Dems should confirm Roberts immediately and get back to Rove!!

[bribri16]

There is nothing I can see about Roberts that deserves a filibuster or a difficult time during confirmation. If they want to screw this administration they should get rid of the distractions and get back to Rovegate-DSM-Bush lies.

[Langis]

1. I agree

Let's get back to Rove

[rlev1223]

Beat me to it

This needs a bit of political judo to keep the news on Rove where it belongs. His confirmation hearings should not be allowed to provide a bunch of white noise masking the scandal story.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

41. Look at all of them.

They're in every thread.
And they're male.
Big surprise.

[FormerRepublican]

45. Nope...

...this one's female.

[beam me up scottie]

47. Thank you, then, SISTER

for being so willing to hand over my rights without a fight so that you can go back to worrying about more important things.

[FormerRepublican]

59. You're making assumptions about me based on facts not in evidence.

Roberts, although revolting, in all likelihood DOESN'T have the power to overturn Roe v. Wade. The risk is more along the lines of partial birth abortion and parental notification. IMO, overturning Roe v. Wade would create a firestorm that even the Supreme Court would hesitate to start.

You've convinced me. We must fight on both issues. But I do think the fight on Traitorgate can be used to delay the hearings on the nomination - perhaps indefinately if we can get Congress in a snarl over whether someone should be impeached - backed up by public outrage and looming 2006 elections.

[beam me up scottie]

60. I agree that we can fight both and should.

I have a real problem with people rolling over and saying let's give this guy a pass so that we can move on to more important things.

I have been seeing just that sentiment expressed in every thread I've visited tonight.

And well over a dozen of those posts were from new (like today new) male posters.

It doesn't pass the smell test and that's what I was commenting on.

Everybody's rights are worth fighting for.

[MisterLiberal]

56. Pardon me

But we can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time.

We do NOT give up on the Supreme Court!!!!

That's our last line of defense and WE CANNOT BACK DOWN! If we give up the swing vote to get a rightwing nutjob, we can kiss it ALL goodbye!

Why oh WHY are we always so ready to give up????? DO NOT BEND OVER ON THIS ONE!

We can get Rove and a better "justice" than this!!!!!!!!!

[liberaliraqvet26]

2. id vote for him....

lets get back to the fat cherub

[cally]

5. Why would you vote for him?

He's for keeping the Cheney energy task force secret, he's against Roe v. Wade, he's against environmental protection.

[newsguyatl]

8. think about it

and you'll get it.

in fact, think about this whole thread, and you'll get it :hi:

[liberaliraqvet26]

12. because were not gonna get any better

he's a wild card and is definitly capable of moving to the left over time.(like souter & kennedy have) he does not appear to be a knee jerk wacko like thomas and scalia. he is capable of thinking unlike those two. fact is hes going to be confirmed so lets not drag it out and get back to beating up on rove

[newsguyatl]

15. yeh, yeh

let's just pass on through a guy who'll help overturn roe v wade...


hurry hurry!



move along, nothing to see here!


:eyes:

[beam me up scottie]

42. He's been in every thread

saying that.
Along with a lot of other new male DU members.
Funny...

[KittyWampus]

50. you can divine a DU'ers sex from?????????????????

[beam me up scottie]

51. It's in their bio, dumbass.

[blondeatlast]

69. Their profile. Sheesh. nt

[djg21]

83. Let me guess. . .

because he disagrees with you, he must be a "new male DU member." Don't you mean a FREEPER?

Look, the reality is that unless a skeleton falls out of a closet within the next few months, Roberts must be confirmed. He has unassailable qualifications,he is well-respected by members of the bar (and of both political parties), and apart from differences in judicial and political philosophy which must be expected of any Bush nomination, there is nothing wrong with him.

While he has taken positions in litigation that we believe problematic, i.e., Roe v. Wade, keep in mind that he was serving as an advocate on behalf of a client, and attorneys are always required to make arguments that may not personally agree with. You cannot fault the man for representing his client zealously, and we don't really know what he'll do when ultimately faced with the issue as a Justice.

