It's up to us, DUers!! We can stop John Roberts! Here's how...

[fooj]

http://www.nocrony.com /

We the people of the United States hereby call for a NATIONAL REFERENDUM, by email, by phone call, by fax, and by letter, on the choice of a new chief justice for our Supreme Court.

We are presented with a pleasant, smiley face who so far has refused to answer questions about whether he agrees with the holdings in cases upon which we have long relied, which we have a right to know, and who has refused to deliver for examination any of his memos for the last 20 years, which we have a right to see.


The now most unpopular second term president in history does NOT have the carte blanche to appoint any crony ideologue of his own choosing, and we are deeply suspicious of the motives of this particular nominee, who cannot even tell the truth about his leadership role in the reactionary Federalist Society. We therefore call on our senators to DEMAND a different and more forthcoming nominee who better represents the mainstream of the American people.
<snip>

This is how we get rid of Roberts. I think this is something we need to do for our country. We can do this! We have the positive energy and the power of truth on our side. These morally bankrupt evil monsters have cashed in on one too many "free passes", IMO. The well is dry.

Don't even tell me that it can't be done. It can be done. It will be done!

Of the People, By the People, For the People!!!

Peace.
:kick:

[Tiggeroshii]

1. Is there such thing as a federal referendum? a referendum, by definition,

is a bill written by the legilslature and voted on by the people. An initiative would be written by the people, and neither of those are allowed in the federal constitution. Only states have em. I do agree that we should still give them hell by bugging the shit outta them as long as we can. Maybe somebody will liste for once. It's the only way, honestly. The media refuses.

[Kenroy]

2. How does this work?

The federal government doesn't hold elections.

How do you get 50 states to agree to do this within the next week or so? How do you fund it? How do you get the Senate to abide by an extra-constitutional solution such as this?

And what happens when Roberts wins the referendum overwhelmingly?

[fooj]

3. Click on the link and the rest, as we say...is history!

Peace.

[Kenroy]

4. Well why not answer the questions here

for the benefit of all? My questions aren't answered on that website.

[fooj]

6. A better solution is to do nothing, right?

This is an effort by many dems on the web to voice great displeasure over this nomination. Do what you wish.

[Kenroy]

7. actually

nothing problably IS better than a foolish, empty, meaningless gesture that costs hundreds of millions of dollars and has zero chance of accomplishing your goal.

But you haven't answered my questions.

[ClassWarrior]

15. Meaningless??? Yeah, it's meaningless to demand...

...that our elected officials ACT in our name. :sarcasm:

NGU.

[Kenroy]

19. It's meaningless in the sense

that it's extra-constitutional, and has absolutely no bearing on whether or not Roberts is confirmed.

Furthermore, as pointed out above, the federal government can't call a referendum. You'd have to have 50 states and a few territories all agree to hold a special referendum, at great cost.

And what would happen when the turnout was 5% and Roberts wins anyway?

[ClassWarrior]

21. IT DOESN'T MATTER. What would happen?? People would see the Dem Party...

...means business.

NGU.

[Kenroy]

22. I think they would see

the Democratic party forced states to waste tens of millions of dollars for no reason whatsoever.

I think you misjudge the public's perception of Roberts. There is not widespread opposition to his nomination. If put to a national referendum, I think he would win handily.

[ClassWarrior]

23. My point has nothing to do with Roberts. It has to do with being...

...willing to tilt at windmills in order to send a strong message. As someone put it here the other day: "Fortune favors the bold." - Virgil

NGU.

[Kenroy]

25. Then let's

have the entire congressional democratic leadership sit atop a 40' flagpole for a month, while spraying urine onto photographs of Dick Cheney while "We Are the Champions" is blasted from loudspeakers.

That'd be bold, too. And equally pointless.

[mongo]

5. Mob rule

Let's just get rid of that pesky constitution when it doesn't suit us too...

So what happens when John Roberts "wins" the referendum by 50.00001% of the vote?

[ClassWarrior]

16. What happens when people finally see that Dems have taken a firm...

...principled stand?

NGU.

[SheilaT]

8. It simply doesn't work this way.

Sorry, but the President does have the power to nominate anyone he chooses to the Supreme Court, and if the Senate rubber stamps that choice, the guy is in for life.

