Some thoughts on tactics and the Roberts confirmation hearings

[VelmaD]

This has been percolating in my brain the last couple of days and I figured I'd get it all written down and see what y'all think. We all know what's gonna happen...the same crap that always happens with Rethug nominees...Roberts is going to get up there and be evasive and refuse to answer in detail about his judicial philosophy or how he'd vote on controversial issues.

So instead of letting it happen this time...I have a thought on how the Dems should deal with it.

Let's say he pulls the typical bullshit. The first Rethug member "questions" him and basically sucks his dick on national tv. The fist Dem tried to get him to say something, anything meaningful...and nothing. Lather rinse repeat.

So we get to the 3rd or 4th Dem and he's still saying nothing...this is what they should do. First, point out how by refusing to make his judicial philosophy and thinking public...he's as much as admitting that there's something wrong with that philosophy. That if he was truly proud of what he thought and believed he'd gladly admit to it. So, that said, he should be willing to answer questions in detail. Then hit him with a hard case...and when he gives a non-answer answer again...get nasty with him.

Just start listing cases...yes or no do you believe x case was rightly decided...Plessy, Brown, Miranda, Griswald, Roe, Bakke, every controversial case that has helped establish or curtail our rights...flag burning, sodomy, search and seizure...

Lawyers hate answering yes or no. If he tries to give more detailed answers...our theoretical Dem should remind him that he wasn't willing to give detailed answers when specifically asked for them and if he wants to do so now he is then honor bound to answer ALL questions in detail. Put it on him...then he can either be open...and if he isn't it's right back to yes or no.

If we're lucky it shames him into admitting some of his more obnoxious opinions. If we're not lucky...we still have him on the record as to which way he would have voted on some of the most controversial cases in the Court's history...and our hypothetical Dem could then remind him that if he is lucky enough to get on the Court we'd all be watching to see how he votes and whether or not he perjured himself in his confirmation hearing. :)

I know...it's a pipe dream. *sigh*

[VelmaD]

1. Shameless kick...

because it's ridiculous there are no other threads on this on the GD front page with the hearings starting tomorrow.

Do we no longer think this is important? :shrug:

[Warren Stupidity]

2. whew, for a moment there I thought

you were going to suggest that the Democrats ought to let Roberts go through because --insert excuse here-- and that we should concentrate instead on the next appointment.

Every opportunity to ask questions they won't answer, to vote against their nominees, their secret legislation, their corrupt policies and practices should be gleefully seized upon by the Democrats. Each public event where they can demonstrate that the Democratic Party is not a co-conspirator, is not going along with the program, brings us one step closer to the day of reckoning, the day when we get to have our own 'truth and reconciliation commission', the day when the Cabal is standing in the docket looking defiant but feeling very scared.

[VelmaD]

3. I'm glad I surprised you...

I am four square against EVER letting one of these nutjobs through without a fight.

I just want our Dems to come up with ideas for publicly embarassing the nominees by showing them for what they are.

[delhurgo]

4. They will do that, they always do, and the nominees always refuse

to answer. He'll say the case could come up before him again in the future and he doesn't want to prejudge. Its frustrating, but I guess there is good reason for saying that. The problem is they take it to extremes and use that excuse as a reason not to answer anything.

I think Roberts is going to be hard to stop. And actually since he's the replacement for Rehnquist, thats not too bad. Of course, he is going to be on the court for the next 30 or so years though. But its who replaces O'Connor thats all important, and that's what the strategy of the Roberts hearing should be about imo, setting up the next one. Roberts has to be framed as on the far-right (which is the truth anyhow). Hopefully that can put pressure on Bush to nominate someone more moderate to replace O'Connor, since he already has his conservative, and as Chief Justice too. The only way thats going to happen though is with support from moderate republicans, its all up to them.

I don't think I would use the fillibuster on Roberts, but two conservatives in a row would be two too many for most Americans I think, and then I defintely would use it. The only way its going to work though is if Democrats seem that theyre being reasonable and their convinced that Bush is trying to stack the court.

[VelmaD]

5. I'm not sure we're talking about doing...

the same thing. I want them to answer questions about whether they agree with the legal reasoning behind the cases in question, whether they agree they were rightly decided. If they refuse to answer I think the Dems can make a good argument that they shouldn't be on the Court. There's no reason in the world that we should be expected to appoint a Chief Justice with NO idea what his judicial philosophy is.

If he gives evasive answers I'm all in favor of shaming him...if someone seeking the highest bench in the land doesn't have an opinion on the most important cases in our history...then it either shows that they lack the intellectual curiosity necessary for the position and are unsuited to be on the SC...or they are ashamed to admit to their opinion in public and in that case they aren't qualified to judge the Miss America pageant.

[delhurgo]

6. Ya know, everybody always pretends

that they don't know what these judges philosophies are, but the truth is we do know. We know what Souter believed (he was a moderate, Bush 1 knew that), we knew what Kennedy believed, Scalia, Gunsburg,... We knew pretty much what they all did, but everybody pretends that they don't. I know what Roberts philosophy is: hes a states-rights conservative, at least as conservative as Rehnquist, probably not as much as Scalia. He will defer alot of power to the states, and read the constitution and Bill of Rights very narrowly. For him, the Right to Privacy, or especially abortion rights, don't exist except as precedent, if that. He's sort of like Bork; he doesn't think there are any such thing as 'unenumerated rights'. He's a literalist or as they say 'strict constructionist'. I'm about as positive as you can be about that. I think if that kind of philosophy is to be on the court it should take up maybe two seats at the most, and we already have two like that. And yet, I really doubt he can be stopped. He's very likable, and he's Bush's first pick. The American people are going to give Bush some leeway because of that, and because he really won't shift the balance. Thats why I think Democrats would be much better off making sure people know the truth about Robert, yes, but not going overboard and turning voters off. It will be much easier to make demands on the second pick. Thats not the way Id like it, but this is politics and you have to be smart about it.

[VelmaD]

7. Yes...you and I know his philosophy...

but the majority of Americans are not that well informed or haven't done the research to find out he's a right-wing nutjob. These confirmtation hearings may be the only chance they get to find out just how far out to the right he is and I think the Dems should take advantage of the hearings to make it abundantly clear how far outside the mainstream he really is. If we're incredibly fortunate the media would pick up on it if he said something truly outrageous.