We Shouldn't Fight This Nomination. BULLSHIT! You Heard Me BULLSHIT!

[DistressedAmerican]

I can't believe the number of posts coming up tonight from the learned helplessness crowd. Anyone that does not see the NEED to fight this guy is writing off reproductive rights for political expediency.

I see this crap here all the time. "We can't touch Rove." "We don't want to look like obsrtuctionists." Blah, Blah, Fucking Blah!

Has it occured to any you what the hell an opposistion party is? Does that term mean apologist and enabler of the dominant party? Have the repugs EVER rolled over and just let us have our way.

WAKE UP DAMMIT! They are bending you over again and all you can do is hand them the lube so the fucking is more comfortable.

NOT ME. This guy is the vote that kills reproductive rights in this country. All of you who want to let that just happen unopposed may as well go reregister as repugs. You are doing just as much damage to our fighting spirit as anyone on that side.

Bolton is pretty sure that we can do something if our spineless leaders actually stick together and keep firing!

[Walt Starr]

1. Fight it all you want, end of the day come October

say hello to Justice Roberts.

I guarantee it.

[Eloriel]

3. Thanks, Walt. So glad to see you on the side of reproductive freedom

Increasingly what I would have expected from you, sadly.

[Walt Starr]

9. Hmmmm, Roberts is on the record stating he would not overturn Roe

during his confirmation hearings for his current position.

The only anti-Roe bit you can find from the guy is what he wrote while he was representing Bush I. Attorneys must vigorously advocate the positions of their clients whether they agree with them or not.

I'm being realistic here. No way will there be a filibuster. It ain't gonna happen.

In fact, I'd be surprised if he's not unanimously confirmed.

Political reality may be a bitter pill, but it is still the reality of the situation.

[DistressedAmerican]

12. That Is How They Are Spinning It. This Man Is No Defender Of

women's rights.

That is their arguement. I know the nominator. Bush sure as hell was not nominating a pro-choice candidate!

If Bush's endorsement does not turn you off, I do not know what will.

[Walt Starr]

14. The media wants the division

The media thrives on the black and white world, or rather the red and blue world.

This is not black and white, it's gray.

Bush made the safe play, will placate some of his base, and at the end of the day, Roe will remain the status quo.

[DistressedAmerican]

21. You Trust Them A Hell Of A Lot More Than I!

Bush was elected by the fundies to overturn Roe. So, He is just going to blow them off and not nominate a prolifer.

No offense. But, , I do not buy it.

What do you base that assumption on?

[Walt Starr]

25. I;ve read what this guy has said.

He's, at worst, another Kennedy.

He makes Gonzales look like Bork and we were all praying Gonzales would get the nomination.

[DistressedAmerican]

29. I Would Fight Gonzalez Tooth And Nail. Reid May Have Been With Him.

Not ME!

I wanted him fillibustered as the AG and would demand it for SCOTUS.



Would you mind offering up some links or something on these writing you read? Not that you are not an honorable enough guy. I'd just like to read this stuff myself.

[Walt Starr]

30. Fiught it all you want

it ain't gonna happen, though.

[Lecky]

76. No, Roberts is a pro-lifer who has stated he had no intentions overturning

Roe Vs. Wade. You don't have to "buy" it...but think about it. Is it really in the republican party's best interest to overturn Roe Vs. Wade? The majority of our country is pro-choice...

I don't think it's going to be overturned regardless.

Not to mention the fact that we knew Bush was going to nominate a conservative...

[still_one]

15. really

Reproductive Rights. as a Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. Roberts co-wrote a Supreme Court brief in Rust v. Sullivan,1 for the first Bush administration, which argued that the government could prohibit doctors in federally-funded family planning programs from discussing abortions with their patients. The brief not only argued that the regulations were constitutional, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, but it also made the broader argument that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided - an argument unnecessary to defend the regulation. The Supreme Court sided with the government on the narrower grounds that the regulation was constitutional.

[Walt Starr]

33. He wrote that as a representative of Bush I

His statements about his personal opinion were made in his confirmation hearing.

[still_one]

35. and bush is a uniter

http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/John_Roberts_Report.pdf#search='John%20G.%20Roberts%202003%20confirmation%20hearings'

[kevsand]

54. His confirmation hearing wasn't for the Supreme Court.

You don't sit in a hearing for a lower court appointment and say you will overturn SC precedent. That's not your place, at that point. In fact, it would be rude and arrogant and stupid. What you do is wait until you are on the SC, because that's where you can overturn precedent.

