Scalia was confirmed 98-0

[Nederland]

Any of you that are bitching and whining about how 23 (or 22 depending how you count Jeffords) Democrats voted for Roberts care to explain why you still support those that voted for Scalia? I mean, come one, at least with Roberts there is the excuse of not knowing how he really stood on a whole host of issues. Scalia had a very long paper trail and is, according to most legal experts, much more conservative than Roberts. So why don't you all get the names of those Senators that voted to confirm Scalia and add them to your personal shit list?

Hmmmmm? Any of you care to explain the twisted logic at work here?

[ronnykmarshall]

1. Que crickets chirping.

[LoZoccolo]

3. I haven't gotten much response either...

...when I point out that the Republicans confirmed Ginzburg by a similar margin.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4927390&mesg_id=4927390

The whiners seem to operate wherever there's ambiguity and a vacuum of information big enough to make a disingenuous claim, but not in these two instances.

[Hobarticus]

2. Well said, well spoken....

Truth be told, a solid Democratic vote opposing him wouldn't have done a damn bit of good.

[OneBlueSky]

4. because Scalia wasn't nominated by . . .

an unelected, illegitimate pretender . . . those who voted for Roberts either . . .

a) believe that Bush was legitimately elected in 2000 and 2004 . . . in which case they're too stupid to vote on ANY nomination . . . or . . .

b) know that Bush was NOT legitimately elected, and voted for Roberts anyhow . . . in which case they're too corrupt to even bother with . . .

[Nederland]

5. That's not the argument being made

At least, not by these people:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2123381

[Skidmore]

6. NO Dems should have voted for this nomination.

[Nederland]

7. And yet NONE voted against it

...including Teddy Kennedy.

Where are the cries for Teddy's head? Hmmm?

[Skidmore]

8. There should be cries for all their heads. I think those

who consistently have sold the party and the people out will get their just dues in the next election cycle. Their actions are not going unnoticed.

[Nederland]

10. Yes Yes Yes

We should get rid of every Democrat in the Senate! That's a fantastic idea!

Not.

[Skidmore]

30. The party needs to get back to representing its base.

It needs to stop trying to be the left wing of the Republican party. This vote was hugely important because it means that the courts will become the mechanism by which we are jerked back for more than a century.

I would like to know why you are so supportive of this continual voting with the right on important issues. What do you gain by it?

[beyurslf]

35. Republicans would agree with you on that one :)

[Dr Fate]

14. In those days, we were still under the illusion...

...that we could "work with" liars & criminals.

The past 5 years shattered that illusion for any thinking DEM.

[Dr Fate]

9. So what? That was before DEMS were burned by their Iraq votes. etc.

Parlimentary tradition is no excuse for continuing to follow the failed strategy of giving liars & criminals what they want.

This is not about mistakes of the past- it's about continued mistake of going along with Bush in the present & future.

[Nederland]

11. Confused

Are you saying that the Dems who voted for Scalia should not be held to the same standard as those that voted for Roberts?

[Dr Fate]

13. I'm saying the DEMs should have been unified in their vote against Roberts

Based on the fact that they should have learned a lesson from the past five years- that giving Bush what he wants is a losing strategy.

The base was right about Iraq & the Patriot act, yet most DEMs ignored us and gave Bush what he wanted. Then those votes burned them as "flip-floppers"- you would think they would learn.

[Nederland]

16. Question

Should they have opposed Roberts because he was "what Bush wanted" or because he was "too conservative"?

[Dr Fate]

18. Other- He hid parts of his resume ala "Brownie" and refused to answer...

...questions that are important to a large percentage of the American people. That alone is enough reason to vote "no"- especially in light of Bush's record of bad appointees (Brownie, etc) and Bush's record low unpopularity and record of unparalleled criminality and dishonesty.

Throw all the logic games at me you want- the fact is, 22 DEMs listened to and stood with the base, 23 DEMs ignored us and stood with Bush, Santorum, Dobson,Pat Robertson and a fake media perception that Robertson was qualified.

[Nederland]

22. self deleted

wrong place

[Dr Fate]

24. Yes, Roberts DID hide many of the documents that comprise his resume.

And yes, Roberts DID refuse to answer the important questions asked of him.

What does this old-time Document about Scalia have to do with this?

You are muddying up the waters with straw-men and logic games that change nothing.

Are you that desperate to defend this unqualified Judge, appointed by the most corrupt & dishonest President in history?

[Nederland]

25. What about Ginsberg?

Would you have opposed the nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsberg on the same grounds?

[Dr Fate]

27. Did Clinton have a record of lying about his appointees?

Did Clinton have a record of lying to Congress and the American (about policy, not sex)multiple times?

Did Clinton have a record of "Brownie" style appointees?

Did Clinton have the lowest approval/popularity rating in history?

Did Clinton steal his elections?

Did Clinton have a record of actually "working with" Republicans rather than stabbing them in the back? I think he did.

So, how could I have opposed the nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsberg on the same grounds- none of those same grounds exist.

Logic games & excuses is all you have for me.

Truth is, you would be standing on your chair and cheering with me instead of arguing with me if all the DEMs had stood up for us.

[Skidmore]

32. I agree, Doc.

We are on the brink and those Dems who consistently sell out need to get the message that this is acceptable.

[ihelpu2see]

12. Scalia is just F...n scary. eom

[Czolgosz]

15. Do you know any Supreme Court history?

Before his appointment to the Supreme Court, Scalia taught law at the University of Virginia and at the University of Chicago Law School and Stanford. His colleagues at all three schools (including Democrats) testified on his behalf and they did not believe he would be as radical as he has turned out to be. Scalia was also general counsel for the Office of Telecommunication Policy under the Nixon administration, and he received bi-partisan approval of the work he did in that post. Scalia chaired the American Bar Association's section on administrative law and the Conference of Section Chairs, and there were no complaints of partisanship from his tenure in that role. Even as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Scalia's opinions were mainstream conservative and not particularly activist. No one anticipated that Scalia would make one of the worst Supreme Court justices in the history of the United States and so he sailed through his confirmation hearings.

There is ample background on John Roberts to indicate he is at least the equal of Scalia with respect to his willingness to disregard precedent to reach the outcome that his extremist pro-corporate philosophy dictates.

In sum, no one knew Scalia was a turd so they can be forgiven for their votes, but in this matter there was enough evidence of John Roberts character and philosophy so that no one should have voted for him.

[Nederland]

21. Bullshit

Scalia was a well known conservative who had voiced opinions that denounced affirmative action, privacy and environment laws. Read the record of his confirmation hearings here:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh99-1064/sh99-1064.pdf

In particular you should read what Eleanor Smeal had to say about him starting on page 176:

<snip>

I am delivering this testimony on behalf of the National Organization for Women and the National Women's Political Caucus. As the president of the National Organization for Women, I am representing the largest feminist organization in the United States, that is interested in eliminating sex discrimination in many different areas.

The National Women's Political Caucus is the largest organization of its kind. It is a bipartisan organization, determined to eliminate sex discrimination in the political arena.

Our testimony is based upon a review of some 120 law cases that Judge Scalia wrote at the circuit court level. Of course, the bulk of these cases are in the area of administrative law, so we have to only review those cases that cover, on point, those issues that we are very, very concerned with.

Because the court record was very brief—he has only been on that court 4 years—we would also turn to his writings and journals, and we also turned to his speeches for his opinions in the areas of constitutional law.

There are three significant areas that concern us, and for the reason that we stand today to oppose his nomination as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Those three areas are affirmative action; his hostility toward the enforcement of the remedial antidiscrimination laws passed by Congress; and his philosophy on individual constitutional rights.

