DUers lets be honest. . .is there anyone W* could have nominated . . .

[wndycty]

. . .that we would have liked. I have been too busy to learn a lot about Roberts, however I began to wonder is there anyone W* could have nominated that would be acceptable?

[BillZBubb]

1. Not liked, but the Senate Democrats gave Shrub a list of 3 names.

Two of them would have been OK, not great but OK.

[wndycty]

2. Who was on that list. . .

. . .and was there any chance the Republicans would have liked any of them?

[Jersey Devil]

8. Was it "Democrats" that gave the list or Joementum & friends?

I read that Lieberman gave them a list of 3 that may have included Roberts. I haven't seen anything about Dem leadership giving them any kind of list.

[BillZBubb]

20. The Democratic leadership provided the names

From Capitol Hill Blue:

"Top Democrats recommended to President Bush on Tuesday three Hispanic judges among potential Supreme Court nominees they view as able to win Senate confirmation without a partisan battle.

They include Judge Edward Prado of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. District Judge Ricardo Hinojosa of Texas, according to sources familiar with talks about a nominee between Bush and Democratic and Republican senators."

Here's the link:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7030.shtml

[Child_Of_Isis]

3. Of course!

Michael Moore comes to mind.:woohoo:

[seabeyond]

24. i was saying bullshit before getting into your post

and lookie, i was right, lol

[Rick Myers]

4. The truth: possibly...

I'm not ready to burn the village over Roberts, aside from one 'tell' on Roe, but we haven't heard all the details YET...

I still think the US is a BIG boat, and it takes ALOT of time to turn it. He wouldn't have been my first pick, but I'm open to hearing his opinions.

(Off with his HEAD!!!) No.

Kidding.

[B Calm]

5. He could have nominated someone who stands up for labor, but

hell no, he had to go an appoint a corporate lap dog..

[KharmaTrain]

11. And Pigs Would Fly...

Ya think O'Connor wasn't a corporate lap dog? Look at her decisions.

I'm grateful we don't have a Roy Moore-type.

Time shall tell how "moderate" Mr. Roberts is...that's what a confirmation process is for. Until then it's foolish to waste angst and anger that goes nowhere.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

6. What about somebody just like Roberts...

...but 75 years old?

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

7. Guiliani, maybe. nt

[Jersey Devil]

9. LOL - the image of Rudy on the court is making my sides hurt

Death for jaywalkers!!

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

12. And unsolicited car window washers...ok, now I'm laughing too

Off with their heads :rofl:

[shugah]

10. yes, of course

well, okay, not "liked" but certainly he could have picked a reasonable, moderate person that we all could have found "acceptable" if not perfect. no one expected him to nominate a liberal. but he could have chosen someone more like o'conner.

he didn't. i'm not surprised. are you?

[sendero]

13. Could have? Or would have?

He COULD have nominated a person with no known ideology. With ties to neither party. With no record of rhetoric about any current SC decision.

He COULD have, but there was never any chance whatsoever that he would.

[Sapphire Blue]

14. I would have been quite satisfied w/John Bonifaz!

:evilgrin:

However, Bush's aim is to further his regressive agenda... so, no, he will never nominate an acceptable candidate.

The Record of John G. Roberts, Jr.: A Preliminary Report: http://www.savethecourt.org/site/c.mwK0JbNTJrF/b.897925/k.7742/A_Look_at_John_Roberts.htm

[Ladyhawk]

15. Even if we get rid of Roberts by some miracle, he'll just nominate

someone equally noxious.

I'm not sure what to do in such a situation. I've looked at the flame wars and truly, I can see both sides.

[NAO]

16. Gonzales would have been better than Roberts

Even the clemency dismissing "Speedy-Execution Gonzales" (aka "Torture Man") would have been a better choice than Roberts.

Gonzales is (relative to Roberts) a MODERATE, and is not committed to overturning Roe v. Wade.

If you will remember, the Religious Reich flew into a RAGE when Gonzales was thrown on the table as a potential SCOTUS nominee. They were FURIOUS that he was "not-conservative enough" and that he was not committed to overturning Roe.

Now I'm not saying Gonzales was not a nightmare, but just that he was LESS of a nightmare than Roberts. And there are hundreds of hard-rightists that would have been better than hard-far-rightest Roberts.

[bonzotex]

19. what a horrible choice....

....the torture apologist, pro police state, corporate bootlicker guy would have been better than anti-privacy, anti-women's rights, pro police state, corporate bootlicker.

Face it, Bush is not going to appoint anyone that we are going to like...at all.

The fundies are going to get hosed. They are being used again. Roberts is definately more their guy, but they won't get what they want. Dubya's handlers floated the Gonzales idea as a press distraction and to gage the mood of the fundies. This time the Bushies paved the way by assuring the fundies with a wink and a nudge that Roberts would kill Roe vs Wade and usher in a new Christian Amurikkkan Era.

It won't happen, the fundies will squeal like the pigs they are, the repugs will blame the Dems, the fundies will fill the collection plate for the Repugs again.

[seriousstan]

17. Not according to some here.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4152159

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1944439

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4150637#4150649

[bonzotex]

18. Plenty he "could" have....

None that he would have...

It's not that DUers or Dems are just anti-anything Bush, it's that he is is anti-anything we hold dear. If for no other reason we should distrust his nominee because it's HIS nominee. Bush is taking an action and he says it will be good for us. By definition, we are about to get screwed somehow. A quick glance at his nominees' history and pedigree just confirms what we already know.

He is mentally unable to select anyone for any appointment that will further Democratic interests.

So, big surprise, he nominates a pro-corporate, anti-choice company man.

Big surprise, progressives have a problem with him.

It's not our fault. We aren't closed minded. We are not blindly prejudiced. We are at least as smart as lab rats and learn when we get repeatedly shocked. Every time he's been given the chance he's lived up to and beyond our worst expectations. At what point do you quit giving him the benefit of the doubt?

Another way to phrase it, "is there anyone he could have picked that wouldn't have made his political base gush with adoration?" Yes, plenty he could, but he wouldn't, and didn't and won't next time.

[realFedUp]

21. soooo....your point is? We roll over because they all would stink?

and this guy looks like he wouldn't disregard
laws in place?
He already has.

[wndycty]

25. My point is. . .I'm trying to get a pulse of if there was any choice. . .

. . .that W* could have made that would have pleased us.

[mmonk]

22. Not as long as his pool of candidates

are from the Federalist Society.

[Bleacher Creature]

23. Hell yes -- this guy for one.

http://www.draftprado.org/