One undeniably good thing about John Roberts as Chief Justice

[Tactical Progressive]

Scalia must be seething inside.

And along the same lines, a more substantial good thing: No Scalia as Chief Justice. We couldn't have stopped that from happening. Thanks for that much, George.

[Dr Fate]

1. Who is to say Scalia wont have his hand in Robert's back, like Thomas?

???

[Tactical Progressive]

5. Roberts is his own man, if nothing else

That may turn out to not be a good thing, but I don't see Scalia bending Roberts much if at all.

Of course he may not have to, but I have a possibly unrealistic, but very hopeful view of Roberts. We can only wait and see. With Scalia there wouldn't be any need to wait or to see - he'd be at best as bad as he is now, and probably worse.

I'm sure he was all set for the coronation before Bush elevated a newbie right past him. I'll bet if Roberts turns out not to tow the hard right line, there will be alot of acrimony and resentment behind the scenes.

[Dr Fate]

6. Who says? The media? Bush? The 23 cowardly DEMs?

???

[joemurphy]

12. Why "cowardly"? Leahy and Feingold are cowards?

Maybe they simply took Roberts at his word that he isn't an ideologue. Maybe that's stupid. Maybe it's not. We'll see.

[Dr Fate]

13. Taking a Bush Republican at his word? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

I revise my statement- replace cowardly with "out of touch" or "stupid."

Isnt taking Republicans at their word what got us into Iraq?

[joemurphy]

15. All Republicans are liars? n/t

[Dr Fate]

16. Name one single issue they have NOT lied about in the past 5 years.

Go ahead- give it a whirl.

If you want to defend DEMs who are stupid enough to take a Bush Republican at his word after lying about "WMDs" and oh, just about EVERYTHING, then best wishes to you in using that "strategy."

[joemurphy]

18. They haven't had to lie all that much, IMHO

They control the Presidency and both houses of Congress. They've been fairly straightforward about what they want -- generally to the gain of the wealthy and benighted and to the detriment of everyone else. But they haven't had to lie about it all that much. They just do it.

WMDs was possibly a lie. I personally think so. But Clinton has said that the intelligence he was getting from the CIA was the same as Bush got -- saying that there were WMDs there. I think they lied about the nukes. I'm on firmer ground there.

Other than that, I can't think of any lies that ever fooled anyone --the tax cut, the cost of the prescription drug benefit... those are the only ones that really come to mind at the moment.

[Dr Fate]

19. Clinton did not present forged documents to the UN & congress.

Nice try.

Now- name one single issue that the Republicans have not lied about in the past 5 years. Just one. Can you do it?

[joemurphy]

20. Colin Powell didn't know they were forged at the time. Do you

maintain that he did? Was he lying when he said that there was intelligence of WMDs in Iraq? Don't think so, my friend. He was wrong. But there's zero evidence he lied.

And what forged documents were presented to Congress? I don't know what you're talking about here. Bush's SOTU Address contained "16 words" about British intelligence having evidence of Saddam attempting to buy uranium in Africa. But no forged documents and the Brits, by the way, have never backed off that. What the Brits had may have been based on the Italian forgeries and may not have been. I've never been able to get a clear answer on it. But AFAIK
nothing forged was ever presented to Congress.

As to other "issues" where they told the truth -- tort reform was pretty straightforward. The bankruptcy bill was too. As I said, they told us what they were going to do and they did it. Power plays. They didn't have to lie to get it done.

Why can't Roberts be a man of his word? Every Republican, in your book, is a liar and a perjurer?

[Dr Fate]

21. What about the plagiarized British intelligence memo Powell also presented?

I suppose that was a happy mistake too?- even though a five second google search by the British media proved otherwise?

Who forged Powell's fake documents, and why?

How about those drones? How about the mobile weapons lab? How about the "45 minute capabilities"- how about the literally hundreds of contradictory statements made by Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, Bush, etc?

All happy mistakes and mis-speaking , huh?

Are you really so desperate to defend the Roberts vote that you want to take the position that Bush was honest about his reasons for going to Iraq?

Again- in your desperate defense of DEms who claim to trust these guys, can you list one- just one single issue that Republicans have not lied about in the past 5 years?

[joemurphy]

24. Powell didn't present a plagiarized memo in his UN speech.

At least, I don't recall that. That was something that the Brits did that came out much later -- when Blair was being investigated by the Brits. Powell may have referenced it, but I don't think he or the CIA knew at the time where the Brits got it (i.e., off the Internet from a grad student's thesis).

Nobody knows who forged the Niger documents. A lot of people think it was a Neocon named Michael Ledeen.

Powell didn't mention the drones in his UN speech. That popped up in a Cheney speech I think. And yes, that was a lie.

The mobile weapons labs were in Powell's speech. No one knew what the hell they were at the time. "Curveball" -- an Iraqi defector came up with that, I think. They were later determined to be hydrogen gas makers for artillery balloons after the invasion. Powell didn't know that. Blame Tenet who should have known better.

No. I personally don't think Bush was totally honest about going to war. I think Powell was played for a sucker by Bush and Cheney. I don't think Powell knew at the time that everything they gave him to say in his UN speech was shit. I think Bush wanted to go to war and from there on his administration was simply trying to scrape together enough to provide a justification. But remember Tenet's "It's a slam dunk, Mr. President" remark. It's still a very fuzzy thing as to who knew what and when.

I mentioned tort reform and the revisions to the bankruptcy law. There were probably other instances when they didn't bother to lie to us. I just can't think of any right now.

[Dr Fate]

26. Yes, he did.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/020803A.htm

February 7, 2003

"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."
- Secretary of State Colin Powell before the United Nations, 2/5/03

The veracity of Colin Powell's report on Wednesday before the United Nations Security Council was dealt a serious blow when Britain's Channel 4 News broke a story that severely undermines the credibility of the intelligence Powell used to make his case to the UN.

Powell's presentation relied in no small part upon an intelligence dossier prepared by the British Government entitled, "Iraq - Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation." That report plagiarized large swaths of an essay written in September of 2002 by a graduate student from California named Ibrahim al-Marashi. Al-Marashi's essay appeared in the September 2002 edition of a small journal, the Middle East Review of International Affairs.

The British intelligence report can be read here. The essay by Ibrahim al-Marashi can be read here.

According to the story from Channel 4 News, which was later augmented by an Associated Press report by Jill Lawless, the duplicate text was first spotted by a Cambridge, England academic named James Ranwala. Apparently, Ranwala read the British dossier when it became available and believed he had seen it before. As it turns out, he was correct. Entire sections of the al-Marashi essay, including six full paragraphs in one section, had been cut and pasted into the British dossier, including several spelling and grammatical errors that are identical.

[joemurphy]

28. I think we're saying the same thing but still disagreeing :-)

[Dr Fate]

29. You have a long row to hoe to convince me that Bush & co. did not lie.

And by "lie" I mean my Daddy's definition of the word, not this hair splitting and happy horse poop you are handing me.

If the plagiarized document was my only example, you might have a point- but you have to have an excuse for literally hundreds of "mis-statements" and non-facts to clear Bush of lying- and I'm just talking about lies about Iraq alone.

Forged Nigerian documents (See the Plame Investigation) AND plagiarized term papers passed off as up-to-date British intelligence? I see a pattern.

We cant say that it is reasonable for a anyone, much less a good Democrat to even pretend you can trust these people.

[Dr Fate]

22. On Edit: I'll bet they did lie about Tort Reform & bankruptcy too...

...although you have me for the moment- I cant pinpoint anything in particular-but I'll bet i could make an argument!!!

Cheers!!!

[joemurphy]

23. I'll bet you could too. :-)

[Dr Fate]

27. One could easily find misrepresentations in anything they have done.

A laundry list of Bush lies is off topic & really needs to be in another thread-

But- I can see how defending and splitting hairs over Bush & Colin Powell's "mis-statements" and defending DEMs who voted for Roberts could to go together!!!! ;)

[joemurphy]

30. You say I split hairs and I say you paint with too broad a brush.

There's a difference between Colin Powell being a liar and his being honestly mistaken. You like to gloss over differences. It's something Republicans do a lot too. I urge you to get out of the habit.

And you brand people like Byrd, Leahy, and Feingold (all of whom had the guts to oppose the Iraq War - something your new heros, Kerry and Clinton, couldn't find a way to do) as being guilty of doing the "indefensible" -- voting for Roberts -- because they apparently are prepared to take Roberts at his word while you aren't. How doctrinaire you are! Who gave you your monopoly on Democratic Party truth?

What happened? Did you finish your appeal brief early or something?
I thought we had agreed to disagree.

Whatever. For me our debate is over. It's getting repetetive, I'm tired, and I'm going to bed.

[Dr Fate]

32. Oh brother- now Iraq is an honest mistake- that is too much!

Too much!!!

"...monopoly on Democratic Party truth?"

Wha? It's not the honesty of Democrats that is in questionn- it's the dishonesty of Bush...

But where you are most right is how I need to hit the books.

Good night- take care

Doc

[Rowdyboy]

9. I also doubt Scalia's ability to bend Roberts.....

Best case scenario-Roberts turns out to have a libertarian streak. Worst case, he's more like Scalia than Rehnquist. This appointment is unlikely to change a single decision this term.

Now O'Conner's replacement is an entirely different matter.

[Mr_Spock]

2. Scalia = Satan's right hand man

Glad he'll be in the shadows where all evil lurks

[barb162]

33. Scalia=incubus

besides that, I hate him

[DanCa]

3. What evil lurks inside the hearts of Roberts scalia knows.

I think the only thing that will save us now is wide spread civil disobedience.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

4. I read that Scalia wasn't at the swearing in. Any info?

[fooj]

8. Yep. What's that about? Sour grapes, perhaps?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

So much for loyalty, right?


Peace.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

10. Yeah, we'll see if Scalia helps throw any more elections for the Repubs!

[bemildred]

7. He looks like a robot. Very controlled.

But I'd wager he can think rings around Fat Tony
and Thomas. It's will be interesting to see what
he does now that he's through the gauntlet.

[newswolf56]

11. I think Roberts' appointment is intended to secure three things:

(1)-Unprecedented expansion of presidential power;

(2)-Unprecedented repeal of suspects' rights (especially reinforcement of the Guantanamo/Homeland Security doctrine that suspected political criminals forfeit their Constitutional rights merely by their political activism);

(3)-Unprecedented restriction of individual rights in general (note for example Roberts' remarks about the "alleged right to privacy"), with the long-range intent that of perverting the Constitution into a document for the protection of the oligarchy and the disempowerment of everyone else.

I think history will regard Roberts' appointment as part of a major turning point: when the U.S. dropped all pretense of being a democratic republic and openly became a nation ruled by for and of the wealthy at the expense of everyone else -- an infinitely rich, omnipotently powerful oligarchy protected by an unabashedly fascist government, and all the rest of us reduced to abject serfdom.

[ngGale]

35. I'm in agreement with you about Roberts'...

and see him the same way you do. An end to democracy, he's a shill.

[okieinpain]

14. really, and no thomas either. but seeing how he's against

equal oppurtunity he shouldn't mind a youngster telling him what to do.

[lastknowngood]

17. You do realize of course that no repug politician or big donner

can now be prosecuted.

[eggman67]

25. I'd be kinda surprised

If he really expected to be elevated. Elevations are risky and relatively rare, primarily because they trigger another confirmation process. Plus, he'll be 70 at the end of this next session.

The thing to keep your eye on now is how many more will Bush get?

SCOTUS Ages:

John Paul Stevens 85
Sandra Day O'Connor 75*
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 72
Antonin Scalia 69
Anthony Kennedy 69
Stephen Breyer 67
David Souter 66
Clarence Thomas 57
John Roberts 50

*retiring

Is Stevens going to last through 2008? Ginsburg?

Roberts & Thomas are the two youngest, and I expect the next on will be relatively young as well.

[Hello_Kitty]

31. No shit! It's like Randi was saying today

Imagine the Justices who went along with the singular Bush v. Gore decision, most of them probably harboring the hope that they'd be rewarded with the Chief Justice slot. Only to have this brand new nominee placed in the position! BWAHAHAHA!!!! Scalia, you don't get those stripes on your robe, EVER!! I hope that just burns in your gut, asshole. :evilgrin:

[kestrel91316]

34. And we could get lucky - Roberts could turn out to be another Souter.

You know, a Log Cabin Republican under deep cover (in this case as Mr. Married).