"John Roberts won personal praise Friday from Sen. Dick Durbin"

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

READ THIS FIRST: The reason I posted this is because WHAT IS BEING SOLD HERE is the concept of a "High-ranking Democratic senator" offering "praise" for Roberts. I didn't post it to attack Durbin, I didn't post it to salute Durbin, I didn't post it with any attitude toward Durbin at all.

So THERE.

:evilgrin:

:toast:

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/12202085.htm

Posted on Fri, Jul. 22, 2005

High-ranking Democratic senator offers some praise for Roberts

BY MARK SILVA AND VINCENT J. SCHODOLSKI

Chicago Tribune

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - Capping a notably successful debut week for President Bush's first nominee for the Supreme Court, John Roberts won personal praise Friday from Sen. Dick Durbin, one of three senators who once tried to prevent him from taking a seat on a federal appeals court.

Durbin, the Illinois Democrat who opposed Roberts' appointment to the Washington-based appellate court two years ago, promised the nominee he would approach his confirmation with "a clean slate." The peace offering came as Roberts concluded an intensive week of one-on-one meetings with several senators who will determine whether he takes the seat of retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

"I tried ... to take the measure of the man," Durbin told reporters after a private, cordial 40-minute meeting with Roberts in Durbin's office at the Capitol. "It was a positive measure."

Since his nomination Tuesday, Roberts, with the administration's help, has managed to convey a positive first impression to the public, mute the criticism of many potential opponents and unify conservatives and Republicans behind him.

[Burried News]

1. Did he get ADL approval for this message? Must have.

Somebody has something on Durbin. He seems more like a POW than a Senator on video shot by CBS last night.

[Cha]

14. Stockholm syndrome?

Trying to make up for what he perceived as "traitorous" remarks regarding the military at gitmo and hitler?

I think the dems praising roberts are making a big mistake..but how do you convince them of that if they don't see it now?

Aren't they the ones who didn't read "the patriot act"?

[Bucky]

2. Roberts will fly thru with 90+ votes. Because of Rove scandal.

Senate Dems know they can't fight this one successfully. They still think you measure a team by the points you score rather than the yards you rush. So what they want to do is say, "He'll do, now back to Rove." I can't say it's a bad strategy. I don't concur, but it's certainly understandable.

[saracat]

6. Only if you were not of a gender about to be reduced to unequal status

could you say such a thing. Maybe supporting slavery is okay as well? Understandable? Give me a break! What good does it do to get Rove if we have Roberts on the bench for thirty years? Understandable ? To who?

[Bucky]

8. Perhaps you thought I was happy about what I said. Let me clarify...

As of this nomination, Roe v Wade is dead. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. We can petition all the Senators we like, we can send all the emails and faxes we can muster. I know I have and I know I'm not thru yet, because our side won't win until we learn to fight every fight with 100% commitment. But that said, the Roberts nomination will go thru and no one can stop it. And then the clock is running on Roe. Sorry if that's not pleasing, sorry if you can't understand that, but I choose to be reality-based here.

The fight for control of women's bodies will shift to the states after Roe is dead. The next fight after that is for the nominee who'll replace Rehnquist; and that person will be further right and more movement-friendly than Roberts, if history is any guide. Nixon nominated for his first justice a moderate (Burger), then shifted right (Rehnquist) when the conservative base balked. Reagan did the same with his two nominees (moderate O'Connor, then conservative Scalia). Then Poppy Bush did the same with his two (mod Souter; con Thomas).

I expect the fundies will start clammering for a hardnut the second Roberts gets his new robe fitted. Put Mr Pryor on your short list for the guy who replaces Rehnquist (or worse yet Stevens or Ginsberg). Don't think of this fight as the Gettysburgh of Roe v Wade. It's not. It's the Alamo. You can go down fighting if you must--I can understand that position, too. But at least have the good sense to take the high ground and understand if other Democrats choose to retreat just enough to fight the next battle on more promising ground.

[saracat]

9. If that is so, I am history.

I cannot stay where my gender is not an equal citizen. Maybe I would come back if reinstated. But until then, I wouldn't dignify this nation with my presence or contributions of talent or money.
But I hope you are wrong. Must be nice for you to be able to continue to live here with your rights intact. But I guess for many of youe gender, it is just politcs and negotiable. Please don't think I am indicating you by this statement. But many men do think thusly, and that is really criminal in my opinion.

[MisterLiberal]

12. It's suicide

to do whatever you can to score one touchdown and forget the GAME.

Karl Rove is a 'here and now' issue. Roberts will be on the court for OVER THREE DECADES!

There is a screw up in priorities here!

[stray cat]

3. Having never met Roberts or seen any confirmation questions

I with hold my opinion. I will be interested in seeing the confirmation process and how Roberts handles that. With Bush in office and repubican control of the senate we won't see another O'Conner.

[Mr.Green93]

4. There is no vacancy to fill

Check what is on this neo con site....O'Connor's July 1 letter to President Bush declared that it was "to inform you of my decision to retire from my position as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States effective upon the nomination and confirmation of my successor." If those last nine words are understood as setting a condition on her retirement, such that she continues in office and would take part in the next October Term of the Court if Roberts' confirmation were delayed or defeated — or even if Bush gave Roberts a recess appointment, since that would lack "confirmation" — then O'Connor has created a classic Catch-22.

Here's why. Title 28 of the United States Code, section 1, reads: "The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum." Article II, section 2 of the Constitution tells us that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court." For the president to appoint, there must be a vacant seat, whether just vacated or newly created. No tenth seat has been created. If Justice O'Connor remains in her seat today, then there is no vacancy among the nine available seats, and President Bush's nomination of Roberts is a legal nullity.
http://bench.nationalreview.com/

[MisterLiberal]

13. Wow! Can you check that out?

I have never heard that before but it sounds right?

This way, we don't have to do anything that remotely sounds outlandish! (I still think we have some people here good with photoshop that could help).

Our leadership needs to bring this up during the hearings NOT BEFORE!!!

Then leave, unless they want to pass an amendment to allow ten on the court, which would be stupid because then you would end up with a tie.

Speaking of ties, who breaks ties in the supreme court if someone is sick or whatever? The VP?

[realFedUp]

5. Robert doesn't froth at the mouth like other conservatives...

doesn't make him compassionate or fit for
a lifetime position on the Supreme Court.

[Bucky]

7. As comforting as it is to know that he'll kill Roe v Wade w/ good manners,

He's still a man on a mission. He's still not the perfect candidate for the hard righties--the next appointment will be that, trust me. His mission is to serve bidness and kill Roe. And he'll do that. It's not a pleasant reality, but it'll happen.

[Vickers]

10. "unify conservatives and Republicans" huh?

Ain't they the same critter?

I'm speaking theoretically of course. :spank:

[Mass]

11. Praise? Where? All I see is politeness.

Byrd offered praise and slammed liberal judges. If you want to attack somebody, take him or Lieberman.

All what Durbin said what that he would look at the man, which is what he is required to do. As Roberts is a polite man, I do not see how a first interview where no questions were asked would lead to a negative measure.

Here is what the NYTimes had to say:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/23/politics/politicsspecial1/23confirm.html?