Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Here's why it's important to fight Roberts nomination

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:51 PM
Original message
Here's why it's important to fight Roberts nomination
Edited on Tue Jul-19-05 08:56 PM by Armstead
Frankly, this is probably a lost cause to stop him, based strictly on the numbers. The GOP has the votes.

BUT the Democrats should not go gentle into that good night. This should be an EDUCATIONAL exercise to the American people about what they are REALLY getting when they vote for Bush and his GOP buddies.

Erosion of personal liberties, imposed religion, taking away rights of consumers and workers to challenge corporations, the end of environmental protection at all levels.....and on and on.

Most Americans DO NOT share the views of these right wing, Federalist Society fanatics and Big Business stooges.

Even if Roberts gets the nseat, Dermocrats should make it a demonstration of what the stakes really are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
oldtime dfl_er Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. Distraction is a two-way street
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Walking and chewing gum
Democrats and the left should be able to do both
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheFarseer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
3. absolutely
they should NOT filibuster. They should NOT even mention abortion. They should be screaming about property rights, personal freedom, privacy. These are things everyone used to care about but now they take for granted. I hope they ask him tough questions and vote which ever way their conscience dictates, but I think a filibuster would only make us look bad. I don't even think it could be successful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Jacobin Donating Member (820 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Kick Shrub while he's down.
He's way down in the polls and not a single repug senator will fall on the sword for that kind of negative rating.

I don't think Frist could pull off the nuclear option even before the groin-stomping they gave themselves over the Schiavo fiasco.

I think he can be stopped.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Booster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
19. I agree. It's pretty clear how he feels about abortion. I also hope
somebody is looking into what role he had in Bush's first (se)election and whether this is just payback for a dirty deed. With this administration, an evil deed is recognized by a promotion. Roberts' wife's views probably bother me more than his, but I still think he's a better choice than that Edith (the evil one) would have been.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CAcyclist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
20. I Vehemently Disagree
I think the Democrats should filibuster until 2008 if need be. I want to see a real, knock-down drag-out fight.

Filibustering DOES NOT make us look bad. Just because the Republicans says it does, doesn't make it so. Quit listening to the %U^^&&* Republican liars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
5. but but but but, at least GAYS won't be able to marry
That's all half the people in this country think about anyway
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Until their ox gets gored
When they start losing their own freedom, they start to care.

The Democrats need to show that these right wing justices are against their own interests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
6. Fight him, fine. I think ALL Democrats should vote "NO"
and as you say, they should make strong statements about where the rightwing is leading this country.

But filibuster? I say save it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Jacobin Donating Member (820 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Remember,
Edited on Tue Jul-19-05 09:51 PM by The Jacobin
This guy isn't replacing Rehnquist. It's not just a swaping of faces on the right side of the court. This is the middle.

Hundreds of cases will be decided by this one justice's vote.

This matters more than Rove. Don't forget him, but long after he is rotting in jail, this justice will still be making decisions.

Let's make sure its the best justice we can get.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Good point
Rove is important, but this is about the long-term direction the country will be taken.

The stakes have to be made clear.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CAcyclist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #9
21. Agreed
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 02:12 PM by CAcyclist
Rehnquist could go at any moment. He might live another year, but I doubt he'd make it to 2008.

The time to filibuster is NOW, when it makes sense to most Americans to replace a moderate with a moderate.

My personal bet on the Rehnquist death watch is he dies in 2 months.

edited because my header didn't make any sense
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
10. We need to show Americans that we are mainstream, Bush is extreme
But Democrats are too afraid of a fight to do that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #10
27. Very succinct and true
Nothing I can add to that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
11. I like the idea of seeing it as an educational exercise
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. kick
:kick:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. kicking your kick
for educational purposes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
14. I agree Armstead...
Educate, if for nothing else than, the next nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Educate for the next election
I honestly believe that the majority -- including moderate conservatives -- would not really approve of the right wing judicial agenda if it were made clear what it really means to them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlGore-08.com Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
16. It's unknown whether Rove will be indicted - Roberts WILL change the court
And challenging Roberts does not mean Fitzgerald will stop his inquiry or even slow it. It's crazy to say we shouldn't be active against Roberts because it will stop the Rove investigation. Crazy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #16
24. Multitasking is essential
There's stuff to deal with on all fronts. The Republicans are relentless on all of them. We should be too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lecky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
17. This is also why we should fight to win elections
Most important lesson in all this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hosnon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
18. I agree. I think we should at the very least use this to educate the
people on how judges rule, the structure of the courts, etc.

However, the Dems could confirm him with an air of maturity and then gain some credibility with moderates throughout the country.

I don't think this guy is bad - and plus he will get confirmed. Don't just get in line but don't buck for the sake of bucking either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. It's not him as a person, but who he is in league with
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0003.landay.html

They operated on two tracks--designed to insure that the Reagan Revolution would well outlast the Reagan Presidency. The first, to reclaim the Federal courts from liberals, swept an array of conservative scholars and judges from law schools and state courts onto the Federal bench: the likes of Robert Bork, Ralph Winter, Antonin Scalia, Richard Posner, Sandra Day O¹Connor, and Anthony Kennedy.

