Dems on the Judiciary committee seem to have a lot of doubts about Roberts

[FourStarDemocrat]

They obviously respect his intellect, but are showing a lot of reservations with Robert's failure to answer questions forthrightly, to show what kind of moral scope he has. Gor instance he said he'd take the state of Colorado's side first (against gay rights) for pro bono work if he was asked to, which I think was a breakthrough moment in today's hearings. It's my sense that he's leaving Durbin, Feinstein, Kennedy, and Schumer, and possibly Feingold and Leahy with a lot of doubt as to who he really is, and that they might end up voting against him.

That will not change the overall confirmation obviously, even if they don't vote for him, but I think, if he isn't handed a red carpet by the Democrats it will signal that Bush can't think too easily that he's going to be able to railroad the next conservative in.

[electropop]

1. It's not too late for a filibuster.

We do have 44 Dems, if only in name. Write and call your Senators, even the Pukes! This (as Feinstein said) could be a mistake we live with for 40 years. We need to do everything to prevent it. Say, can Larry Flynt dig up any dirt on him? ;-)

[FourStarDemocrat]

2. I'm going to call Schumer and Clinton's offices again today.

Roberts may be a "nice" man...but he's hiding too much and it is frightening.

[Bumblebee]

3. no one is going to filibuster this one and it would be a mistake to

do so. As a replacement for Rehnquist, he is actually quite tolerable and could have been much worse. I watched or listened to almost the entire hearing and my sense is he is actually closer to Judge Kennedy than even to Rehnquist, and he is no Scalia -- unless he is a brilliant actor as well as a brilliant mind (which he is). I actually think Bush blundered, and will hear (and already is) from RW about that. That was his safe shot at getting a pass for a "true" conservative and I think he blew it. The next one, given the realities of where he is right now, has to be less conservative, not more conservative, than Roberts. Vote against him, sure -- I would want my Dem senator to do that, obviously. But filibuster? Gimme a break -- so that Bush can nominate someone definitely in the mold of Scalia?

[electropop]

4. We just need to stall a few more months...

until the impeachment hearings are underway, and Bushitler can't appoint so much as a dog catcher.

[Bumblebee]

5. Oh, I would be all for it if that wasn't just a dream right now

given the GOP hold on all power -- and I am all for filibustering the next nominee, and for that they do have to be realistic and keep their powder dry, otherwise they would be seen as crying wolf too often. After all, no one could possibly expect Bush to nominate a liberal (although his Dad sort of did with Souter, and the RW is already concerned, as we speak, that history is repeating itself...)

[FourStarDemocrat]

6. I think the right wing is thrilled with Roberts..

According to Pbs's Lehrer, plus David Brooks and Tom Oliphant (commenting on the hearings today), cronies in the bush administration are quietly assuring the Christian fundamentalists.

[Bumblebee]

7. I know they are -- but a) that means assurances are needed

and b) wouldn't they be assuring them even if they did indeed blunder? I don't know what the truth of the matter is -- and probably neither do they. Brownback, for one, is VERY concerned, according to what he said in the Roll Call today. I just know that filibustering him at this point would be politically unwise and would endanger their chances with the effective filibustering of the next -- all important -- one.