Should Senate Democrats filibuster Roberts?

[Sparkly]

Is he an "extreme circumstance?"

There's a reason they chose a relatively 'blank slate,' and one whose Democratic support they can cite from 2 years ago, before his brief fed. judicial career began.

If he's defeated, someone worse could take his place. Could Democrats keep that up for four years? How would the "obstructionist" charge then play in elections?

My first impulse -- and I haven't read or thought a lot about Roberts -- is for Democrats to make statements on the Senate floor and to the media directed to the electorate, even if stated to the GOP: "We're on to you, we know you're out to turn back the clock on civil rights, workers' rights, women's rights, religious freedom, etc. -- THIS is what happens when the rightwing is in charge, and American democracy is in peril."

Then they should ALL -- each and every one of them, showing some party "discipline" for a change -- vote AGAINST Roberts in protest and solidarity.

[HockeyMom]

1. Absolutely

Because a far right conservative for Rhenquist is really just a wash. But a far right conservative for O'Connell tips the balance.

[Sparkly]

2. Would a filibuster produce a more moderate nominee? nt

[readmylips]

9. FILIBUSTER....FILIBUSTER....GO ON VACATION....

and please don't talk to the nazi media. Keep the bush/cheney/rove criminal acts in the front pages.

[HockeyMom]

10. I agree with that

Wait on Roberts. Concentrate on Rove now.

[Sparkly]

20. But if they filibuster, it'll stay in the news for a long time.

They'll have plenty of time to scream about "Democrat Obstructionists," etc. Not only that, they may pull the nuke option, which would leave Democrats with NO filibuster for the next nominee (and chief justice appt) and God forbid if there's one after that.

[Rex_Goodheart]

3. It's time for Democrats in Congress to grow a spine...

and repeat these words as often and as loud as possible: "You, Mr. Bush, are a puppet of religious right extremists."

In answer to your question, YES. Filibuster that jackass.

[Sparkly]

6. But what would the result of the filibuster be?

That's what I'm asking. From what I've read so far (and again, I'm not thoroughly studied in these people), there were worse possibilities.

What if they all simply voted "NO" on this one?

[Caution]

4. Without a doubt

[liberalnurse]

5. yes, but the Rovegate pressure

must continue. I agree with the consensus that this nomination is an intentional distraction from Rove. In the same breath, *bush is arrogant and selfish, never thinking of the people, only the power building goal of the right wing so he wins both ways.

[still_one]

7. don't worry about rove

the grand jury IS NOT GOING AWAY

[Kitsune]

14. So talk about Rovegate as the filibuster

Two birds, one stone. Gets the message out and keeps a whackjob from spending the next thirty years doing everything he can to kill America.

[tedoll78]

8. Bush has stated..

that he wants his nominee to be there when the new term begins in October. I'd propose that we campaign and hold-up the floor vote. If it's before October, our argument would be that there's still time before Bush's expressed wishes. If it's after October, our argument would be that this Roberts guy is nasty, nasty stuff worth the "extraordinary circumstances" refrain. We force them to pull the nuclear trigger, basically. If the nuclear button succeeds for them, we shut the fucker down until the 2006 elections.

In the meantime, we campaign, we educate the public, we dig into this guy's past, we march on Washington, we advertise in certain Senators' states, we get our Senators in line against this guy, we put severe pressure on the Senators..

We make this basically a national campaign. And when the vote finally happens, we'll see who's "moderate" and who is not. If those allegedly moderate GOP senators vote for a man who'll overturn Roe and Griswald, then we go after them with a vengence in 2006. Same for Democrats.

[Sparkly]

11. That's a thoughtful answer.

BUT -- the bullet you propose might be better used in the NEXT nomination and the new Chief Justice. If we prompt the nuclear option on this one, there'd be no filibuster left for that one.

[tedoll78]

12. I can see the reason behind that one.

Cool.

We have The October Excuse. It's the best defense of a delayed vote that anyone could've hoped for, and the Chimp himself handed it to us.

EVERYONE - Practice saying it with me:
"WE NEED MORE INFORMATION & DIALOGUE. IT'S NOT OCTOBER YET. THERE'S NO HURRY."

:P

[liberalnurse]

13. Okay, I think I have it now....

" "WE NEED MORE INFORMATION & DIALOGUE. IT'S NOT OCTOBER YET. THERE'S NO HURRY."



Yea...I got it!

Pass it On!

:applause:

[sundancekid]

19. ding ding ding. tactically this is not the sword upon which to fall -- we

have REAL treasoners to take care of, and if Chief R. goes, THAT would surely be the time AND place for no holds barred ... strategy is about looking at the whole war against the bushevik regime, and not just a battle that is not necessarily the decisive one (FAR WORSE choices will come up, and the game of Supreme Court Chicken can deeply hurt the Dems, possibly more than just the repukes ... just my .04 cents (in honor of my faithful avitar general)

btw, as Jack Kennedy used to say: "there in no substitute for intelligence," and this Roberts guy AT LEAST has THAT ... in contrast to Priscilla Owen dumbass, or Edith Jones tight extreme rw a$$ and so forth.... let alone Abu Gonzales, who would have been THIS nominee IMHO,
but for his thumbprints all over the 11-hour gap in the TREASON GATE at the Chimp Whore House

[Sparkly]

21. Right, and a simple "NO" from all Dems

keeps it quick and simple -- and keeps 'Treason Gate' on the front page (hopefully).

Of course in my heart, I'd love to see a fight -- a huge, loud one -- but strategically, we can't win this one.

[Skittles]

15. I don't consider bush a legitimate president

Dems should filibuster everyone that incompetent piece of shit nominates

[Sparkly]

17. For four years? On two nominees? n/t

[Skittles]

24. anyone that piece of shit approves of will be a disaster

the man approves of TREASON and he is PICKING SUPREME COURT JUSTICES? :puke:

[Sparkly]

25. I agree with you there, no question about it.

We all saw it coming back in 2000. :mad:

[Skittles]

26. lots longer for me, Sparkly

as a Texas resident, I saw it coming when they ran that incompetent piece of shit for governor. I still remember the chill that came over me as it hit me - THEY'RE GONNA PUT THAT MAN INTO THE WHITE HOUSE"

[derby378]

16. Filibuster this sonofabitch...

...if for no other reason, than the fact that he opposed making the records of Cheney's secret energy task force public. You know, the task force that crippled California and saddled all of us with record high prices on gasoline.

[Sparkly]

18. They're already spinning the support he got 2 years ago.

That's what it's about.

[Idioteque]

22. Will the pro-choice Repubs support an anti-choice nomination to SCOTUS?

Chafee has a nice big endorsment from NARAL. He really doesn't deserve it if he supports this nominee.

[Sparkly]

23. Yes, they have an "out."

They put the "out" out as soon as they released his name: "He had Democratic support two years ago; and, oh that -- his job was to argue a specific point of view, but it doesn't mean it's HIS point of view." :eyes:

[sendero]

27. Why?

The Senate Repubs will invoke the nuclear option. I will bet $100 to your $10.

The American public knew that Bush** would get an appointment this term, and they knew he'd appoint a wingnut.

They didn't care. I'm having a hard time caring either.