I'm as furious as anyone here that Roberts will be confirmed, but there is simply nothing we can do about it. Keep in mind that the Senate is majority Republican, and it's not possible that a single Republican will vote against this nominee. Even Clarence Thomas, who was singularly unqualified for the job, was confirmed (52-48) and that was when Democrats held the Senate.

Trying to stop Roberts this way is silly and ignorant. It won't work. And I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but it's true. You simply show how little you understand of how our government actually works by suggesting something as useless as this.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

9. Nah

you gotta play by the rules. We'll get our turn.

[realFedUp]

17. play by the rules? Whose rules? The bend over and grab your ankles

rule? This administration plays by no rules and
it's up to the minority party to be the opposition
party...it's really their only use right now.

[fooj]

10. Okay. So much for trying to be a team player.

Air America Radio was pushing this on Friday...took down the e-mail address and thought I'd pass on the word. I didn't ask for a critique. I was simply passing the info. If you are interested... Fine! If you aren't...that's cool, too. I don't need a poli-science lesson. I know what the gig is.

Peace.

[NYCGirl]

12. Who on Air America was pushing this? NT

[fooj]

13. I heard it on Laura Flanders.

Peace.

[arwalden]

11. Wouldn't This Be Unconstiutional... And Costly...

... and it's very likely that Roberts would WIN.

I don't think that this is such a good idea.

[ClassWarrior]

14. WHO CARES??? It's a matter of standing ON PRINCIPLE.

Do we care more about costs than principles any more? Truth is, this effort may do nothing more than shift the political ground under our elected reps' feet. But that, to my mind is PLENTY.

NGU.

[arwalden]

18. I Would Think That The UNCONSTITUTIONAL Part Would Be The Biggest Snag.

[ClassWarrior]

20. So let the courts tell us that. Meanwhile we'll be taking a strong stand.

Or do you have a problem with taking a strong stand?

NGU.

[arwalden]

24. They Don't Need To Tell Us. We Already Know.

Every high schooler should know this stuff already. That just now how the process works.

[Blackbeard]

27. Don't take a stupid stand

I have a problem with taking a STUPID stand! Opposing such a well-qualified candidate, no matter what we think of him, only makes us look petty and small. This should be a lesson to democrats. If we want to control who gets on the court we need to WIN ELECTIONS!

[arwalden]

29. I Have Problem With Futile, Empty, Gestures That Have No Basis...

... in constitutional law. One would need to FIRST change the constitution before that which has been proposed would ever be meaningful. So why do it in the first place when any *reasonable* person knows what the legal outcome will be?

<< Or do you have a problem with taking a strong stand? >>

Well, it's not about me. But since you brought it up... I don't see it as "taking a strong stand"... I see it as being a bit naive.

It's a nice fantasy, but that's all it is. The "we'll-show-em", "give-em-hell", "piss-and-vinegar", "damn-the-torpedoes", acts of defiance may sound nice and play well to the folks around here, but it's never going to happen.

The effort and money could be better invested elsewhere.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

26. Who cares

if it is unconstitutional? Or did I misunderstand the thread order?

Because I definitely care about that. The Constitution is the one thing that has kept us from dissolving into anarchy and banana reuplic-ism these 230 something years.

The good thing about our system, flawed as it is, is we get the chance over and over again to vote the rascals out. (which is why election reform is imperative)

Part of our system is the President appoints Supreme Court Justices. We have to eat this now but our turn will come. We have to be careful about the claims we make now, in the minority, or we will come to regret it when WE are in the majority and want our own folks in the SC. The pendulum will swing back.

[tritsofme]

28. and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the

of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court.

Article II Section 2.

Dems stand behind the Constitution, not silly games like this.

[texpatriot2004]

30. Why did John Roberts STEAL my vote in 2000? n/t

[lynne]

31. I see a problem in the third paragraph -

- as the President does not appoint the justice. He nominates the candidate and the senate is responsible for voting him/her either in or out. And, yes, any President - no matter how currently unpopular - does have the right to nominate anyone he chooses. "Consequences of elections" as we've heard time and again. It is in the hands of the senate after that.

Roberts is a done deal, like it or not. This exercise is a waste of energy, time and money. I say "save it" for the next SCOTUS nominee as we will need all our ammo then.

[GayCanuck]

32. You can

forget gay marriage down there with this Nazi on your court. I'm guessing sodomy laws will be back.