What should Senate Democrats do on Roberts?

[Sparkly]

Poll question: What should Senate Democrats do on Roberts?

[The Jacobin]

1. Got a new .sig

Just for the occasion ...

[Sparkly]

6. Right, but what they sent out when they released his name was...

"Oh, his job was to argue that point of view; it doesn't mean that it's HIS point of view. Why look here, he said Roe is the established law of the land! And look at all these Democrats who supported him two years ago before he had any fed judiciary record!"

[The Jacobin]

11. He should have said that.

An appellate judge MUST see the decisions of the SC as the settled law of the land. Otherwise he lacks "judicial temperment."

But all bets are off at the SC level -- they can go back at any time to reopen the matter.

[Sparkly]

13. Exactly.

I agree.

And I know they want to send Roe back to the states where it'll brew for a long time. The fight will help them with their "base," giving them leverage for corporatism.

Noooo doubt about it.

[Stinky The Clown]

2. Vote 'no' .... then shut up and move back to other issues

No filibuster .... quiet 'no' votes and then keep on keepin' on with pressure on rover and all the other shit boiling up.

[jfalchion]

8. Roberts is 50 years old

If he isn't stopped, he will be around 30+ years.

[Stinky The Clown]

9. "if he isn't stopped"

And how, exactly, do you propose 'stopping' him?

Senatorial spitballs?

The Gang of 14 will not allow this to get to filibuster.

End of 'stop'.

[jfalchion]

18. "End of 'stop'."

Okay, fine. Just roll over.

You won't recognize this country in 10 years.

[Stinky The Clown]

20. You failed to answer my question

How, exactly, do you propose he be stopped?

What, precisely, is the strategy you espouse?

[jfalchion]

26. bork him

eom

[jfalchion]

31. start here

http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/nominees/supreme/what_you_can_do.html

[Sparkly]

32. There's no way we can get a 58-42 "Bork."

Let's be realistic. I'm a card-carrying member of NOW, and I agree that we need to make our voices heard, but sadly, there's no hope of a "Bork" with this Senate.

[Stinky The Clown]

39. I'd love to think otherwise, but that idealistic

Do everything on that list and the result will still be a 60+ 'yes' vote to confirm.

All the wishing in the world won't change that.

The fact is, to call for stopping him is a fantasy. And anyone who thinks its not has stars in their eyes.

Look, I'm on your side. I am not happy about him. But we can't win. The best we can hope for is to somehow use his nomination against them ....... and in our favor.

But whether we do everything or nothing, he's in.

[sendero]

37. The time..

... to have done something about that was Nov 2004.

Voters (including 55% of white women) picked Bush**, knowing that this is what he'd do. Fuck them.

Our candidate, in the face of overwhelming evidence that the election was stolen, felt it more advantageous to shut up and hope for 2008 that to actually do anything.

So here were are, and there ISN"T JACK SHIT YOU, I, OR OUR LAME-ASSED SENATE CAN DO ABOUT IT.

[Stinky The Clown]

40. Bingo .... and in 2005/06 ...... it had DAMN well better be OUR time

Hold noses to keep status quo 'dems' in office .... get a majority .... and then clean house. Give the party back to We the People.

But right now ...... sadly ...... you are SOOOOOO right.

[Totally Committed]

57. How could I add anything to this post?

I agree 1000%.

TC

[union_maid]

58. I agree, except it was 2000

The fact that he got a second term and finally got a nomination to make was a direct result of being in there the first time. No one should ever think it doesn't make a difference. It always makes a difference when it comes to judicial appointments.

Now, if this nomination was defeated, who do you think he'd put up next? I think it would be someone even worse. Certainly just as bad. They're going to do what they're going to do, but it seems to me that they might as well vote No and accept the inevitable, unless something really explosive in his background turns up.

[GR]

3. Too Early To Say....Wait And See...

that's my opinion...not yes, for sure...

[JHBowden]

4. I'd vote no.

Roberts has the potential to be an awful justice, but strategically my brain tells me to save the filibuster for the Stevens replacement.

[The Jacobin]

12. Shrub is weak now.

Filibuster and keep on filibustering.

Keep kicking him when he is down and never let up.

[AntiCoup2K4]

5. If they can swing enough republican votes, filibuster.

If not, they should vote no as a solid block anyway. It may be a symbolic statement, but it's better than the usual sellouts forgetting whom they're supposed to represent.

[Sparkly]

7. If they filibuster, Repugs could pull the nuke option

while screaming "obstruction." (Or Chimp could nominate someone even WORSE, and then they do it.) And then consider what happens when Rehnquist steps down, if the filibuster option is no longer there.

