If Reid just votes vs Roberts,Reid has sold out America & civil rights

[genius]

A vote against Roberts is a vote for Roberts. It is a useless gesture and a lie. We need Roberts blocked and letting the matter come to a vote is all-out support for Roberts. America deserves better. Harry Reid, we want you to stand up for Roberts by blocking his confirmation or to resign as minority leader. We don't need a sell-out and liar to lead us.

[Teaser]

1. *sigh*

nt

[Der Blaue Engel]

3. I'll join you in that

:eyes:

[seabeyond]

11. yup n/t

[blondeatlast]

21. Indeed. nt

[NoPasaran]

40. Uh huh

[King Coal]

2. Have you thought this through?

What leads you to these conclusions?

[Vincardog]

6. If it gets out of committee the ReThugs vote on party lines and Roberts

is in to shred the constitution. Big Brother's lawyer is the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS. Women the poor and everything non Corporate are screwed.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

8. Should we give a lifetime appointment to one who withholds info?

What kind of precedent are we setting?- by letting that slide, we are saying "It's fine with us if you keep secrets from Congress and the public."

I agree that he should be fillibustered. I think moderate Americans would understand somthing like this:

"In light of Bush giving us "Brownie", who forged his resume, we cant allow this vote lifetime appointment to go forward.

As soon we see all the documents and he decides to give us plain, simple "yes or no" answers to the questions Americans are asking about this man, then he can have his up or down vote."

[Vincardog]

4. Where are the other measures we were promised?

You remember when Congress asked for the White House records of Roberts when he was working for the People of the USA?

[genius]

7. Words. Words. Words. We want results.

"Please may I have the documents?" "No, you may not." "Oh, well, you win. I'll make a useless gesture of voting against Roberts so I won't get nailed for supporting him. Wink. Wink."

[Dr Fate]

9. Democrats are saying "We dont mind if Bush witholds information"

If they allow this vote to go forward. It's "Brownie" all over again.

When will we learn?

[Vincardog]

16. WE have learned. Will we vote for real Progressives of Fake Democrats?

[genius]

5. Reid has the power to stop Roberts but voting on it will give him job.

Think about it. Reid doesn't have the strength of character to say "no" to a consent agreement to bring the matter to the floor. He doesn't have the strength of character to filibuster. Roberts will be confirmed by about 55 votes and Reid, though being the number one reason Roberts will sit on the bench, will say, "But I voted against him." What a hypocrite.

[rhett o rick]

10. It doesn't matter what Reid does. The Compromise 14 apparently

have decided that a filibuster isn't warranted.

[genius]

14. We need to filibuster anyway. If they go nuclear, we can close down Senate

No more bad bills for years. I like that option.

[tritsofme]

18. There aren't enough votes to sustain a filibuster

You can't filibuster unless you find 41 senators willing to go along.

[genius]

23. Then we put the pressure on 41 to filibuster.

A good minority leader can get those 41. It would be a sign of Reid's incompetence if he can't.

[beaconess]

45. No minority leader, regardless how tough, can force every member of caucus

to do what they don't want to do.

Don't blame Reid. Blame the Dems who have no backbone.

[Silverhair]

48. Here is the problem with that.

Some of our senators are from red states and are up for reelection this cycle. They will be looking at their home states much more than they will be looking at Reid. Home state pressure trumps everything else.

[Burning Water]

36. No good ones, either.

Anyway, it won't last beyond 2006. Either the Democratic Party will make gains, and the remaining Repubs will start looking at their positions, or the Repubs will make gains, and the remaining Dems will either become more "reasonable" and "bipartisan", or they will drift over more to the left in the effort to block a rightward drift.

I'm afraid in the later case, the Dems will be marginalized completely. In the former, the country will drift further right, but at a slower pace. Worse case would be the Dems split. Some go moderate, easing the transition to the right for the Repubs while the rest go off the left end of the scale. Party split? I don't know. But I'm afraid 2006 is make or break time for the Dems. IF WE DON'T MAKE GAINS IN 2006, THEN 2008 WILL NOT YIELD THEM EITHER. So I'm working and hoping for 2006. It's way too early for anyone but the candidates themselves to worry about 2008.

[rhett o rick]

52. The point of the "Compromise" was that the 14 Senators that signed-

on agreed that they would KILL a filibuster if they didn't think the candidate was radical. You can't "filibuster anyway" as you stated. If the 7 Democrats live up to their end of the compromise agreement, no filibuster.

[Rainscents]

19. My understanding... If Lieberman vote for Roberts, State of Conn Dem's

are going to go ALL out war him for '06 election! They warn him NOT to vote for Roberts! This is going to be interesting.:popcorn:

[Inland]

12. The targeted enemy isn't Roberts, but Democrats, obviously.

Reid is a sell out and a liar for voting against Roberts. Liar? How does it make him a liar?

And a vote AGAINST roberts is "all out support" of Roberts?

A vote against Roberts is not a useless gesture, at least, not more than a vote against cloture. Why? Because both would LOSE.