Moreover, he was already confirmed as a Ct of Appeals judge by a UNANIMOUS vote of the Senate just two years ago. If there was any good reason not to confirm him, it would have been exhausted previously.

Pragmatically, you have to know that Bush is itching for this fight. He knows that the Democrats will attempt to appease their core by fighting the nomination no matter what. This silly (IMO) knee-jerk response -- fight the nomination, any nomination, and at any cost -- is more than evident here on DU. However, should we take the bait, the Republicans will be able to point to the Democrats' "flip-flop" on Roberts, and scream partisan politics and obstructionism. The labels will stick, and in the meanwhile, Plamegate, DSM, and other embarassments to his administration will get buried, and attributed to still more partisan political attacks.

In the end, Roberts will be confirmed anyway because he is a qualified nominee. So what is the point of making his confirmation a distracting sideshow?

[beam me up scottie]

96. No, he's obsessed with Rove and wants women to shut up and accept

the nominee without a fight.

It might not make him a freeper (your word), but it does make him a selfish, misogynistic mouth breathing bubba.

Better ?

And do a little more research before you lecture me, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Start by turning off fox news.

Just because you want to hand over our rights without a peep doesn't mean we are going to go along with it.

"distracting sideshow" ?

I guess repubs aren't the only ones who think women aren't entitled to reproductive rights.

[djg21]

97. I see!

Since I also disagree with you, and think your post was immature, rude, and entirely uncalled for, you insinuate that I too am a "selfish, misogynistic mouth breathing bubba," who watches Fox News and has "no idea what (I'm) talking about" and who no doubt "think(s) women aren't entitled to reproductive rights."

Your condition is treatable. Initially, I thought of suggesting Midol, but that would be like taping aspirin to a broken bone. You need something far stronger that only a professional mental health care provider can prescribe.

And when you feel better, if I might quote William Pitt: "Dine on my feces."

[beam me up scottie]

101. BWAHAHAHAHA ! Oh ow, I've been wounded by your snit.

[FogerRox]

91. NEw member talk again--- hmmmmmmm

[ElsewheresDaughter]

44. roberts will be a fucking environmental NIGHTMARE!!!

[Booster]

84. For keeping the Cheney energy task force a secret is enough

for me not to vote for him, but I really don't believe Repugs want Roe vs Wade overturned anymore than we do. I would love to know the stats on Dem vs Repugs getting abortions for whatever reasons - bet it's pretty equal. But the energy task force thing to me is unforgiveable and goes against ALL of our rights. Nationa security, my ass. Covering Cheney's butt was what that was all about.

[cally]

3. NO...Roberts is horrible

He's against Roe v. Wade and for limiting Congress' ability to protect the environment.

[lvx35]

6. Not openly against Roe V. Wade.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071901518.html

Pressed during his 2003 confirmation hearing for the appeals court seat for his own views on the matter, Roberts said: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

back to Rove!!!!

[cally]

10. That's when he was for an appelate court postition

Now he would be in a position to decide it. He has said he thinks Roe v. Wade was a wrong decision.

[bowens43]

65. He will now have the power to help overturn Roe vs Wade

and he is openly against it.

[Mojambo]

4. There's NOTHING the Democrats can do to further the Plame thing

It's in Fitzgerald's hands.

All they can do is score more political points, but they can do that during a SC nomination battle as well and actually HELP the country avoid another theocratic, corporate fascist on the SC.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

16. Yes. So clear the decks so Fitzgerald can make the news.

Grill Roberts to a crisp in Senate hearings but best not to make much noise before or after. Get Roberts through his guaranteed confirmation ASAP.

The sooner oxygen gets back into the issue of Rove and Cheney's betrayal of national security, the more the Bush regime wriggles on the hook.

[Mojambo]

25. And another right-wing corporatist sits comfortably on the bench

for the next 25 years causing massive problems.

I want to get Bush/Cheney as much as the next guy, but the SC remains the most important thing.

If he gets in that's one thing, but if the Democrats lay down and let him in just so they can score more points on Rove (who is going down either way) it would be immensely demoralizing to the base.

If this guy, Roberts, were even remotely moderate I might agree that they could sacrifice the appointment, but in my view he's not.

I'm not saying that need to shriek and scream 24/7 starting now, but the Democrats must vigorously oppose this nomination.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

26. He'll be confirmed. Bet the farm on it. Win the fights that can be won

Pick the battles. Don't exhaust one's self when the real battles that can be won are Patriot 2 floor vote Thursday, Rove-Cheney, and the WMD Vacuum / DSM.

[Mojambo]

27. Maybe. I'm a tad tired of hearing Democrats say

"Pick the battles you can win"

When it's a life or death battle you generally don't get to make that qualifier.

If this guy skates through I'll be mighty upset, and I suspect I won't be alone.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

46. Right. That's why I suggest gather evidence and roast him at the hearings

He will be confirmed even if it takes a party line vote and it might. So gather evidence quietly for a thorough grilling in the hearings. Discussion on DU is a great way, no need to get the media heated up though.

In the meantime Patriot 2 Re-Act comes up for a floor vote Thursday.

And let's clear it out quickly after the hearings so that there is room for Fitzgerald to do his thing in full view.

[Wabbajack]

76. It doesn't matter if it makes the news

The news won't effect whether or not Rove is indicted.

[MsTryska]

81. the news will affect your average citizens

perception of this admin.


how the hell do you think a blow job took down a president?


because the media took it and ran with it.


if we start kicking up a fuss on this guy now - it takes the media heat off Rove - and we need that heat to leave a bad taste in the mouths of your average americans.


when they think Rove - they need to think Traitor.

when they think Bush - they need to think Weak on treason.

When they think Whitehouse - they need to think Corruption.



we're headed in that direction.....and this appointment will be in news cycle after news cycle, at the expense of the above 3 memes, if Democrats kick up a stink just to be kicking it up right now.


the more we talk about it - the more it takes away from the real work that needs to be done right now.

[bowens43]

7. This is far more important then 'screwing the administration'.

This man is an extremist. A partisan hack who has twice been rejected by the US senate. He is a rabid anti-choicer and helped the bushies steal the 2000 election. He is YOUNG we are talking about decades of this conservative lunatic making choices that affect our lives.

[lvx35]

9. But what strategy?

is he to be fought with? Filibster? Is this guy worth breaking up the gang of 14, and the HUGE news distraction that will cause from traitor-gate?

[Mojambo]

14. Traitor-gate could disappear from the media immediately

But that's not going to change how the FEDERAL PROSECUTOR is going to proceed.

Keeping Plame in the news is nice, but it's far from necessary.

[liberaliraqvet26]

18. its only temporary

the roberts thing is being well recieved, not much controversy. the media will stop covering it soon.

[blondeatlast]

70. Well received? It was just announced last night. The lap poodle

media likes it, sure, but theat's their jobs.

Show me how it's being "well-received." I say no one knows for sure at this point.

[lvx35]

19. No, but it undermines Bush's base more.

They would love a good old fashioned fight about values of a judge to get their mind off the fact that the guy they've been cheer leading for is involved with some serious corruption.

I don't really want to argue this though. I you want to fight Roberts go ahead.

[Eloriel]

54. Yeah, and really,

women's reproductive rights -- and their medical decisions, and their bodies and their very lives -- aren't really all THAT important, are they? After all, they don't bother YOU.

[beam me up scottie]

58. Thank you.

I'm probably going to get tombstoned before the night's over.

Everybody's falling all over themselves to hand over the rights to our bodies without so much as a peep so that they can move on to "more important things".

Excuse the hell out of me for thinking our reproductive rights are important !

Anybody who isn't willing to fight to preserve our rights doesn't deserve theirs, IMNSHO.

[samdogmom]

17. Why can't we fight the Rove battle and make the adm illegitimate?

If we can prove that this administration doesn't deserve to be in power, can't we put "their" appointments on permanent hold?

[Placebo]

23. Agreed.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

11. Agreed; Go to the mat on the next one; Back to Rove-Cheney Plamegate

Pull out all the stops and go to the mat on the next nominee.

Rove moved up the nomination to save his bacon, so don't play his game. Let the Dems be quiet until the Senate hearings, give Roberts a good blistering then, and let him be quickly confirmed on a quiet party line vote.

This way the air will go out of the Roberts balloon and oxygen will get back on the Rove-Cheney traitorous violations of national security.

[bowens43]

28. The next nominee?

This one swings the court from and even split with a swing voter to a conservative court. This is the one we need to fight. The Rove thing is no where as important as the Supreme Court. The Supreme court is the most powerful branch of government. Do you want to hand it over to the neo-cons without putting up a fight?

[ribrepin]

29. Exactly

Don't get distracted from Traitorgate. Rove would like nothing better than the Dem's filibustering and Frist launching the nuclear option. The news media will be all over it for weeks and traitorgate would slip to the back burner.

The Dem's should keep quiet until the Senate hearings and ask probing and hopefully some embarrassing questions. Then a party line vote that will certainly confirm Roberts.

People won't give a crap about abortion until it's illegal and they or a family member needs one.

[bowens43]

33. Rove is nothing compared to this.

The next nominee will most likely have no affect on the over all make up of the court. This one changes the court significantly. If ever there was a time to go to the mat, it's now. Do you understand we are talking about a life time appointment for a man who is only 50? He will decide the constitutionality of law for three decades or more. Rove and bush will be gone in a few years. They're nothing.

[FormerRepublican]

36. Yes, but...

...if we don't use Traitorgate to weaken Bush, he may get TWO nominees when Rhenquist either steps down, or dies. That MUST be prevented by weakening him with the Traitorgate scandal. If Roberts gets in it's bad, if Roberts and some other whack job gets in, it will be catastrophic!

[Eloriel]

55. And the air out of all one wedge issue, huh?

See my previous post. You "men" who are completely oblivious to this issue and what it means to women are really getting on my nerves.

[Sparkly]

13. They should just vote "NO."

But not filibuster, imho.

Keep the headlines as they are. We can't win this one (especially without losing the filibuster for the next one, or God forbid, the next two).

[lvx35]

20. Exactly: we CAN'T afford filibuster here!

Or we could lose the power to filibuster the next one!!!

[bowens43]

30. Huh? The next one?

This the one that swings the court to the right!!! The next one is irrelevant. It will most likely be replacing a conservative with a conservative. This one replaces a moderate with a conservative.

[Sparkly]

31. They want two ultra-conservatives REGARDLESS of who's replacing whom.

But if Democrats lose the right to filibuster, the next one could be far, far worse; and in the process, Democrats would be branded as "obstructionists," Treason Gate and Iraq could disappear from the headlines, and in the end we'd have two conservatives ANYway!!

[bowens43]

35. This one swings the court to the conservatives.

The next one doesn't matter, with this one we will a 5 to 4 conservative court. . Rove disapearing from the headlines doesn't matter.

[Sparkly]

37. There was never a question of that, in my mind.

And I don't think it's something we can stop -- especially not this one. (I'm thinking less of who he's replacing, and more of his order in the queue.)

And I think Rove, treason, DSM, and everything else concerning Iraq should stay in the headlines -- that does matter, a lot.

[bowens43]

61. None of that matters as much as the court..

You need to think of who he's replacing. That's what is important. If he was replacing Rehnquist , I'd agree with you. But he isn't.

[lvx35]

39. Roe v. Wade

To answer you're question, I'm not so sure how the "conservative" ones in power would rule on certain things...Therefore every other ultra-conservative judge on the bench matters...But the picture is way bigger than that. If we lose the power to filibuster at all, pandora's box is opened for a whole lot of really bad legislation that we simply can't stop.