[liberaliraqvet26]

15. i agree.

filibuster is bad for this nominee

[Griffy]

55. GOOD... wish they would.. the more they abuse power.. the better..

let them do it.. then Dems should boycott... no Quorum.. no NOTHING! Bring congress to a halt.. have all dems go on TV everywhere and explain! Explain War lies and Rovegate and all the things people arent listening to! If the Senate came to a halt.. people would notice! Stop playing footies with these fuks..

[sundancekid]

10. filibuster is our own nukklear option to our party ... save it ... smart

money says Roberts will be confirmed with 80+ votes ... just enough dissenters on the left and extreme right ... I really like the approach Lawrence Tribe is offering ... a sort of finessed version re: trust and verify (trust the acumen, integrity, decency, high intelligence, and verify judicial philosophy, particularly on privacy issues)

[bowens43]

16. Save it?

This is what we were saving it for.

[Strawman]

14. If he's as conservative as I think, filibuster if we must

Try to stop him from being appointed, force them to go nuclear if they have to and turn right around use the nuclear option themselves to pack the court with two of the youngest most liberal judges imaginable when we get back the White House and Senate. Don't even wait for a replacement. Put 11 Justices on the Court.

Of course that will never happen, but that's what I think they should do. Seems as if there was no consultation with Senate Dems for this choice. He's not a moderate, reproductive rights and other civil liberties hang in the balance. These are extreme circumstances, so filibuster.

[The Jacobin]

17. YES

Yes, Yes, Yes. Go all out for 13.

Remember FDR. He threatened exactly that during the Great Depression. He didn't have to follow through, but he would have.

[Sparkly]

19. That'd cost a LOT.

If they "go nuclear," we have ZERO power for the next nominations -- and there'll be at least one, and possibly two, with a new Chief Justice in the mix.

That's three of nine, add in Scalia and Thomas, and forget about any balance at all. It'd be a long, long time before Democrats could come CLOSE to "packing" the court with anything. :(

I don't think this is the time to filibuster. Keep the headlines on Iraq and "treason gate" and keep the public opinion of the GOP as low as it is right now; then filibuster the next one.

[Strawman]

22. If we let a guy this conservative replace a swing justice

We have no power anyway. I agreed with the tactic of the deal, but they can't allow a staunch conservative to replace a swing justice when the goal of the deal was to force a moderate, mainstream nominee. Clement would have probably been fine, but this guy is one that the fundies approved of. There was no consultstion by the President. The Republican leadership acted like the deal was irrelevant, so now the Senate Dems have to enforce that with a filibuster and insist on a more moderate nominee. I don't think that is what will happen, but that's what I think they should do. Alot of Senate Repubs are scared shitless of the prospect of the Dems having the nuclear option someday. That's the only leverage we have left.

I'd rather see them stand up and make the case against this guy and show people that the party stands for something over a SCOTUS nomination when more people are watching than during some lower court battles, so if they can't scuttle this guy by other means, filibuster.

[Sparkly]

25. I understand what you're saying

but I don't think there's any chance we'll get a moderate from this administration. Meanwhile, they'd use the fight against Democrats in a huge way (and push other issues off the front page).

We can't expect Democrats to spend four years filibustering nominees (and perhaps two at a time) for four years, and survive it.

[Strawman]

29. It will only take a couple weeks or a month

Before they go nuclear if we do filibsuter, then we can refocus on everything else. They won't filibuster for 4 years.

What else should be on the front page? This might be the most significant political battle in a generation. I expect my leaders to engage in the fight, not retreat. Long after Rove and Libby have been released from their country club prisons and written their books about it, this judge will still be around, voting on the wrong side of 5-4 and 6-3 decisions on everything imaginable.

[Sparkly]

36. If they go nuclear...

we can't stop this one AND we can't stop the next one (and there could be another next one after that in Chimpy's term).

What should be on the front page: Anything and everything about the TRUTH of this administration's bloody, expensive lies, especially concerning Iraq. All we can hope for now is victory in Congress next year, and victory of the White House in 2008.

[Griffy]

56. wRONG.. we can stop EVERYTHING... no Quorum.. no NOTHING..

boycott if they go nukular! stop this pussyfooting, play hardball! We want media attention , THAT will do it.. go and explain WHY the boycott, and while your at it talk of the DSM and rovegate and war lies and all the IMPEACHABLE offenses! it would jolt the public to ask.. WTF is going on in DC! the TX state senate did something like this already, so STOP GIVING GROUND.. NO MORE.. NOT 1 INCH.. IMPEACH the criminal! let him have NO nominees, the court is fine with 8 or 7 .. there is no set number...

BE STRONG... BE THE MEDIA..

Americans are awakening, dont give in now!

[The Jacobin]

24. Look at the quote.

"The Court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion...finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."

Do you know what that means, "no support"? Roe is based on a right of privacy doctrine that was (correctly) "found" by the justices by reading between the lines of most of the Bill of Rights.