I normally like the common sense you bring to a fight, Walt. I'd hate to see you become another DINO collaborator. I don't really think that'll happen. You know the public is behind us on this one. You know they don't want to see Roe overturned anymore than we do. And you know that strategy aside, if the dark side has the votes on the SC, Roe is history.

Plus, there will be a fight, no matter what. The pro-choice forces will make sure of it. The environmentalists will make sure of it. The civil liberties alliances will make sure of it. There will be a fight, no matter what we here at DU say or do. Howzabout we help win it? (You know you really want to... ;-) )

[okieinpain]

47. don't blame walt what about all of those women who voted for bush

and don't forget the blacks (wasn't it 11% in ohio), the hispanics, and gays. walt voted like the rest of us.

[Lecky]

75. Now that's not fair

I'm a pro-choice woman and I agree with Walt and it's not because I don't side with reproductive freedom either...

We all knew Bush was going to pick a conservative, now while he didn't pick another O'Connor...Roberts is not as extreme as Scalia or Thomas.

What type of conservative is acceptable exactly?

[still_one]

10. When the Gulf of Token resolution was passed by the Senate

their was one or two republican congressman who opposed it, and they were ridiculed and destroyed at the time, but history has exonernated them, not the ones who voted for it

[Walt Starr]

11. And when Souter was confirmed he was going to be a terror to the liberals

see how that played out?

[still_one]

19. This is different

This administration made sure that the "Souter mistake" would NOT happen again

Name ONE THING THAT BUSH HAS DONE TO UNITE THE COUNTRY?

He taught me very well with his five years of division exactly where he is coming from

[Walt Starr]

22. They have no fucking clue how this guy will act on the SCOTUS

especially where Roe is concerned.

And neither do you.

[DistressedAmerican]

26. You Seem Quite Convinced That You Do. What Info Do You Have?

Do you have somke inside line? His entire record speaks to his anti-abortion beliefs. He took the cases. He argued the cases.

I still do not know what you are basing your assertion of the saftey of the Roe decision? What are you basing this on?

[Walt Starr]

28. Read his testimony from the 2003 confirmation hearings n/t

[DistressedAmerican]

32. So He Testified He Was No Threat Before Folks That Didn't Want A Threat?

I do not believe answers offered up in these hearingsa. I guess Clarence Thomas told the truth during his confirmation hearing.

Job interviews are filled with lies. You say what you have to. There is no way they can enforce your hearing answers on your actual practice.

[Walt Starr]

34. Like I said, fight it all you want

end of the day, he'll be confirmed.

I'm writing both of my Senators to urge them to confirm.

[still_one]

38. when do you propose we fight?

for the next supreme court nomination?

incidently, how can you urge them to confirm, EVEN before the hearings? where are you coming from, until you hear what he says. How do you know his views haven't changed?

[Walt Starr]

84. I'm urging to confirm because fighting this one is a losing proposition

for the Dems.

Sorry, but political reality dictates that this guy will sail through confirmation.

Like it or not, he's the best we'll EVER get from the Bush administration. We should thank our lucky stars and move on.

[DistressedAmerican]

41. I'm Sure The Repugs Thank You!

[still_one]

52. remember this

First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out -
because I was not a communist.

Then they came for the trade
unionists and I did not speak out -
because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me -
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Pastor Niemoeller

[still_one]

27. Oh yes they do

He was involved in the 2000 recount vote for bush

http://www.independentjudiciary.com/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=5

I will be on the right side of history, win, lose, or draw

I was against going into Iraq, I didn't win, but I will be right
I was against the bankrupcy bill, I didn't win, but I was right
I was against the patriot act, I didn't win, but I will be right
I am against privitization of social security and medicare
I am for the environment
I believe a woman's health is between her and her doctor

I don't mind losing, but I do mind NOT fighting

[joemurphy]

18. So we fight, inevitably lose, piss off the public , distract the

country's attention from Bush's other problems, play into the Republican's hands as "obstructionists", appear anti-democratic by filibustering and denying an up or down vote, and give the Republicans a spin justification for resorting to the "nuclear" option. That kind of fight might also serve to drive a wedge between the progressive and moderate wings of our party.

Or, we could get lucky and defeat Roberts' nomination somehow (although barring some kind of personal scandal hiding in his closet I don't see how that could happen). Then we could watch Bush nominate an even bigger Neanderthal -- Janet Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owens or someone worse.

We don't have the votes to get this done.

I think we can pick better fights.

[Walt Starr]

20. Bingo

PRecise description of this battle.

This guy is a DREAM NOMINEE!

Hell, I was wishing for Gonzales and this guy makes him look like Bork!

[still_one]

23. That is what the democrats have been saying for the last five years

and look where it got them

All the polls in this country say the people want an OPPOSITION PARTY

[theHandpuppet]

53. You said it!

You can only take so many steps to the back of the bus before your ass falls clean out and you get left behind for good.

Gay rights? Take one step to the rear for the party!

Reproductive rights? Take one leap to the rear for the good of the party!

Environmental protections? To the rear of the bus for the good of the party, do not pass go!

Affirmative Action? Get outta your seat for the good of the party and carry your ass to the rear.

Just who the hell IS this party and for whom does it stand? Not unions, not women, not gays, not minorities, not the poor? Well I SAY BULLSHIT TO THAT!!!!!!

SOME OF US ARE SICK AND TIRED OF BEING TOLD TO TAKE ANOTHER ONE ON THE CHIN "FOR THE GOOD OF THE PARTY". IF WE ARE NOT THE PARTY, then I'll find a party that represents ME.

I'm sick of this bullshit. Anyone who wants to bend over and grab their ankles one more time for the good of the party is welcome to get fucked over.

[still_one]

58. I am one step behind you

[still_one]

31. Please tell me in the LAST five years what the democrats have

fought for?

they have rubber stamped everything this administration has pushed, and the only reason that stem cell research MAY overide is frickn veto, will be because of republicans, not democrats

[DistressedAmerican]

37. They Are Just Picking Their Fight.

Not sure what their criteria are. I have seen fight after fight that they have refused to get into because we are outnumbered in congress.

I guess they'll want to fight come thje day we are in the majority again. None too soon if we keep rolling over!

Remeber how we shouldn't filibuster federal court judges? Remeber how they were saving that for the scotus?

WHERE THE HELL ARE THEY NOW?

[still_one]

42. the easy one is bolton

they actually stood together on that one, and we won

even if bush appoints him in recess, we stood together on this

that should be an extremely strong lesson

[DistressedAmerican]

36. The Same Defeatist Logic Was Applied To Bolton.

I do not know how many threads I read saying EXACTLY that about him. Ask Bolton if we can beat these folks. He would disagree with your defeatist attitude.

I fight for what I believe to be right. I do not bow out if it looks like a hard fight that I may lose. I do the RIGHT THING.

You act like a poodle and and you win what? Tell me that! What do you expect to win with this strategy?

Keep rolling over. I won't be rolling with you!

The "Pick Your Fights" crowd has yet to pick a single fight. That is a losing strategy whether you choose to accept that or not!

[joemurphy]

45. Well, we fought Janet Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owens

and look what happened.

Don't get me wrong. I admire your zeal. I wish we'd have fought the Iraq War Resolution like we fought the Bush Appellate Court appointments.

But, I'm sorry. I think fighting it would be a strategic mistake.
A waste of time, money, and resources all to a foreseeably losing effort.

I think we have a shot at rocking the Bush administration over Plamegate and because of their blunders concerning Iraq. Fighting a big battle over a comparatively moderate conservative ("moderate" by Republican standards anyway) like Roberts is a no-win proposition any way you look at it. He was previously approved 99-0 for the D.C. Appeals job -- the second most important court in the country. Let's remember if this guy's record is any indication, he's hardly a Thomas or a Scalia.

[Lecky]

78. Exactly!

[metisnation]

2. nothing is gained without struggle

if we let this go through it will be illegal to be a dem.

[still_one]

4. I am with you

the rove thing will go on independently through the special prosecuter, and in a few months it will come back when inditments have been handed out

This is the time to stand up and see exactly where the democrats in congress stand

[Triana]

5. We can fight it and simultaneously keep our eyes on the Roving...

...Plame scandal. It's the Repigs who can't multitask. And admittedly the Faux/CNN "news" viewing public is very easily distracted. Doesn't mean WE need to be.

