ram. It's a card they want to hold but never play, cause most of them only care about business, not abortions.

It's not under threat. If it were overturned, the party that did it would be out of business for decades. Our biggest worry from this guy is probably further loosening of restrictions on pollution and tightening of restrictions on bankruptcy and tort reform. Big business really cares about those, because they effect the bottom line. Besides, what conservative really wants to pay for all the maternity care, and hospitalizations, and health care that all those unwanted kids would cause? They're not willing to do what it takes to bring these piles of cells into the world, for real. We can't afford to go around jailing all the women and doctors, either. Not to mention chasing down back alley abortionists. It's too expensive.

Abortion is way too affordable to let it go.

[mountainvue]

27. Two words:

Lifetime appointment.

[jazzjunkysue]

33. I'm not saying I like it, but, this guy will have his lousy 5 votes, and

we might as well admit it. Right or wrong, the country elected a republican senate, so, that's it. Period. Ideology doesn't come into play with this guy, and that's why they picked him. He has no record.

We look like morons if we don't understand how the system works. So, we need to fix the voting system, if we want to have any real impact on anything else.

Let's get that back on the front burner. This one is lost.

[Bouncy Ball]

37. Ask yourself why he has no record.

Ask yourself that. Why does he have only two years experience and it was bush who appointed him to his CURRENT post?

[jazzjunkysue]

42. Because he's a puppet, like all of the Boy King's hires. It's how a

crime family works.

[Bouncy Ball]

43. Slim record = less to attack.

"Roberts was floated as a nominee who could win widespread support in the Senate. This is based on the fact that he hasn't been on the bench long enough for his judicial opinions to provide much ammunition for opposition groups. But his record as a lawyer for the Reagan and first Bush administrations and in private practice is down-the-line conservative on key contested fronts, including abortion, separation of church and state, and environmental protection.

As noted on Law.com Many who know Roberts say he, unlike Souter, is a reliable conservative who can be counted on to undermine if not immediately overturn liberal landmarks like abortion rights and affirmative action. Indicators of his true stripes cited by friends include: clerking for Rehnquist, membership in the Federalist Society, laboring in the Ronald Reagan White House counsel's office and at the Justice Department into the Bush years, working with Kenneth Starr among others, and even his lunchtime conversations at Hogan & Hartson. "He is as conservative as you can get," one friend puts it. In short, Roberts may combine the stealth appeal of Souter with the unwavering ideology of Scalia and Thomas."

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/John_G._Roberts_Jr.

[mondo joe]

35. Those are 2 potent words but they don't change the fact: he has the votes.

America is getting what it (collectively) voted for.

[Generator]

34. What?

First, you have no idea what this guy will do. The question hasn't even been asked! His wife is a died in the wool anti-abortion activist..I think that gives us a clue.

I'm a liberal. Not sure what a librul is.

He won't need to piss off the country-more flawed logic. HE will be part of the body that decides the laws of the land. He's not in it for a popularity contest. He's in it to make his ideology (of which you are so certain) the law of the land. Intelligence and ideology have nothing to do with each other.

We could do lots worse. Indeed. We always can. Defeatism is the Democratic party mantra these days.

[Bouncy Ball]

36. Sounds too intelligent?

So only if he didn't sound intelligent would we be in danger of him wanting to overturn Roe v Wade and other decisions the SC has handed down in the past?

You'll excuse me if I don't find your "reasoning" to be any comfort at all.

Someone can "sound intelligent" and be completely bigoted. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Personally, I'd be looking down the line if I were a Dem Senator. I'd want to be able to say, in a few year's time "I voted against that guy." It will probably be a good thing to be able to say.

[Walt Starr]

38. They've got more than five

The gang of fourteen decides who will and will not be confirmed. Nobody else matters any longer.

McCain already put a shot across the bow of the filibuster. It's a done deal, Roberts is in like Flynn.

[Bouncy Ball]

39. It's our perogative, and it's the Dems in Congress perogative

to lay everything out that they can on this guy so they KNOW who they're voting for. He's had TWO years on the circuit court bench and he was put there by bush!

What's wrong with picking him apart so everything can be laid out?

You want to roll over, be my guest. I'm just glad not every Democrat feels the way you do.

[Disturbed]

41. Of course the Dems should oppose Roberts and

grill him vehemently. I feel that there will be Dems that vote yes and that will be that. I also feel that the RW doesn't want to over turn Roe v Wade because it's one of their calling cards for their Fundie base. I predict that will be no Filabuster on this person. Dems should focus on Impeaching Cheney then Bush. Keep the CIA outing matter front and center and tie it to DSM!

[oasis]

46. Roberts is a distraction. The Sunday talk shows need to stay on ROVE.

Rove and Bush cooked up this scheme--start an early discussion on SCOTUS--get the heat off of Rove.