If we get just ONE filibuster . . .

[snot]

my question is -- and I really DON't know the answer -- should Roberts be it?

If we filibuster now in an effort to block Roberts, and the Repubs go nuclear, we've SPENT our only real remaining leverage.

Once the filibuster's eliminated, what happens if Rehnquist resigns and Bush selects Gonzalez?

And what other kinds of items might be coming up that might warrant filibuster? (Sorry, I'm really not sure what's out there or what the limits are on filibustering. But, e.g., what about a bill requiring every county in the U.S. to use Diebold machines and prohibiting exit polls, or retroactively excusing Rovian misconduct, or limiting free speech on the internet, or whatever?)

The Repubs might like nothing more than for the Dems to filibuster Roberts, giving the Repubs an excuse to go nuclear on this one rather than when they're pushing someone or something more obviously outrageous.

I see no problem with fighting this nomination with everything else we've got; but if the filibuster is our only real bullet, I'm genuinely uncertain as to whether it should be shot at Roberts or reserved for something even worse.

I realize many here see Roberts on the S. Ct. as the worst case scenario. But the Repubs have so far continually exceed even my worst expectations; and I think it would be a mistake to underestimate what they might concoct once assured they've eliminated the filibuster altogether.

[shraby]

1. Stop Roberts at all costs and maybe by

then, the Plame Affair will have blown the lid off the white house.

[snowbear]

2. Who knows?!? Let the questioning begin...

Senator Boxer today said she had concerns about Roberts and something to do with Veteran's benefits... I only caught her comments in passing though, so didn't catch what the details were.

How on earth can anyone decide if there should be a F-buster when the questioning process hasn't taken place yet?

:think:

[babylonsister]

4. Yes, larissa! Let the questioning begin! nt

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. And the questioning must be long and drawn out. STALL people, stall

[Dr.Phool]

9. Yeah, but Lieberman said he seemed acceptable.

Could we please find someone to run against this idiot?

[politicaholic]

3. Yes it should be Roberts and you know what?...

The dems get LOTS of fillibusters!!!

No laws have changed. Screw them!

[imenja]

5. Who do you want instead?

That you think Bush would actually nominate?

[Ready4Change]

6. SAYS WHO?

Where is it writ in stone that "Thou shalt Filibuster but once?"

Your 5 year old asks for the keys to the car. You say no. If that child asks again, must you say yes?

[Fiona]

7. Who says?

The Republican senators who will do away with the filibuster altogether.

[Ready4Change]

11. They don't have to do away with it.

Republicans don't have to pass any bill. They are getting all the perks without having to put their names on the line. Dems won't filibuster, Republicans get all their nominees rubber stamped.

[snot]

10. As I understood the deal . . .

the Repubs agreed not to eliminate the filibuster only if the Dems agreed to use it "reasonably", or something to that effect. To my mind that means, the Repubs will eliminate it the first time they think they can make the case that we're using it unreasonably. And bear in mind that the standard that arguably was set for "reasonableness" involved our accepting WITHOUT filibuster several genuinely execrable candidates for judgeships that are certainly important, though not as impt. as the S. Ct.

We are not in the position of a parent to a child. We are in battle with a deadly enemy; we are outnumbered, outflanked and besieged, and we've got one bullet left. Maybe reinforcements are on the way, maybe not--we can't be sure. We have little on our side besides truth, which would be very powerful if we could just get it out, but it's taking monumental effort to make even a portion of the US aware of it, because the enemy controls the media.

So, I'm just asking the question: what other big issues are coming up?

And I do also agree, in any event, let's ask Roberts all our questions!

[Ready4Change]

12. The "deal" was a crock.

In effect that was the only time filibusters could be used anyway.

So the "deal" was just a restatement of the status quo. However, that restatement came at the cost of having some nominees who should have been blocked slip through the process.

[Bake]

13. If we filibuster Roberts, and the Pukes go nuclear

The Puke majority will change the rules and eliminate the filibuster, and the next nominee (when Rehnquist retires/dies) will make Scalia look like a flaming liberal, just to rub our faces in it.

On the other hand, the Pukes will probably do that anyway, when the next nominee is even worse, and we save the filibuster for him (and I say "him" because it's a safe bet *'s second nominee will be a White Man).

Bake

[Hippo_Tron]

14. If they go nuclear, we could win the midterms

I think that us fillibustering and them going nuclear is the perfect scenario. Polls say that over 60%+ of the country supports Roe v Wade. The public already doesn't like the fact that this guy won't support Roe v Wade. But add to that the fact that the GOP is going to change the rules to get him confirmed (polls also were against this) just to please a bunch of loonies on the right. Not to mention the fact that by fillibustering, we stood our ground, showed courage, and did everything we possibly could to stop the judge, will make us very favorable. We will take back the Senate and negotiate Rhenquist's replacement on OUR terms. BTW, barring literally an inability to do so, Rhenquist is going to serve another term on the court. That means chances are, his replacement won't be determined until after the midterms, because it's very hard to confirm a judge in an election year.