Democrats voting for Roberts...

[SaveElmer]

I think we need to hold our judgement of the actions of Democrats voting for Roberts.

It very well could be, especially for Democrats in very Red states, that they are establishing their bonafides for their constituents before the real potential fight over the replacement for O'Connor.

After all Roberts is not likely to be anymore conservative than Rehnquist was, and there is some VERY slight evidence he may be less ideaological. So his replacement of Rehnquist is a wash.

The fight is gonna be over the replacement for O'Connor, so some of these Dems may be holding their fire for that one.

[mattclearing]

1. So then what's Leahy's excuse? Certainly not a red stater. n/t

[SaveElmer]

5. Well two things...

1. I was mainly talking about red state senators...

2. Pat Leahy has been a great Senator for a very long time. His integrity, as far as I know, has been unquestioned. So I suspect he is voting for Roberts for the reasons he says he is. I wish he would vote against him too...but I don't think he is a sell out traitor either. People are not always gonna do what I want, but Pat Leahy's record has been so good for so long, I'm not gonna dwell on this one thing!

[mattclearing]

9. Nor am I.

I like Leahy too. I disagree with his decision, but he has earned the right to make it.

I'm just saying that the red state strategy doesn't hold for him.

[randr]

2. A unified Democratic Party has the opportunity to send a powerful message

GWB is incapable of selecting anyone for any position.
Does anyone think things will get better for George?
Is the Roberts appointment in the same mold as all the other incompetent idiots we have running things?
Hit him now hard while he is down for Christs sake.

[mtnester]

3. OK, so why not just a PROTEST vote from Dems over his lack of experience?

Maybe instead of capitulating, someone could say "I will be voting No because I think he lacks the experience on the bench"

People get turned down for jobs every minute for the same reason.

Here, send it to them...at least ask them to take our side dammit even if it is this lame ass way.

If we cannot keep the party focused any better than this, the disrupters need to go.

[kentuck]

4. Realistically speaking....

The replacement for O'Connor will be the vote that swings the Court one way or the other. That is the important vote. It is politically naive to think all the cards should be on the table on this nominee, in my opinion.

[AllyCat]

6. Sorry. This man's lack of experience and answers shd be non-partisan

There is no reason for anyone, Repuke or Dem to vote for this man. He has TWO YEARS experience as a judge. That's it. He won't answer questions. He won't release his records. This should be a NON-PARTISAN issue (but of course, it isn't). There is no reason for Leahy or any other Dem to vote for this clown. Once again, no united Dem voice means more Dem losses in 2006.

Way to go, gang!

There is no doubt in my mind that the same thing will happen for O'Connor's replacement. The wimpy Dems will bend and there we will be with the most conservative, fascist court in the history of the U.S.

[nevergiveup]

7. I concur but also believe that

Chimpy will select someone non-controversial to replace O'Connor....possibly Gonzales. He has already passed the test and Joe Biden loves him.

[SaveElmer]

8. Well you know...we're not gonna get a liberal...

No matter how much we rant. If we can scare Shrubbie into appointing someone less ideological, more O'Connor like, than that is about the best we are gonna be able to do in this situation.

I'm not saying Gonzales is that man...just making a general point