[MuseRider]

6. Glad to have you

on our side. We may lose but we HAVE to fight. Otherwise why in the hell are we here?

[wookie294]

7. It's not nice to be mean, so we should confirm Roberts

We Democrats must be nicer to Republicans so we can get more Democrats in Congress.

:sarcasm:

[BurtWorm]

8. I don't understand how anyone who is against a fight

has the energy or enthusiasm to start a thread on the subject. :wtf:

[PretzelWarrior]

13. don't swear on this board, fucker

I mean it.

[newsguyatl]

16. kick

[Dragonfli]

17. 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.

[AuntiBush]

51. Same here... EVERYONE CHECK DU HOME PAGE on ROBERTS

Even tonight I can't tell who is "authentic" out here tonight.

For Starters: EVERYONE go to the DU HOME PAGE:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/

John Roberts a dissenter on the Cheney Energy Task Force Case

In re: Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 18831 (D.C. Cir. 2003), cert. granted, 2003 U.S. LEXIS 9205 (2003): secrecy of Vice President Cheney's energy task force

Judge Roberts was one of the dissenters in the court's 5-3 denial of a petition for rehearing en banc (with one judge not participating) filed by the Bush Administration in its continuing efforts to avoid releasing records pertaining to Vice President Cheney's energy task force. This ruling came in litigation brought by Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club charging that the Vice President's task force had violated federal law by not making its records public. The court's ruling marked "the fourth time a judicial panel has rebuffed efforts to keep the information from the public." Carol D. Leonnig, "Energy Task Force Appeal Refused," Washington Post (Sept. 12, 2003). At the Administration's urging, the Supreme Court has agreed to review the case; a decision is expected by the end of June 2004.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4140850

AND

Roberts wrote in 1991 "Roe v wade...should be overruled."
References Abortion, etc.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4140489

Roberts ideas on all the issues:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1940789

The second poster is right. This is bad for women, civil liberties, Halliburton inquires and maybe it will SAVE THE BUBBLE BOYS ASS.

Just sayin'

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[DistressedAmerican]

39. Total Bullshit! The Dems Must Stop Being Spineless!

I'm sure that the freeps are loving seeing your posts. They could not agree more!

[Kathy in Cambridge]

43. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Book Lover]

49. What he is is the choice of the enemy

and must therefore be opposed. What is wrong with you people? Game time comes and all you want to do is warm the benches.

[joemurphy]

68. Well, Souter was "the choice of the enemy" too.

So was Earl Warren, by the way.

[okieinpain]

40. no one is bending over, just not betting the house and car on a pair

of 3's

[DistressedAmerican]

50. I Have Heard This Same Crap Over And Over.

Ashcroft, Rice, Gonzalez, patriot act, Iraq War Resolution, etc, etc, etc. What else do you want to give them?

We stand to loose women's right to choose and you are not willing to take stand (even a loosing one) for what IS RIGHT? That is openly cowardly and as I noted above amounts to selling out the Pro-Choice position for political expediency.

What the hell ever happened to voting your conscience? Where are "Profiles In Courage"?

Give up becausde you may loose. That is not a winning strategy.

[okieinpain]

61. uh, you do know dems don't control either house right.

[DistressedAmerican]

62. Of Course I Know That! So You Will Not Fight Until We Are The Majority?

What is your point. As long as we are pooutnumbered we just let them walk all over us? Give me a break!

[okieinpain]

67. Ok, so just what are you going to accomplish. explain please.

[Turn CO Blue]

44. Actually, what I am seeing

are a lot of people who are saying not to fight this battle, because they encourage all of us to solely focus our attention on Rove. I don't agree with that crowd.

There's Rove, Downing Street memo, Chief Justice appointment, Abu Ghraib photos coming soon, election/voter rights reform...etc. ad infinitum. There's a lot of work to do. Including opposing the Roberts nomination.

[rainman99]

46. Let me guess. You're male, right?? Is it your body people

are playing around with?