The second track was even more forward looking and involved the apprenticing of a new generation of conservative lawyer-intellectuals-under-30 to the Reagan apparat. This second track required fresh meat, which is where the Federalist Society came in. The founding chapters of the Society were established at Yale, where Bork taught before Reagan nominated him to the bench, and at the University of Chicago, where Scalia was faculty advisor and from whose ranks he would later recruit former student-Federalists to prestigious Supreme Court clerkships. Originally the chapters were little more than a debating circle and comfort station for young conservatives who felt themselves victimized by liberal persecution. The Society¹s executive director Eugene Meyer recalls of his experience at Yale Law School that "someone was writing Œfascist¹ on our posters, or taking them down. Then cooler faculty heads channeled our angers and frustrations into organizational activity." Keen self-promoters, they made a mascot of James Madison (on the debatable grounds that he favored decentralized government in his later years) and took the name of Madison¹s 18th-century Federalist Party as their own.

For the Reaganites running the federal government in the 1980s, the Society was a godsend. Here was a group of hard-charging legal minds committed to a set of principles that could not have been better suited to the judicial implementation of a Republican agenda if Ed Meese had drafted them himself. The Federalists were (and remain) "originalist" in their approach to the Constitution--meaning that they favored strict textual readings that tended to shear back constitutional principles developed during the more liberal Warren Court era. In terms of substantive law, they promoted the conservative mantra of states¹ rights to leach power away from "big government" in Washington. At a deeper intellectual level they tended to be either libertarians (meaning that they opposed government regulation as an intrusion on individual liberty) or devotees of the free-market cult of law and economics (meaning that they opposed government regulation for interfering with "market efficiencies").

<cut>

Naturally, the new Washington establishment snapped up the founding Federalists. The student cadre graduated and went to work in the Reagan White House and Justice Department, and to clerk in the chambers of newly appointed conservative judges. Edward Lazarus, whose recent book, Closed Chambers, momentarily breached the sanctity of Supreme Court manners and procedures, recalls the arrival of 10 young Federalists as clerks in the October 1988 term ("the cabal," they called themselves), who "created a critical mass of ideological conservatives." Lazarus, a "dreaded Lib," clerked for moderate Justice Harry Blackmun, and records how the Cabal ran its own email network. They "obsessively" worked as a "collective mission" to influence conservative justices, notably on death-penalty cases expediting executions, about which one emailed the others: "We need to get our numbers up." Lazarus quoted another cabalist who, venting his rage about the refusal of the Senate to confirm Robert Bork for a seat on the high court, said: "Every time I draw blood, I¹ll think of what they did to Bork."

Perhaps the network¹s most far-reaching victory in recent years was a 1999 decision by a Federal appellate panel of DC Circuit judges in a case called American Trucking v. EPA , which stunned clean-air advocates by rolling back EPA standards covering smog and soot. The decision was based on the principle of "non-delegation," a rigid and archaic reading of the Constitution, which holds that Congress retains all legislative authority, but not the power to delegate regulatory power to executive agencies. C. Boyden Gray, a member of the Federalist Society¹s Board of Trustees, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in American Trucking. Gray was also good enough to share his insights on non-delegation with the Federalist convention in November when he moderated a panel discussion entitled: "The Non-Delegation Doctrine Lives!"

One extraordinary thing about the American Trucking decision was just how well it served private industry at the expense of the public interest. A commentator writing in a Federalist Society newsletter crowed that American Trucking will save industry "in the neighborhood of $45 billion per year." Perhaps that is true--and perhaps industry would save even more money if the courts decide to eliminate, for example, the Food and Drug Administration¹s jurisdiction over food and drugs. But the social costs would be enormous.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
23. Who knows?
Maybe if the Democrats WERE (quell fucking horror) the party of oppostion in a time of HORROR as every fucking nightmare comes true-abdandoned Geneva conventions, approving of torture..wars based on falsehoods- presidents selected by the supreme court-re-elected under less than transparent means-a president's staff that reveals the identies of agents in WMD at a time when we need them the most-and then gets to pick his ideologue to stack the court for 30 YEARS-oh maybe we should fight-maybe we should be the opposition. I know how horror happens, drip by fucking drip.

Are Democrats the appeasers? Are they really no different than Republicans? I want to know. In the end, I will blame those that pretended to be my friend in a time of war who sided with the enemy as much as the enemy. These are desperate times. They call for conscience. I'm wondering if Democratic leaders have any.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
25. Paint Roberts as Mr. Anti-abortion-->Mobilize Dem Base for 2006
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Anti abortion, consumers, workers, personal freedom, democracy
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 02:31 PM by Armstead
environment, religous freedom, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC