NY Times: A Year of Work to Sell Roberts to Conservatives

[Seabiscuit]

I read this article just a moment ago and I hope it isn't a duplicate.

OK here are excerpts and link:

WASHINGTON, July 21 - For at least a year before the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court, the White House was working behind the scenes to shore up support for him among its social conservative allies, quietly reassuring them that he was a good bet for their side in cases about abortion, same-sex marriage and public support for religion.

When the White House began testing the name of Judge Roberts on a short list of potential nominees, many social conservatives were skeptical. In hearings for confirmation to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, he had called the original abortion rights precedent "the settled law of the land" and said "there is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

And they were frustrated, as many Democrats were this week, by his not having left a long record of speeches and opinions that laid out his views.

But with a series of personal testimonials about Judge Roberts, his legal work, his Roman Catholic faith, and his wife's public opposition to abortion, two well-connected Christian conservative lawyers - Leonard Leo, chairman of Catholic outreach for the Republican Party, and Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of an evangelical Protestant legal center founded by Pat Robertson - gradually won over most social conservatives to nearly unanimous support, even convincing them that the lack of a paper trail was an asset that made Judge Roberts harder to attack.

Both had been tapped by the White House to build the coalition for judicial confirmation battles.

This is a well written article and worth the read. Link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/22/politics/politicsspecial1/22lobby.html?oref=login


However after reading this article some thoughts come to mind:
1) So the Repukes have been planning on getting this guy nominated a "YEAR" in advance. Reading other articles about the lack of paper trial it seems this was an orchestrated deal by the White House to have this guy easily elected.

2) Where were the democrats? This guy has been paraded around Washington to sell him to the conservatives and nobody talked? They all talk in Washington ...so not one Democrat knew this guy was a sure bet? The demos need to be better prepared in my opionion ..but that is another discussion all together.

3) So once again the Media didn't know who the nominee until Bush announced it ...right? I remember days leading up to the announcement the Media was speculating about all the possible nominees and then when Bush announced it ..they were surprised! Huh???

4) And once again ...our friends the Christian Right and groupies are involved in manipulating the laws of this country. (Read the Robertson part)

[barbaraann]

1. The consultation with Dems in Congress was a charade.

n/t

[Seabiscuit]

3. Exactly

Hi BarbaraAnn (like that song by the Beach Boys).

Yes absolutely a complete charade like many things in this pukey administration. :puke:

[SharonAnn]

2. And have they been doing this with other judicial candidates, too?

I would bet that they have been "shoring up support" for al the candidates that they might want to nominate for various positions. They think ahead, we haven't been doing that.

[Generator]

4. Yeah and of course the f..ing Dem leaders will lay down

and take it because hey "he's a nice guy" "has a moderate record so far" and who cares that it's a ruse to take away everything the Dems are supposed to stand for...it's more important to be liked and go along to get along.

This country is fucked. I think even Skinner said just about that in a post. When moderates like him are getting that..not just reactionaries like I-you can bet we are.

A post I posted from July 16th from Wash Post said right in it he was being considered..and that of course he sided with Bush admin on treatment of Guantamo prisoners.

[wli]

5. Bush v. Gore, Iran-Contra, challenging Roe v. Wade in unrelated case

[meow2u3]

6. Bush picked Judge Enzyte because he has little experience

(Roberts does look like the Enzyte man age-progressed to about 50)