[bowens43]

62. So we keep the power to filibuster

by not doing it? That makes no sense at all. You do realize that the so called nuclear option only refers to filibustering the confirmation of judges don't you?

[lvx35]

86. No! I didn't realize that! Thank you!

I was foolishly thinking that it applied to a much broader set of things. Here is the sentence I missed when I was reading about it before:

"The nuclear option would allow a simple majority (50 out of 100 senators, plus the Vice President) to end a judicial filibuster."

Without that it looked like a way bigger thing. I was wondering why all the seasoned DU posters where looking at newbies like we were crazy or shills for pointing out that we shouldn't lose that power!

(blushing) Sorry, that's embarrassing. I concede the point, we probably sould fight it.

[JHBowden]

22. The administration will be gone in a few years.

A justice will be here for DECADES.

I do agree that if the Democratic leadership isn't willing to go all the way with stopping Roberts, politically it is better just to let him have an up-or-down vote and get back to where we were before.

[clitzpah queen]

24. This Either/Or Thinking is Dangerous

This is just what Repubs want folks to say. Why choose between legitimate fights? Both battle fronts are important -- but the Supreme Court because of its scope of influence and the potential length of time this justice could serve his corporate masters (a an oh-so-nice, friendly and professional manner, no doubt) is even moreso. Before you say "nothing I can see about Roberts that deserves a filibuster" -- do your research. This is a VERY STEALTH CANDIDATE because of the limits of paper trail on him. My guess is that he probably doesn't have as many outrageous quotes as Ms. Brown had from speeches she gave -- which doesn't mean he doesn't have the evil in him. Already a few days ago he supported a team that defended unprecedented sweeping powers of the Executive to deem who is an enemy combatant and what happens to them.

The LINK TO ROVE of this issue is that ROVE probably helped push for him as a choice and gets to mastermind a lot of the spin as to what gets said about him.
If Dems get sucked in by this "moderate and reasonable" PR then they deserve to go down in FLAMES. It'd be like saying "SCREW the women, SCREW the children, SCREW the unions, SCREW the environment, SCREW our privacy" etc.

[dajoki]

57. you are exactly right!

just because the liar in chief nominated someone for SCOTUS doesn't mean we have to cave on that issue or any issues for that matter.

[ladjf]

32. Might as well. What do you expect from Bush. If Roberts were to

be stopped, there are a hundred other Roberts to follow. We are just screwed that Bush was allowed to literally steal the last two elections. If you want to stop something, let's raise holy hell about the electronic vote machine fraud.

[mikelewis]

34. Patients... The Rove Scandal isn't going anywhere just yet...

I thought they may horse trade it away but the appointment of Roberts proves that theory wrong. This SCOTUS appointment is much more important than Rove or any of the Scandals Bush has stirred up. You may be itching for blood but there's bigger fish to fry. Wait for the information on Roberts to flesh out and then tell me if he does or doesn't deserve a filibuster.

[MidnightWind]

38. There's no use fighting this--I agree.

And it will shock the shit out of the GOP if we do NOT fight it. And then we can get down to getting back on message re ROVE!

[bowens43]

63. That seems to be the overwhelming opinion

of the low post crowd......

Makes wonder , doesn't it.


Seems to me that Rove is the diversion.

[MsTryska]

82. I don't have a low post count.....

and i totally agree.

[blondeatlast]

71. I love pretzels for breakfast. Thanks for that logic.

Wherever it is. :eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

99. Sounds like Marshall Petain saying that there is no point in fighting

Hitler's armies. The stench of Vichy Democrats and other appeasement vermin can be over-powering at times, but we must resist them as we resist the rightwing onslaught.

If we don't make a stand on Roberts, there is no point in calling ourselves the opposition party!

[leesa]

40. But not one of them should vote for him. THAT is what is important,

despite what the DLC Appeasement Committee says.

[KittyWampus]

52. Agreed. Pin Robert's Extremism To The GOP. Make It Clear

[bowens43]

66. How is that important.

It certainly doesn't stop him from making bad decisions on the court. He will be there for 30 or more years. THAT is what's important. No one will remember or care who voted against him once he is confirmed.