That doctrine holds up a great deal of things liberals fight for in the courts.

Do you like contraception? The case that gives married (THAT'S RIGHT MARRIED) couples the right to purchase and use contraception is based on that right of privacy.

Do you think couples (including gay couples) have the right to engage in any sexual activity they want in their bedrooms? That is based on that right of privacy.

Roberts attacks the foundation of Roe and a whole lot more than just abortion rides on it.

Think about it.

[Sparkly]

28. I'm a member of NOW and NARAL.

Of course I know what this is about, and this nomination will prompt me to donate again.

But let's be realistic about what Democrats can do right now. There's no way to block a conservative, anti-choice nominee THIS time without forever losing the option of filibustering the next one (and still having this one get in).

We can keep the points you mentioned in the public eye and raise awareness; we can show voters what they get with rightwing leadership. That's very important.

I think they want the *fight* over choice more than they want the victory. I don't think the BushCo asshats give a hoot about it -- they just want it as political leverage for a "base" that allows them to pass all sorts of corporate windfalls, nevermind the environment, labor, education, the national debt, you name it.

Meanwhile, I still contend we can't win this one, and fighting would cost us two; but if we hold on, we can at least win the next one.

[The Jacobin]

35. Ok.

I understand your concern. I just realized that I assume the next one will be replacing Rehnquist where no real fight is needed because no change in the balance will be made.

Are you thinking the next to go will be from the left (Stevens, maybe)?

[Sparkly]

38. Next is Rehnquist.

And yes, Stevens is even older than he is.

[The Jacobin]

41. Now I'm confused.

Why do we need to save the filibuster for the next one if the next one is replacing Rehnquist?

Status quo is ok with me. Changing one justice on the right with another justice on the right just maintains the status quo. There is really no need to fight that one.

But O'Connor's seat is the swing seat. If we lose it, we lose many more cases we would have won. We have to fight for it. Even if only to put another O'Connor in it.

[Sparkly]

42. Don't confuse *who* is getting replaced with the overall fight.

Nobody put labels on seats saying "this is the moderate one" and "this is the radical rightwing one."

The sad fact is there's only so much Democrats can do with this situation. If Democrats filibuster this one, Repugs could go nuke and change the rules to stop ALL filibusters on judicial nominees, from here on.

The result: Roberts, or somebody even worse, would get in anyway. Then they could replace Rehnquist with somebody completely outrageous -- a veritable Roy Moore -- with NO recourse for Democrats. And should Stevens need to retire, there's another one -- again, no recourse for Democrats until at LEAST 2007 at best.

[Allenberg]

21. Vote no, but don't filibuster.

[GoneOffShore]

23. Vote no

The Senate will confirm him and get back to Rovegate.
This is a distraction.

[ribrepin]

27. Ask him a bunch of embarrassing questions

Like "how do you feel about outing CIA agents for political revenge?"

Then vote "no". Roberts will be confirmed, but a filibuster would knock the Plame thing off the news for weeks. Just what Karl whats.

[liberalfriend]

30. I said vote yes!

Simply cause 1776 was on the other day. I couldn't help it.

Sit Down John! Sit Down!
For God's sake John, sit down!
Oh will someone OOOOpen up a window?

But seriously I do feel that they should vote yes, frankly they have no choice in the matter. A filibuster now would look good and no would just add fuel to the republican fire that we are just a party of negativity. Plus if you can pull it off you might be able to get a tit-for-tat thing with Bush, making the next nominee more of a middle ground candidate. Which since it replaces Rehnquist would be a good thing.

[Strawman]

33. If we are afraid to fight so as to not be labeled "the party of negativity

If an argument that is that empty and lame has us quaking in our boots, why bother to argue with anything at all?

If they can get away with replacing O'Connor with a conservative, why would they ever offer up a moderate in to replace a conservative like Rehnquist? And how could we be at all consistent in rejecting a conservative then after we rubber stamped one now? This is it. Time to fight now, all the way to the mat. Win or lose.

[Sparkly]

34. Oh, Chimpy won't "tit-for-tat" ANYthing. Let's be real about that.

His puppeteers will never have him do ANYthing "middle ground." Their aim is to be as divisive as possible (and haven't they been grandly successful in that?). They want Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, to be fighting over everything possible. It's what they FEED on.

The next nomination will be worse. And THAT's the one where Democrats should use the filibuster, no matter what the cost, imho.

[wiley]

43. Are there any non-White people on this board?

Anti-choice, yes, but the other things he has ruled on are as outrageous!



:banghead:

[Sparkly]

44. Of course they are!

We could only expect this from Chimpy. The question is: What are the options for Democrats now?

[FubarFly]

45. My God, the Republicans are in the end game, and the

Democrats are still trying to figure out how the horsey moves.

The correct solution here is to parlay public sentiment against b*sh's growing scandals into an indictment of the Republican Party. Our attitude should be that the appointment of an extremist like Roberts is an affront to mainstream American values. This is such a poor choice, (one of a growing list of poor choices exhibited by b*sh), that we should let this go to an up or down vote- there is no way any sensible Republican could vote for this guy. But the Republicans have put Party ahead of country before, so if we do decide to filibuster, it would only because extraordinary circumstances demand it. And if they try to destroy the filibuster in the name of extremism, then we have no choice but to shut the gov't down.

A majority of Americans disapprove of the job b*sh is doing.
A majority of Americans find b*sh untrustworthy.
If we stand up to these fascists now, it will be with support of a majority of our people.

Up until now, our fine Democratic enablers and appeasers have been avoiding this confrontation at every turn. The threat has been building with such ferocity, that it almost beyond reproach. The only way we can win this fight is if we can convince people that because of his desire to reward loyalty, and avoid scandal, b*sh is not acting in the best interests of the people. He is putting Party ahead of country. This can't be repeated enough.

This is no time for half-baked or idle solutions. If we fight this, we must be willing to take this to the logical opposite extreme. Because if there's a lesson to be learned from from the debacle of the b*sh administration, it's that you can't fight extremism with soft and mushy moderation.

Unfortunately, this is a lesson that many our Democratic leaders have yet to learn.

[Sparkly]

49. "there is no way any sensible Republican could vote for this guy"

Unfortunately, I have to disagree. He's a relatively blank slate; they've got Democratic support from two years ago (before his brief fed judicial career); and they'll get him defending past quotes by saying his job was to argue one side, not that he necessarily believed it.

Describe 'shutting the gov't down' -- what would that do? Would it cause BushCo to provide a moderate nominee to replace O'Connor? To replace Rehnquist? To appoint a chief justice? Possibly to replace Stevens? Would it help Democrats win in 2006 and 2008?

[FubarFly]

51. Well, I agree that weak opposition has gotten us into this mess.

But if we give in yet again, I can assure you that things will get even worse. Right-wing extremism is not the mainstream. By not standing up to these bastards, we let them define reality. The trick here is to show that it is really the Republicans who are unreasonable and out of the mainstream. If we do that, 'shutting the gov't down' will never come to pass. The moderate Repubs will have blinked first. Of course this strategy requires an iron constitution and deft political acumen. Skills that are unfortunately in short supply.

[TankLV]

46. We could do a lot worse. I say vote to confirm.

Some of you are really stretching trying to paint him as satan incarnate.

I just don't see it.

[Dr Fate]

47. ROVEberts?

???

[ClassWarrior]

48. Ask him "THE QUESTION"...

"Where does Mr. Roberts stand on committing treason by blowing the cover of a covert American agent?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1941401&mesg_id=1941401

Demand that your Senate Dems ASK THE QUESTION!!

NGU.

[McCamy Taylor]

50. Scare the shit out of Americans that * is stealing their abortion rights.

Major media blitz from Planned Parenthood NARAL etc. NOT from the Dems themselves. Let the women lead the way on this one. Paint this as a Our Bodies, Ourselves issue. Pull out the coathangers, posters of women dead in pools of their own bllod from back alley abortions---all the old props from the 60s.

American distrusts *. They think he is up to no good. They will think the worst of his nominee if some one pushes them in the right direction. The MSM will be of little to no help, so the Women's Groups will have to get creative.

[IndianaGreen]

52. Vote against every SCOTUS nomination that Bush makes

Democrats should also make a point of saying that all federal judges will be reviewed for possible impeachment the moment the GOP loses control of Congress.

The issues are quite simple, particularly when viewed from a Marxist point of view: Republican Party is a criminal enterprise. Conservatism is a subversive ideology. The free exercise of religion must not include teaching prejudice or bigotry from the pulpits, nor does it include trying to impose a theocracy in the United States. Extremist religious views are a threat to the social order!

They wanted a cultural war, and a cultural war they shall get! There is no room for middle-of-the-road appeasers in this war.

[GetTheRightVote]

53. Roberts is not a moderate but a right wing nut, the filibuster w/ NO vote

:kick:

[Hippo_Tron]

54. OTHER: He was nominated a few hours ago

If there is anybody who can do a comprehensive background check of a man in a matter of hours, then please let me know, because I could definately use his/her services.

[JohnnyBoots]

59. Roberts is a Trojan Horse, he

seems fairly non controversial to the MSM and country at large, ambiguous on Roe, etc. He gets in the door and can be as much of a right wing SOB for the next 30+ years. He is a shady guy already with the whole FLA recount thing....Roe will be smoke screen to distract from his pro corporation leanings