Here's what Howard Dean had to say:



Advanced Member


Group: Subscribing Member
Posts: 2,581
Joined: 5-November 04
Member No.: 125



http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/07/ho...on-roberts.html

Howard Dean on Roberts
by John in DC - 7/19/2005 09:38:00 PM

Statement by DNC Chairman on the Nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court:

Washington - Faced with a growing scandal surrounding the involvement of Deputy White House chief of Staff Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis Libby in the leaking the identity of a covert CIA operative, President Bush announced his nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court late this evening. Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean today issued the following statement on the nomination:

"It is disappointing that when President Bush had the chance to bring the country together, he instead turned to a nominee who may have impressive legal credentials, but also has sharp partisan credentials that cannot be ignored.

"Democrats take very seriously the responsibility to protect the individual rights of all Americans and are committed to ensuring that ideological judicial activists are not appointed to the Supreme Court. The Senate Judiciary Committee will now have the opportunity to see if Judge Roberts can put his partisanship aside, and live up to a Supreme Court Justice's duty to uphold the rights and freedoms of every American and the promise of equal justice for all."

[DistressedAmerican]

56. My Gender Has What Exactly To Do With This?

Right is right. Wrong is wrong.

I have a daughter. I guess I shouldn't stand up for her?

What are you even saying?

[Carolab]

48. Conyers says: DON'T TAKE THE BAIT

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4143262

[AuntiBush]

55. We Sure Can Do 2 Things at 1 Time :) And Some...

[il_lilac]

65. It's time we show some spine

Of course we can do 2 things at once! We should be fighting every policy and nomination put forth by this criminal administration. I am sick and tired of compromise and back room deals. Our country is being run by thugs and extremists and we ought not back down on a single fight. I'm fed up with the whole mess, but gonna fight to the death for my kids and grandkids.

[AuntiBush]

66. Think: We do not know what's going on "yet."

You're absolutely correct when you say "our country is being run by thugs and extremists" and "we ought not back down on a single fight."

I too am part of the massive "fed-up" reality-based American citizenships, like you. We just can't let certain things be a distraction. Think about it. Why did Bubble-Boy (who's bubble is about to burst in my opinion) announce this way earlier than reported to?

Think. Distractions...
MSN - Enablers
You - Don't buy it.
BUSH & CO - Strive on our fears, terror.
Terror = Error, right. Well, fool me once shame on *. Fool me twice, well, forget about it.

Repeat

Then head over to http://www.johnconyers.com/ and read what he says about this DISTRACTION and do some catching-up on Watergate. Same ole story, just another time.

[il_lilac]

69. I'm with you

Our #1 job is to make this bunch accountable for their crimes. I'm just tired of rolling over and playing dead. We need not be distracted by this, but it sure is tiring to watch joe six pack buy it hook, line, and sinker.

[nashuaadvocate]

57. RESPECTFULLY, IT IS YOUR POST WHICH IS BULLSHIT.

And you know, I'm sick and tired of people putting expletives in their post titles to ratchet up the hits.

You want to debate this reasonably? Go to this thread.

It's not about whether we should want to fight Roberts; it is about whether there is anything at all--like, say, a victory--to be gained in that fight. Let's not bluster here. Let's strategize. That's what Republicans do, that's what we need to do.

For once.

S.

[DistressedAmerican]

59. I Have A Thread Thanks!

I can discuss just fine right here.

This should be about what is funbdamentally right. I am so sick of spineless dems saying we should not fight. We can't win. We fought Bolton and kicked his ass.

I am so sick of the already defeated. You are beaten. Not me.

[nashuaadvocate]

70. You need to start following politics more closely.

You are wrong.

"We" didn't kick Bolton's ass. Bolton's ass was toast because of several moderate Republicans, led by George Voinovich (R-OH) who opposed him publicly and secretly, and by the fact that Bush didn't put much effort or capital into the nomination fight. And even so, he may yet give Bolton a recess appointment, or re-nominate him, or simply insist on the further hearings Bolton still (technically, under parlimentary procedure) is entitled to.

You need to distinguish between what the blogosphere accomplishes and what run-of-the-mill, workaday politics accomplishes.

The blogosphere, for example, kept Gannongate in the news. That was a moderate victory.

The blogosphere also has the power to aid the mainstream media in keeping Treasongate in the fore of American politics, which would be an incomparable victory.

What "we" do not have the power to do is prevent the nuclear option, or keep a conservative President from nominating (surprise, surprise), a conservative candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court. Sorry, but there isn't enough dirt on this guy to deep-six his nomination. Would that it were otherwise.

He should be strongly opposed. But he must not consume all our attention.

[Guaranteed]

71. K, let's strategize- it takes 40 votes to filibuster, right?

Great! We have 44 + Jeffords! It's entirely possible.

Let's get going!

[jonnyblitz]

60. yup!

:thumbsup:

[seabeyond]

63. i am all for a good fight. i think anything happens to roe vs wade

that will be it for repugs. i think him appointing this person is going to be it. i have watched the escalation and yell for anti abortion in the last decade, and i have talked to family and friends in all their religion talk about abortion. i watched kerry being denied communion from his religion he has been faithful to because of abortion and my feeling

take it.

and watch

and see what a horrible horrible mistake you made. learn

it is like watching them walk into iraq, having forgotten vietnam, and becoming invincible. i knew they were going to do it. no one was going to stop them. now here we are three years later. a lot of people died, a lot of people were sacrificed for our arrogance and forgetfulness. it will be the same with abortion. history repeats, and repeats and repeats until we learn

i just see now is a time we have to go thru this again. it isnt giving up. you dont think every death, every horror, every girl that gets preg in a repug family i am not going to throw it in their face

this is what the nation has created. right here. this is what we knew would happen when bush was elected, why we yelled for people to think about the courts. they didnt

the strong majority doesnt want roe vs wade changed. vote em in, it is going to be because of their vote

fight it. i dont care, i am not stopping you. our dems fight them, that is fine. i am at a whatever here.

i will continue with the rove, dsm, iraq war and all the other corrupt lies. but appointing a justice is bushs job description.

[Tactical Progressive]

64. Bolton had alot of people who hated him

from both sides of the aisle, and he had a record of some pretty aggregious behavior for someone aspiring to a major diplomatic position.

This Roberts guy apparently has alot of friends in the Democratic camp, and probably hadn't done anything as blatantly uncomfortable as Bolton.

That said, I think Dems should push this to the wall before deciding whether to let him through or not. And if it does start to look bad it should be 'not'.

[EFerrari]

72. I don't understand this "either or" thinking

The Replicants work on several fronts at the same time.

Roberts is a distraction? Fine, use him. Reframe the distraction.

What is his record on, say, illegal immigration? On Social Security? What does he think about the Patriot Act? Those are the questions we should be asking and you all know why.

Is Mr. pResident in a strong enough position to credibly nominate anyone for SCOTUS? That's the question we should be asking because it leads right back to WH corruption.

This is just part of the web. Don't polarize over it: use the f7cker. Then you can have a twofer. We fight this jerk AND send the spotlight back to were it needs to be.

[Swamp Rat]

77. Right on! ... "Reframe the distraction!!!"

Our Representatives MUST filibuster all of Bush's nominees from now on. He's a criminal, to put it lightly, so we must block EVERY SINGLE THING HE PROPOSES!!! We have the power, together, to demand of our representatives to do their job as the opposition party.

Why waste energy worrying about whether we will succeed?

Why waste energy arguing about the importance of one issue over the other?

There is ONE important issue right now: we must end this regime by opposing everything they do until the rest of America wakes up. With Americans united, we can vote out and/or impeach this evil cabal!

[elperromagico]

83. Oh, that's good.

This Roberts fellow is a conservative, right?

Hell, quiz him about some recent court decisions.

"How do you feel about imminent domain, a policy supported by Bush, Judge Roberts? Do you, as a conservative, feel that government has the right to claim a person's property for itself?"

"How do you feel about the Court ruling regarding the legality of sodomy, Judge Roberts? Do you, as a conservative, feel that the government has the right to invade the bedrooms of its citizens?"

As long as he's there in front of the committee, available to answer questions, why not quiz him for all he's worth?