Clearly the target isn't Roberts, but democrats. Putting hoops up for democrats, making demands, making completly ridiculous accusations of bad faith, lying, selling out unless they meet them---all part of the plan to cut every democrat off at the knees and replace them with "progressives" who have never held office and excel at the sort of overblown divisive rhetoric without consequences so popular on DU. And of course, lose.

Is it too early to take odds on the republicans in 2006 and 2008?

[Idioteque]

13. We don't have the votes to filibuster Roberts...

If Reid were to attempt a filibuster, he would fall flat on his ass because I guarantee you that at least 5 (probably more) Democrats will vote aye.

[genius]

15. Those people need to go on record. Let's see if they have the guts

to commit political suicide. Democrats won't back then in bids for re-election.

[iwantmycountryback]

17. Are you expecting Bush to nominate a liberal?

Get over it people. Unless he gets caught molesting a child, he will be nominated. And if he isn't, then it will be just another conservative stooge. Somebody has to get on the Court at some point, we can't filibuster these 2 spots for the next 3 years just because a conservative president picked a conservative judge.

[genius]

20. I think we can force him to nominate a SANE conservative instead of a

lunatic, like Roberts. The man needs to be committed to an asylum for the hopelessly insane. Or do you support violence against women, military tribunals for children sold into custody and extemination of all life on Earth? If you do, he's your man.

[enough already]

27. Why not?

What do we have to lose at this point? They have the WH, the Congress, the governorships. And you want to roll over and give them the courts too? Filibuster every last one of them, dammit.

[LittleClarkie]

22. Me head hurts

A vote against Roberts is a vote for Roberts. 1984 anyone?

Personally, I'm more concerned with who replaces the centrist, myself.

[Dr Fate]

44. It will be another Wolf in sheeps clothing.

A black woman would be my guess.

Yeah- the DEMs will REALLY go after that one.

[QC]

24. Same old shit, different day. n/t

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tkmorris]

28. You don't know much about Roberts do you?

I don't know that a filibuster is a good idea in this case but Roberts is much worse than you seem to realize. Turn off your television and stop expecting the "news" media to report anything, that is no longer their function. You have to do the work yourself if you want to be informed about anything these days.

[BL611]

29. Really, open your eyes!!!

Roberts is a Commie!!!Can't you see, don't listen to the "news"! wait this isn't JohnBirchSociety.org is it?

[tkmorris]

31. I seem to have missed your point

Would you care to elaborate?

[BL611]

32. Ok....

The whole "Roberts is Attila the hun in sheep's clothing" argument seems slightly paranoid to me, what evidence to do have to substantiate that, it seems to me that Roberts is a intelligent, conservative judge with decent judicial temperament, I don't think you're going to get very much better then him from this administration.

[tkmorris]

34. I would agree we are unlikely to get better from Bush.......

Which is one reason I stated that the filibuster might not be the way to go here.

I never said Roberts was "Attila the Hun" or anything like that. He is very conservative however, and I think we really need to do everything in our power to keep the USSC from swinging too far rightward. I don't buy the argument that Roberts is replacing someone at least as conservative as he is and therefore we should let him through and look for a more moderate nomination to replace O'Connor. I doubt that Bush will nominate a moderate of any sort and having approved Roberts we will hardly be in a position to object too strongly to anyone.

Your original snarky comments were uncalled for. The fact is that all most people know about Roberts is what they've seen on CNN or FoxNews etc, which is to say very little if anything at all. This nomination may be important to the future of the nation but it isn't sexy enough to bother reporting upon, so they don't.

I am still puzzled by your clearly derisive if otherwise cryptic remarks.

[genius]

42. My might get someone as bad as O'Connor if we push.

She was awful but not as bad as Roberts. Rehnquist was better than Roberts.

[Rowdyboy]

30. Roberts=Rehnquist.........Big deal......He's a damn sight better choice

than Scalia, Thomas, Jones, Clement, Luttig, Clement, Hatch, Cornyn, Ashcroft, Janice Rogers Brown, Ted Olsen or Alberto Gonzales. What, did you expect Bush to nominate a moderate or a liberal? Of course he's going to nominate a conservative. He was given the White House-he has the right.

To filibuster at this point would be petulant and childish. Save the big guns because we literally only get one chance to filibuster and be taken seriously. There's no question he'll go hard right with the O'Conner replacement. Thats when we filibuster and thats when they go nuclear. The sight of Republicans staging a virtual coup over one supreme court vacancy (right after having Roberts confirmed) will be the coup de grace for this administration, showing Bush as the power-mad asshole he is.

[Zodiak]

38. From your words to God's ears.

However, those that point to the fact that we are allowing an enigma to go on the Supreme Court for a lifetime are correct. This is a bad precedent to set. We do not have a long enough career to measure this man's judicial teperament nor his positions.
He can say anything he wants now with no consequence in the future, so his words about "settled law" are potentially empty. And remember, these words came from a Bushbot...would ANYONE on DU, in good faith, trust those words?

Wishful thinking is the standard we are applying to Roberts, and that legitimately has many of us progressives concerned.

Bush can pull the same crap with the next appointment. What if he picks someone on the hard right that has no real judicial history and he withholds documents from Congress again? Should we filibuster then? After all, the nomination in question is simply a precendent of the one before.

There are real pitfalls here for your strategy. I really would love for it to happen, but I am banking on the BFEE knowing more about politics than I do. The Democrats better understand what they are doing here, and would do well to listen to the concerned left.

But I agree, we cannot filibuster this one because we have allowed Fox News and CNN to frame this guy as calm, sweet, and good-looking. Another case of being waaaaay behind in the spin wars. We should have had counter-commercials to the ones they did for Roberts....we should have hammered home that we do not know anything about this guy because Bush is withholding the info. At this point, that would raise suspicion with the American people in light of Brown and Chertoff.

We have to learn the art of opportunism.

I want more of a fight than this, but you are right....a filibuster may not be the best thing. After this vote, the Democrats should immediately call "foul" and make a LOT of hay before Bush nominates the next judge.

The memes should be "transparency", "fairness", "experience", and "competence", and we should have a name that fits all three. And then cry that we are only following the "ginsberg precedent".

Also, the Dems have to get on the ball and nominate their own judge publically before Bush can get ahead with his. Pick a conservative, but pick a moderate one who is well-respected. It can't be that hard to do.

[genius]

41. Actually no. He's much worse than all of them.

[ISUGRADIA]

33. This guy is not Bork, there's no public outcry to stop him

and there is no way in hell that Reid can get 6 Republicans to get to the magic 51. You talk about defeating Democrats in primaries...Christ, the repubs would be up in arms against any of their own that would vote to block Roberts. Reid is not a miracle worker.

I mean really, try talking to someone in the real political world. There will be no primary battles because of Roberts alone. Look at history. 91 Thomas. The only Dem that faced any consequences because of his vote was Alan Dixon in Illinois. The other 10 Dems did not.

[Burning Water]

35. You're no doubt right.

My fear, though, is that we cannot stop the vote. The nuclear option can be revived and will be if necessary. These are the consequences of losing an election, and should prompt us to try harder in 2006 and 2008.

Please don't bring up the "stolen election" to say we didn't lose. It may well be so; I can't say otherwise. But we lost, by hook or crook because they're in; we're out. And we knew it was going to happen, and did nothing to prevent it. We let the election get close enough for them to steal. What are we going to do about 2006 and 2008? I've seen very little progress on this front.

[mvd]

37. Through Moveon.org, I wrote a letter to the editor

of the Washington Post urging Senators to vote no. Here it is:

I am writing to express my displeasure with John Roberts. I was watching his hearing, and was angered by the way Roberts declined to answer over 100 questions from Senators - and dodged many more questions. Even important questions that have commonly been answered went ignored. Roberts has a record that is detrimental to some of our fundamental rights - from equal voting rights to reproductive choice to worker protections. We deserve some answers. Also, the Bush Administration is withholding Roberts' records from the time he was Deputy Solicitor General (an important policymaking position.) Add to all of this the fact that Roberts gave Bush advice during the 2000 recount, and doubt is cast on his impartiality. I conclude that Roberts is the wrong choice for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and I urge the Senate to vote no to his confirmation.

- Matt D.

I believe that all of this also consistutes filibustering, and I'll send this to Reid. But it might be too late now. We've acted like the choice is fine.

[LittleClarkie]

39. We, kemosabi?

Speak for thyself, sir. I fear the NEXT one much more.

[Dr Fate]

43. "The next one" will be a woman, a minority- or both.

Your logic plays right into their hands.

It's always "the next one" with so many of these Democrats. The "next one" will be a woman or even a black woman, and DEMs will cave so Sean Hannity wont call then racists.

By letting Roberts go forward, we are telling Republicans "Please- send us MORE appointees who hide their records and wont answer questions."

The time when DEMs will really put these guys in their place is always just over the next rainbow, or the one after that-isnt it?

In light of Brownie, I dont see why we need to let in ANY Bush appointee who witholds records & answers. I think the average American would understand that.

The hurricane & Bush's record low numbers has changed little or nothing in this respect.

[Silverhair]

47. Can you say, Justice Janice Rogers Brown?

She is an ultra conservative, black, female, and only 56 years old.

[Dr Fate]

49. And DEMS will be too chicken to filibuster her too.

Too afraid Rush, Hannity, Wolf & David Duke will call them racists.

[Silverhair]

46. He can't muster the 41 votes needed for a filibuster. NT

[Dr Fate]

50. Wow- what leadership. n/t

n/t

[formernaderite]

51. I'd be happy with a solidarity vote...all the dems

stand together in voting AGAINST Roberts. Of course a fillibuster would show the country we've found our courage....but I maintain my sanity with realistic expectations.

[Lecky]

53. It's getting old...n/t

[Pepperbelly]

54. I disagree. nt