The Roberts CJ Nomination-He couldn't have waited till

[liveoaktx]

tomorrow to announce it? It's not only a holiday today but if he wanted to show his concern for the coastal area, he would have looked more single-minded and compassionate than starting with some business that could have waited until tomorrow.

[FormerRepublican]

1. It sure didn't take Bush 5 DAYS to act on that, did it?

Bush should not get ANYTHING from Congress. Not ANYTHING!!

Yet another example that Bush cares nothing about the survivors of Katrina, or the rest of us either.

[MaineDem]

2. Or at least until after Rehnquist's funeral

Bush was salivating at this opportunity.

[TahitiNut]

5. Exactly. No "mourning" period. Haste he didn't show with NOLA.

He's the "bereaved widower" proposing marriage before his dead wife is even in the ground. So much for "respect"!!

The Fecal Fascist Fuck NEVER delays when it's about ONE-PARTY RULE and political advantage. But when people are dying in the streets, he goes for the photo-op rather than fulfill his responsibilities.

These people are more corrupt, dishonest, and obsessed with power than any regime in this nation's history ... and comparable with the WORST in the world's history!!

[enki23]

3. anything to shift attention. any amount of attention. anything at all.

watch for alerts of terrorist plots next.

[autorank]

4. This is the acid test for Senate Democrats

Roberts has a huge paper trail. If the wimp faction wants to rubber stamp this guy for Chief Justice then we're really screwed.

Maybe after the autrocity of NOLA and Bush stupidity they'll grow a spine. That would be very good for thlem and great for the party and our country.

[cascadiance]

6. LBJ's Abe Fortas fillibuster by the Rethugs was a CJ nomination...

So the precedent HAS already been set for this sort of fillibuster by the Republicans themselves. So I think the Dems need to play hardball on this. Don't let Roberts to get on the bench at all or let the CJ nomination go through now, until Bush withdraws his CJ nomination of him. I still say that the Dems should work for a short term nomination of O'Connor to CJ position (doesn't have to be permanent!). Their leverage is that by agreeing with this deal, the Rethugs will get the short term court business to be more in their favor:

1) one more vote to allow them to win 5-4 votes.
2) Justice O'Connor's CJ vote instead of the default Justice Stevens, which I'm sure Rethugs don't like now, since it gives the liberal side a majority if nothing is changed (which might help Sibel Edmonds A LOT in October!)

Making it a short term nomination would allow for the possibility of a Democratic congress being present when a new chief justice is selected (and perhaps O'Connor's replacement too), which would reduce the possibility of the nuclear option being used.

Also, by having the period go into 2007, then, if there are impeachment hearings, it would be O'Connor to be the judge that oversees the congress in any impeachment trial instead of Roberts. If Bush and his buddies don't get impeached, then he has nothing to worry about, but if he does, then I'd like to be assured that there isn't any conflicts of interest of having someone like Roberts steering this trial instead.

Also, don't forget that Rehnquist dissented on many case decisions that were trying to support the rights of "corporate personhood", which has kept us from having a total corporate takeover of our government. I'm afraid of Roberts, Scalia, or anyone else that Bush would nominate without Dem's examination upsetting this balance on these cases. We are already dangerously close to changing our constitution from being "We the People" to instead read "We the Corporations"...