[EFerrari]

96. Exactamente, elperromagico

:)

"This posse couldn't find itself - if it wanted to." The Milagro Beanfield War

[dxstone]

73. You are dead-on, DA. (K & N!)

Methinks I sense a hidden agenda on the part of at least some of those here calling for lubing as the only necessary action regarding this new attempt to roll back the calendars even further back into the Dark Ages once again. Bravo on holding the line, big guy; I think you'd be a real good ally in a barfight.
Hey Walt, I don't know ya or anything, but I read your responses here, particularly your very first one #1... and I want to play too! Ok, here's my prediction:
You keep lettin' these guys take the bread out of your mouth, and pretty soon you won't just be hungry anymore. Pretty soon you'll be starving, and you won't have much energy to put up any real defense then; it'll be too late.
There. All done. You can have your Karnak the Magnificent hat back now.
d
ps: To several other posters upstream:
To say that Bolton somehow self-destructed, or that Bush didn't really want him anyway, is just plain weird anti-logic, and proves that for some of us, even when we WIN we lose... I guess there's really no pleasing such people, or any way to help them to find whatever strength and determination they might yet possess in potential, hidden as it is beneath reams and reams of self-flagellating fear and self-defeat.
And to say that nominating hard-line neocons to the Supreme Court is part and parcel of Butch's job description misses the point that he wasn't even elected the first time, and not fairly the second... it's NOT his job. It's Kerry's job, actually.
My point being, who cares if it's no surprise? In fact, if it's no surprise, then I suggest we get to work stopping this BULLSHIT, before Butch does ANOTHER heap of damage that can't be done.

[dxstone]

74. Oops... that's can't be UNdone. n/t

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

79. He got unanimous senate approval for his current positions.

The republicans will be united in support of him. Fight it or no, we can't win.

[bdot]

80. If all the Supreme Court is about is reproductivity...

then try abstinence. It works. We could then just get rid of the Supreme Court.

[mmonk]

81. The court has not swung yet

STAY ON TARGET. They have a weakness we should continue to attack.

[katinmn]

82. OF COURSE we must fight to keep our remaining rights!

I'm behind you, DA.
We don't have the luxury of "picking our battles." That would be true only if we won half the time.

Just because we might not win does not mean we can give up.

We're not alone either. People For the American Way were banking the phones already tonight. More will come out tomorrow.

http://www.savethecourt.org/site/c.mwK0JbNTJrF/b.849267/k.CC39/Home.htm

Roberts Nomination Raises Red Flags
Tell the Senate to Do Its Duty -- Don't Rubber Stamp!

At this critical moment, we need you to do more than just call or write your Senators to tell them to do their duty to advise and consent.

This evening, President Bush nominated John Roberts to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. The Radical Right has been chomping at the bit for weeks in anticipation of this announcement. The Senate must now stand up to the pressure to simply rubber-stamp the President's pick. Tell your Senators to fulfill their constitutional obligation to advise and consent.

The next 24 hours are crucial. Tell your Senators to withold their support for Robert's nomination until they have all the facts about his troubling record. Unless you and thousands of other activists speak out right away, the Bush administration may lock up the support of dozens of members before the confirmation process truly gets underway and the American people have a chance to learn where Roberts stands.

John Roberts
What we know about John Robert's record as Deputy Solicitor General and as a judge shows a troubling lack of concern for the fundamental civil and constitutional rights of all Americans. Americans deserve a justice who will protect our rights and freedoms. Serious questions must be addressed before Robert's nomination to the nation's highest court can be evaluated properly.

Some alarming aspects of Robert's record they must consider include:

Reproductive and Privacy Rights: Roberts urged the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade while arguing before the Court as Deputy Solicitor General in a case that did not even directly concern that issue. His brief plainly states that "Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

Separation of Church and State: Roberts argued against clear First Amendment protections for religious liberty and in favor of officially sponsored school prayer at graduation ceremonies before the Supreme Court, which rejected his argument.

Environmental Protections: As a judge, Roberts suggested in a dissent that the Endangered Species Act was unconstitutional as applied to a California development case.

Veteran Protections: Roberts argued American POWs tortured in Iraq during the Gulf War should not be able to utilize federal courts to pursue their claims.

Excessive Arrest Procedures: Roberts ruled against a 12-year old girl who was handcuffed, arrested and taken away by police for eating a single French fry on the D.C. Metro, even though an adult would only have gotten a paper citation in that situation.
Your Senators need to hear from you today--there must not be a rush to confirm John Roberts until all the facts are in! Call and write your Senators to demand that they fulfill their constitutional obligations of advice and consent - our rights hang in the balance!

--Your Allies at People For the American Way

[B Calm]

85. There are traitors in the White House. We have to keep the press

talking about the traitors in the White House. If you want to blame someone for Bush picking a SC nominee, blame the damn people who voted for him, but don't blame the democrats! Myself I'm more worried about this SC taking away workers rights than I am Roe vs Wade.

[katinmn]

92. Yeah, and we're in an illegal war that is devastating people every day

Our country continues to torture people against international law.

People are dying every day because they weren't lucky enough to have health insurance.

Our broken election system is still broken.

Our environment is in a real crisis.

Every one of those is huge issue that must be addressed now.

And so it is important to maintain our hard-won rights.

Focus where you believe the need is greatest, or fight them on many fronts.

There are plenty of emergencies to go around.

[ck4829]

86. Malaise...

It looks as though all these attacks on the Progressive Community from the Far Right is starting to wear my brothers and sisters down.

Please continue fighting, we WILL win in the foreseeable future.

[Puzzler]

87. But...

Railing againts Roberts right now is exactly what the GOP want the Dems to do. A somewhat muted reaction is what the GOP do NOT want. The GOP desperately need a distraction from Rove-gate.


-P

[Vinca]

88. I don't think any of us want to roll over, but

at the end of the day, this guy is probably the least noxious of the candidates. All of them were objectionable, but one will be confirmed, like it or not. Bush will never - NEVER - nominate a candidate for any court who is completely acceptable to us. That's the price of losing the presidency. We have to pick our fights and at this point I'd rather focus on Rove and the house of cards in that investigation.

[DistressedAmerican]

90. Can You Name A Single Time Where The "Pick Your Batlle's

crowd" chose to fight since 2000? I have heard this logic over and over. It got us where we are today. Why the hell do you people not see that. I hear it over and over.

Remember We didn't fillibuster Gonzalez and Rice, "Picking the battle"? Remember when we weren't going to fillibuster federal court judges because the Repugs scared us with the so called nukes? Remember how everyone was saying back them, "We need to keep the fillibuster out of it until the SCOTUS. That's where we need it most."? Remember all that nonsense?

Well we are here this IS the SCOTUS nomination we were saving our ammo for. The fight you all said we'd pick over Federal courts, the Attorney General, Secretary of State etc. is here and now you want to save the ammo for some theoretical fight in the future.

I am done listening to that logis. It has gotten us here. You have No results to show for your strategy. If you did I may be open to it. But, we have gotten our asses handed to us for years now. When the hell are you people going to wake up and realize that you will never win by giving up?

I can't really believe we are even having this damn discussion AGAIN!

SCOTUS? Remember? We were saving the ammo for the SCOTUS? Right?

I have shown you the results of fighting, Bolton. You have not shown me a single positive thing that will be gained by rolling over AGAIN. Show me one positive result from doing what you suggest. Just one example where not fighting them has gained us ANYTHING. Then you may have an arguement. Until then you want us to just keep doing the same thing that never worked in the first place. Time to reevaluate the strategy.

[katinmn]

93. We have to fight them on all fronts. This, too, is crucial.

We are far from alone so don't worry. Some of the largest progressive organizations -- MoveOn, People for the American Way, NOW, Human Rights Campaign, NARAL -- are already calling for a fight. Others are carefully reviewing his record.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4145437

[Vinca]

94. I agree with what you're saying, I really do. My point is we can

divert all our attention to this nominee and at the end of the day he will be confirmed anyway. The "gang of 14" will hang together on this one, I'm positive of it. They've voted for this guy before. Without a Democrat in the White House and/or a Democratic majority in Congress, we're screwed plain and simple. You can do handstands naked on Pennsylvania Avenue and nothing is going to change the outcome.

[Ganja Ninja]

89. I don't think we should allow any nominee until the Plame ...

investigation has run it's course. If Bush was part of the conspiracy then he could be facing impeachment. A President about to be impeached shouldn't be allowed to name someone that might sit on the court for 25 years or more.

[dave123williams]

91. Hey, * stole two elections, fair and square. Now he gets his nominee.

[ibegurpard]

95. Democrats are handling it properly at the moment

Keep the opposition low-profile so it doesn't appear you opposed the guy coming out of the starting gate. Then you actually have some credibility come the hearings.
In the meantime, keep the focus on the treasonous activities of the Bush administration.

[EFerrari]

97. OKAY, okay, I HEAR you and you're RIGHT, OKAY?

:loveya: