If Clinton can get Ginsburg, Bush can have Roberts

[quinnox]

That's my take, lets be honest, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is about as liberal as they come, and the GOP didn't put much of a fight over her. So Bush can have Roberts, who at least isn't a J. Michael Luttig or Priscilla Owens. It's about the best that could be hoped for from a Bush pick.

[Erika]

1. You're for restricting women's reproductive rights

to go along with your religious beliefs?

That's the difference.

[okieinpain]

sorry, they might have stolen the election, but he is president. I say

it's a crap shoot, from first looks this guy doesn't look to bad.

[Erika]

7. This white male radical who wishes to overturn Roe V Wade

looks bad.

Unless you're agaist women controlling their own bodies.

[mondo joe]

20. Y'know, it not just white men who are opposed to abortion.

Please feel free to oppose his record, but I don't see what being white or male has to do with it.

[okieinpain]

27. that is true, there are a lot of males of color who are opposed to it

also.

[mondo joe]

29. And more than just a few women. n/t

[me b zola]

78. About 30%

That is about the number in the polls I have seen that place their religion before law, or, want the Constitution to be changed to reflect their religion.

I lived for 15 years in a very rural, conservative, midwestern town. Most of those women very quietly (secretly?) wanted to keep RvW.

It really all boils down to people who want their religion to dictate all of our rights, liberties, and lives. The people in that group are a far fewer number than is portrayed in the media or graveling politicians. Most of the women in that small town were repubs, but they were damn glad for RvW.

[okieinpain]

26. well sorry if that's what happens that is what is going to happen.

you know 40-46% of those women voted for the dumb asshole

[KittyWampus]

13. Roberts Is Qualified & That's The Way It Is. Best We Can Do Is Grill Him

and pin whatever extreme views he has onto the GOP so the public gets an inkling of what's at stake...

It was well known that SCOTUS nominees were going to be open and yet too many Americans voted for Junior anyway.

[StevieM]

2. Ginsberg is not as liberal as they come....

all the so-called liberals on the court are significantly more moderate then earlier justices like Warren, Brennan and Marshal. This country has moved so far to the right.

Steve

[BurtWorm]

3. She is not as liberal as they come.

She was pre-approved by Orin Hatch for voting with the Republicans as often as Hillary Clinton does--about a third of the time.

[Book Lover]

4. Does it feel good when you roll over like that?

With friends like you, who needs enemies? If the GOP didn't put up a nasty fight with Ginsberg, then that was a win for our side. Remember winning?

[KittyWampus]

14. IT's Virtually Impossible To Win This. & After We Lose Filibuster, SCOTUS

pick number two WILL BE WORSE.

[okieinpain]

28. probably so. the only reason he's picking someone without

a paper trail is because of his low poll numbers.

[newsguyatl]

30. !!!!!

:yourock:

[ObaMania]

5. I agree.

Let's hope no one raiss a stink over this to keep it out of the headlines.

There are bigger things to deal with right now and I think this is some smokescreen to create a controversy to sway attention from the shit *'s cabal is swimming in currently.

Can't let up. 'Murica is waking up.

[Lex]

6. Ginsburg was a REPUBLICAN suggestion and Clinton liked her too.

Hatch floated Ginsburg to Pres. Clinton.

So let's get our facts straight about that.

[LincolnMcGrath]

16. Thank You!

"Hatch floated Ginsburg to Pres. Clinton"


She is NOT some Uber-Liberal.

[cascadiance]

55. I wonder if her failing health factored into the Rethugs recommendation...

They probably knew up front that even if she was more liberal than they would like, that as an older woman with health that wouldn't keep her in as justice very long (She may have to go sometime against her will in the coming years even with a Rethug as president), they wouldn't have someone to have to put up with for over 30 years like Scalia or Thomas will be in there fore.

[waldnorm]

8. This is Actually Not as Comparable as You Think

The difference here is that before Clinton nominated Ginsburg, he consulted with Republican leaders, including Orrin Hatch, at a time when Democrats had control of the Senate. Bush did not return the same courtesy at all. Also, Clinton sent out feelers for other candidates and took quite a bit of time of selecting Ginsburg. He consulted with Republican leaders to get a guarantee for a smooth confirmation process. Bush is hardly as courteous. Ginsburg also had a long clear record. Bush's candidate does not. So I don't think this is as comparable as one might think.

[ScreamingMeemie]

Thank you.

:hi:

[mbee]

9. I heard someone on the news the other day say that Ginsburg was

suggested to Clinton by Arlen Spector when Clinton inquired as to someone who both parties would approve.

[Walt Starr]

10. Exactly

This is a non starter.

There are only two chances to keep him from being confirmed.

A dead girl or a live boy.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[Walt Starr]

12. He'd still be confirmed. n/t

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[ScreamingMeemie]

17. Probably. Since dogs appear to be worth more than women around

here these days.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[senseandsensibility]

62. Good one , Mrs. Grumpy

I appreciated that comment.

[Walt Starr]

19. That might be a possibility

If it was a clear video of him.

Doubt it though.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Coloradan4Truth]

18. No, Bush could have been picked a moderate.

and been a uniter, not a divider.

Bush knew just what Roberts' opinions were, and what he had said re: Roe vs. Wade.

[PDittie]

22. Fuck that. That's defeatist.

This nominee must be vigorously opposed and defeated with all tools at our disposal (yes, filibuster). Here's just a few examples why:

Civil Rights and Liberties

For a unanimous panel, denied the weak civil rights claims of a 12-year-old girl who was arrested and handcuffed in a Washington, D.C., Metro station for eating a French fry. Roberts noted that "no one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation" and that the Metro authority had changed the policy that led to her arrest. (Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 2004).

For Reagan, opposed a congressional effort -- in the wake of the 1980 Supreme Court decision Mobile v. Bolden -- to make it easier for minorities to successfully argue that their votes had been diluted under the Voting Rights Act.


Separation of Church and State

For Bush I, co-authored a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that public high-school graduation programs could include religious ceremonies. The Supreme Court disagreed by a vote of 5-4. (Lee v. Weisman, 1992)

Abortion

For Bush I, successfully helped argue that doctors and clinics receiving federal funds may not talk to patients about abortion. (Rust v. Sullivan, 1991)

As Deputy Solicitor General (under Kenneth Starr), Roberts argued in a brief before the Supreme Court that "we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. 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." Roberts also filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Operation Rescue and named individuals who routinely blocked access to clinics. The brief argued that the protesters’ behavior did not discriminate against women and that blockades and clinic protests were protected speech under the First Amendment. (This case, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, spurred the Congress to enact the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.)

[indigo32]

24. In a word

NO

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[JimmyJazz]

37. Did you sign onto DU just for this issue? Because, I gotta tell you

that your opinion, unless you can back it up with some serious facts, isn't going to fly around here. "probably not be so bad on privacy rights" - you mean like Roe v. Wade? Do you think it won't be overturned? I don't think this guys hand will be clear of the Bible during his swearing in ceremony before Roe v. Wade is overturned. :(

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[JimmyJazz]

42. That's fine. I'm sorry that your thread sank - it happens during

very busy times. But, to make a blanket statement "let them have Roberts" with no legitimate backing for your point isn't going to bode well. This is a hot issue and many, many people are deeply upset about Roe v. Wade (for starters). So, what makes you think Roberts is on the side of privacy for the individual? I'm not seeing that at all.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[JimmyJazz]

45. You throw a statement out there as fact: "he won't be so bad on

privacy issues" with no means of defending yourself whatsoever and WE'RE the lousy debaters? Oh bother.

Can I ask why you think it's a good idea NOT to put up a fight? Do you at least have a reason for that?

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[JimmyJazz]

48. Then state it as opinion, not as fact. It starts like this:

In my opinion, the Democrats should let the Repukes have Roberts because __________________________ (fill in the blank). No. Seriously. Can you fill in the blank please? You threw it out there - now please qualify your opinion with some reasons.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[Kathy in Cambridge]

52. O'Connor was a conservative appointed by Reagan

no one whined when she was selected.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[JimmyJazz]

54. Why? Why will they be whining about him? You have said nothing

of any substance whatsoever. I'm sorry to keep posting to you, but your circular reasoning and your opinions posted as fact and your refusal to provided any basis for your position is quite baffling.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[JimmyJazz]

67. No - that means NOTHING to me - you've given me no reason

as to why you think that. I'm completely bored with this "round about" conversation and now have a headache. Good night.

Feel free to post the last word to this. I really don't care.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

57. So what. That's only the beggining of the battle.

[JimmyJazz]

69. Can you take my place? I've got to get to bed.

;)

[Crazy Guggenheim]

70. Sure thing.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

50. Hunches aren't facts

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[Kathy in Cambridge]

53. Don't present your hunches as factual, as JimmyJazz says above

that may fly on those other websites, but not here. :hi:

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[JimmyJazz]

66. You are more than entitled to your own opinion, but you

should be able to express how you arrived at your conclusion. You don't have to agree with everyone here about every issue, but you should have at least thought out why you have come to a certain conclusion. Backing it with facts would be a good start. It means you have at least studied the subject matter of the discussion and that you aren't just throwing out flamebait.

I disagree with many people here on a lot of issues, but I'm able to base my opinions on facts and on life experiences. It makes for a much better debate.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

71. Please back up your opinions.

[Melodybe]

72. Actually you are totally wrong Sid, from the articles I've looked at

he is bad on civil rights, procorporations, pro-torture, and has no problem with not keeping the Executive branch in check.

Bush covered all the bases this guy is fucking aweful!

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[Melodybe]

75. He is aweful! He thinks the Endangered Species Act is not needed!

He was all about chopping of the top of a mountain, if you think for a second that he will let RVW rest if it comes back up you are deluding yourself.

DO NOT LET THE MEDIA TALK YOU INTO THINKING THIS MAN IS OK!!!

He is Bushco filth all the way! You just haven't looked around long enough.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[newsguyatl]

31. can we recommend

for du's worst?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

32. This thread is no surprise

:eyes:

[jonnyblitz]

34. it sure isn't nt.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

38. the hell with gays and women

:eyes:

[hlthe2b]

33. Find it mighty easy to throw women and women's rights to the wind?

Why is it I keep seeing males willing to be concilliatory and roll over for Bush on this? I guess women, like African Americans of the last century can be valued at less than a whole white male human being...? (For those who want to pigeon hole, I am personally anti-abortion, but very PRO-CHOICE. Women's bodies belong to themselves-- not some misogynististic gathering of judges or congressional hacks.

Makes me very sad...perhaps some should consider:


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 Martin Niemöller

[newsguyatl]

35. please don't characterize "males" doing thi

this male is very much concerned for your rights, and will fight alongside you!

posts like these tonight don't represent true liberals...

they're pretty transparent.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

39. operative word being transparent

:eyes:

[hlthe2b]

41. I know, NEWSGUYATL.

No REAL male and certainly no real progressive would be casting 50% of the population aside in the name of political expediency...

Perhaps we need another purge of seemingly high posting infiltrators/disruptors?

[Strawman]

36. Her being 60 at the time

Probably didn't hurt her getting by Republicans and there were more moderate Republicans in the Senate then too. This guy will presumably be on the bench ten years longer.

[donheld]

43. Ginsburg was/is a good choice

Roberts is far from it.

[DWolper]

47. Ginsburg was Legal Director of ACLU

Anybody suggesting she was a "mainstream" candidate politically is not being intellectually honest.

Orrin Hatch suggested her as she thought she was "honest" - not that he supported her politics. She sailed through.

Bush should have his choice as well. I don't care for the selection (though it could be worse), but then again, we didn't win the election either. Exit polls showed a lot of people across the country voted Bush for his SCOTUS appointments.

We'll win in '08 and have our picks. Right now, the numbers just are not there. Roberts will win confirmation.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

58. The ACLU is NOT a liberal group. It protects the Constitution.

The Constitution is a body of law that's neither liberal nor conservative.

[Solly Mack]

61. Well said!

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[VOX]

65. No **effing** way!

Roberts is a total ChimpBot who learned his trade at the feet of Kenneth Starr.
Do NOT just let this guy walk right in! :nuke:

[aaronbees]

68. Protecting people's rights....

is not a tit for tat exercise of win some, lose some.

So, no, no rubber stamp for this Bush pick!

[nightwing118]

74. If Clinton can get Ginsburg, Bush can have Roberts

that's so true

[donheld]

77. NOT!

:spank: