roberts doesn't have enough of a record to build a case against

[BOSSHOG]

Heard that nonsense for awhile. If that's the case then how can one build a case for him? And if he doesn't have that much of a record how come evangelicals and the religiously insane are having orgasms today over the nomination? He's a nice guy so we should have a civil debate? If bush nominated him he can't be a nice guy.

On an optimistic note: Although rove is not front and center in the news, he's still in Fitzgerald's gun sight.

[msongs]

1. is roberts Bush's "get out of jail free" card? he is certainly a political

hack of the finest sort from what I have heard on radio news this morning, years of being a reagan/bush I/bush 2 operative. Sounds like a political payoff, not a judicial selection based on legal merit.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[ewagner]

2. He can be labeled

"one of them thar' Act-ti-vist Judges"....

why

In arguing the case allowing the Bush I administration to establish rules prohibiting any mention of abortion in parenthood counseling for agencies who receive federal money, Roberts gratuitously entered the argument that Roe V. Wade was wrongly decided.

Roe v Wade was not being argued. He voluntarily inserted his opinion.

That makes him one of those ACTIVIST JUDGES the right wing hates so much.

[napi21]

3. I agree you cannot build a case for or against him!

I think the RW fundies are in their normal mode of "anything our leader wants" phylisophy. That's OK I guess.

I realize the lack of documentation creates an aura of uncertainty, but it could be a good thing too. That is the complaint the RW always has about Souter. He didn't have a long paper trail and we guessed wrong on him!

I think the Dem Senators should ask him difficult questions, and demand answers, but I think we need to be willing to take a chance on him if nothing difinitively bad surfaces in the hearings.

I prefer to take a chance on the unknown that he might be a rational judge, than be forced into accepting a candidate like Luttig, who everyone already knows is a RW fundie nut!

[gratuitous]

4. Which is reason enough to deny him confirmation

The Supreme Court isn't the place for neophyte jurists to cut their teeth, figuring out what their judicial philosophy is supposed to be, and bumbling and stumbling their way along. This is the highest court in the land, and although the Senate has unwisely confirmed incompetent nominees in the past (calling Clarence Thomas), there's no reason for the Senate to continue a bad practice.

Roberts should be bounced because he doesn't have the experience as a judge necessary to sit on the Supreme Court. The Democrats should hold firm and reject any nominee who isn't either 60 years old or who has at least a decade of experience on the appellate bench.

Perhaps it's okay for professional sports franchises to risk big bucks on some kid a year or two out of high school, but our nation's laws and constitutional protections deserve better treatment. The Supreme Court should be for proven superstars, not "can't miss" phenoms.

[Armstead]

5. Two Words -- Federalist Society

Democrats have to make THAT the issue.

[markus]

6. One has to assume he has given some private assurances to the right people

Otherwise, the ring wing nuts would not be so pleased.

There's probably some credence given by some to his membership in the extremist Federalist Society,