We see that here on DU already when we see so many who think that bringing down Rove is more important then the make up of the Supreme Court.

[zara]

43. agree.

[imenja]

48. hearings must be talken seriously

but they won't begin until Aug or Sept. Plenty of time for Treasongate

[Zen Democrat]

49. The hearings won't even begin until September. Lots of time for Rove.

[DianeG5385]

53. I'm so there

I think Dems should do their due diligence on the break and call for quick hearings and move on to more important things. This guy is palatable and may surprise the RW.

[Swamp Rat]

64. Nope. That's BS.

We can chew gum and obstruct at the same time.

We MUST oppose everything the Bush Cabal does from this point on. To do otherwise would be to collaborate with terrorist Nazis.

[elperromagico]

67. Dems aren't in a position to confirm a freakin' dog catcher.

US Senate:

Republicans: 55
Democrats: 44
Independents: 1

That is a fact, set in stone until at least 2007.

Barring some miracle, where six Republicans cross the aisle to vote "Nay" and not one Democrat crosses the aisle to vote "Aye," the only recourse the Democrats have as the minority party is the filibuster - and they've been hamstrung in using that by the so-called Gang of 14.

So, while I understand your logic, I disagree on a purely nitpicking level with your insistence that Dems should "confirm" Roberts immediately.

Dems in the Senate can't confirm anybody. They don't have the votes.

[tkmorris]

68. I don't BELIEVE the cowardice on this thread

This guy pepresents the changing of the guard in the supreme court.

THIS GUY overturns Roe v Wade.

THIS GUY overturns seperation of church and state.

THIS GUY overturns prayer in schools.

THIS GUY overturns environmental legislation.

THIS GUY is the fight we cannot afford to lose. And yet so many of you want to wait for the next fight. Why? If he takes O' Connors slot we have lost. It's over. Turn out the lights, it's time to go home. I'm sorry but what the FUCK are you people waiting for? Fight goddamnit, and fight now!

[bribri16]

72. One man's "cowardance" is another person's "strategy" or opinion

n/t

[Totally Committed]

73. This is exactly what the other side wants us to think...

As soon as he's confirmed, Rove's troubles will be resolved (one way or another) quickly... and we are stuck with having Row v. Wade and the Endangered Species Act on the chopping block.

At least that's my thought.

TC

[Norquist Nemesis]

74. At the very least, let the committee do it's thing

and give the task to special interest groups with the resources and influence on Congress.

We can individually write to our Congressmen, but until the Senate hearings convene I hope we maintain our focus on Bush's War on Wilson scandal.

[Wabbajack]

75. Roberts will be ruling on curbing your civil rights

long after Rove is just another forgotten political hack.

[Mary 123]

77. Delete This Message

Can someone please delete this message so it doesn't show up as a headline topic in the main room? Some people may read only the Subject title and think it's a good idea to forget about our civil liberties so we can do nothing but deal with Rove.

[MsTryska]

78. i tend to agree......

he's going to get in anyways -

all 55 repubs will vote for him, and am willing to bet money the Dinos (all it takes is 5) will go along with it - i doubt there is any dirt that's coming out of the closet, so why expend the momentum. Bush timed it to be a grand distraction - why should we play that game?

let's save the big guns to take this whole damn admin down.

[WinkyDink]

79. Win the battle,...

Lose the proverbial war. Why make Bushism ensconced?
Fitzgerald will still do his work.

And by the by: Funny, I have never heard an admitted Republican express the "pick your battles, 'don't sweat the small stuff'" "strategy", have you? "Take-no-prisoners" Rove must be having a good chortle about now. "Oh, no, don't go after Dan Rather; let's direct all our efforts against Kerry."
"Let's concentrate on Whitewater, guys; forget about Jones, Lewinsky, and Foster."

Give me a break.

[zanne]

80. We knew the Supreme Court was doomed..

When Bush was re-"elected". I don't know why people are acting surprised and outraged now. I was told, at the time of the election, that I was being a "quitter" and "pessimistic". But this is my question; With Republicans being in the majority, did anybody here really think that they'd be "fair"? The time to raise hell was before the election; it's too late now.

[McCamy Taylor]

85. Tell this to NARAL, NOW and PLanned Parenthood all oppose him!

[genius]

87. Bush hasn't offered me enough to take that position.

If he did, I think I'd turn down the offer anyway.

[CAcyclist]

88. Nuts

That's crazy.

We aren't going to influence Fitzgerald - he's going to made his own decision. We do have an opportunity to influence the Supreme Court, however. This isn't a distraction.

[enough already]

89. Bullshit

This implies we can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Roberts is a freakin' disaster. He'll overturn Roe. He has to be stopped at all costs.

[Julius Civitatus]

90. NO!!! Roberts influence may last 20 or 30 years!!!

Rove may be done himself in. While we should keep pressing on the Rove-Plame scandal, we should definitely focus on Roberts. A second Scalia in the SC will define the law of this land for the next 20 or 30 years.

[FogerRox]

94. I am a Democrat who stands on his principles

I will not -- ever back down. I will stand my ground and defend by country with my life.

I will not negotiate my principles away wholely or partially. It is my right as an american citizen.
You can have my civil rights when you pry them from my cold dead hands.

My name is Roger and I approved this message.

[theboss]

92. I can't believe the blindness here somtimes

Rove is Don Regan with a Hostess craving. The charges are serious. If he is guilty of the worst of them, I hope he goes to jail. But it's not really going to make a lick of dffierence in the long run. Elections are not won and lost over the actions of operatives. Rove will be a memory by 2008.

Roberts will be making decisions that affect you for decades to come.

[ComerPerro]

93. Yeah, why even bother with interviews and inquiries

lets confirm him today!

:sarcasm:

[Uzybone]

95. Totally agree

Roberts is a typical anal conservative, the exact kind that we expected Bush to pick. Not as bad as Thomas and Scalia, but bad all the same. Americans wanted a right wing prez, so they should get the right wing judge that he selected. Lets get back to uncovering the first of many crimes that the WH has commited.

[IndianaGreen]

98. Who is Judge Roberts, and why he should be defeated?

Who is Judge Roberts?
By Barry Grey
21 July 2005

Just last Friday, Roberts joined a unanimous decision by a three-judge panel of the DC Court of Appeals overturning a lower court ruling in order to uphold the Bush administration’s use of military commissions to try alleged terrorists being held at the Guantánamo Bay prison camp. In this ruling, Roberts and his cohorts implied that the president has a right to declare any individual, including a US citizen, an “enemy combatant” and thereby deprive him of the due-process rights provided by the US Constitution as well as the protections stipulated in international treaties such as the Geneva Conventions.

This is only the most ominous and overtly anti-democratic of a number of decisions handed down by Roberts in the course of his brief tenure on the DC Court of Appeals. Roberts upheld a lower court decision that the arrest, search, handcuffing and detention of a 12-year-old girl for eating a single French fry in a Washington subway station did not violate her Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.

In another case, Roberts joined in a ruling upholding police car trunk searches even when officers did not assert evidence of a crime. Roberts also issued a dissenting opinion in an Endangered Species Act case in a manner that showed he was inclined to hold an array of environmental laws and other federal protections to be unconstitutional.

This ruling is indicative of an ideological posture that has the most far-reaching implications. According to Forbes.com, “Roberts has also written in favor of a more aggressive reading of the Constitution’s Contract Clause that would prevent government from imposing new obligations on businesses in their dealings with employees. The last time the Supreme Court took such a stand was in the early 1930s when it struck down elements of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jul2005/robe-j21.shtml

[blondeatlast]

100. Nice drive by, OP. It's been what, 36+ hours?

Surely the OP has an argument to make in this...

[beam me up scottie]

102. Bingo! You've got it.

It's amazing how some people can't smell that.