Let me move quickly to the areas—and, of course, 3 minutes will not give me adequate time to review his writings and his work. But let me move quickly to the area of affirmative action. He has been quite clear in what he thinks of affirmative action. To quote: "I have grave doubts about the wisdom of where we are going in affirmative action and in equal protection generally." He goes on to say: "I frankly find this area an embarrassment to teach."

He says that, "There are examples abound to support my suggestion that this area is full of pretense or self-delusion."

He essentially takes the position of being a foe of affirmative action. I do not think an objective person could read his writings and come up with any other conclusion. In fact, he has a concept that as the son of Sicilian immigrants, he shares no burden to repay a debt to a group his ancestors, he believed, never wronged. I wanted to call attention to his quotes in this area because at a personal level I find it very difficult to sit here in opposition to the nomination of the first Italian-American. I am a person who believes in breaking down barriers and am the daughter of Italian-American immigrants. But my experience has led me to the exact opposite conclusion. I believe it is necessary to have affirmative action.

I am also very, very concerned with his use of the law and the cases. He seeks to strike down or to most limitedly interpret both race and sex discrimination laws, and he seeks to give the most narrow interpretation on remedies.

For example, on the 9-to-0 decision in sexual harassment that was just handed down, he would have been the lone voice against it, saying sexual harassment does not fall under the sex discrimination restraints laws of title VII.

<snip>


He was opposed by the AFL-CIO too.

[Dr Fate]

28. So what? It was a different era and a different President.

The era where we can pretend to "work with" liars & criminals in the name of parliamentary tradition is OVER- if it ever did even exist.

[Czolgosz]

37. You didn't even read the material you linked, did you? The majority of

the 376 pages are in favor of Scalia, including nonpartisan groups endorsing Scalia.

More importantly, Scalia's record as a sitting judge -- the actual opinions he wrote as a circuit court judge -- was not nearly as radical as the loony crap he's come up since his elevation to the high court. That's why there is little discussion of his judicial record in NOW statement that you quote above. Scalia was conservative, but not batshit crazy like he is now.

Scalia's confirmation was never in doubt.

[Armstead]

17. Different time, different GOP

Not totally different, but this is a time for united opposition, even if only to send a message of which side the Democrats are on.

(And it shouldn't be the side of right wing corporatre justices who have nice manners.)

[Dr Fate]

19. Exactly- those were the days when we could "work with each other"

After 5 years of seeing THIS GOP in action, it is clear to thinking DEMs that those days are over.

[Nederland]

26. Not really

Even after Dems nuked Bork, Republicans voted for Ginsberg in even greater numbers than Democrats did Roberts.

[Dr Fate]

29. Ginsberg was appointed by a popular President w/o all this corruption

Ginsberg was appointed by a popular President who did not have a reocord of lying about policy and his appointees like Bush Jr.

That alone sets it apart.

Clinton was a Boy Scout compared to Bush- and most Americans now know this.

[Armstead]

33. Also, as I recall, Clinton consulted with the opposition before nomination

Based on my recollections and readings, I believe Clinton "vetted" his supreme court nominees with GOP Senators, to ensure they would be accepted without a big fight.

[blm]

34. It was Repubs who recommended Ginsberg as someone they could vote for.

And let's be honest, shall we......the GOP doesn't really give a rat's ass about abortion, they just like to use it as an issue. BushInc appointed Roberts because he will adhere to their FASCIST agenda.

The GOP discovered many years ago that they can further their fascist agenda by hiding behind the pro-life mask.

The media accomodates them by making abortion the issue on every court appointment, when the real issue is that their appointees are pro-corporate fascists.

[Czolgosz]

36. Ginsberg had a very long record of moderation when she was nominated.

[blm]

20. That was before ideology reared its ugly head.

Believe it or not, back then, supreme court justices rarely spoke in ideological terms.

It all comes down to the fact that the GOP is now in control of the media so blatant ideology has become the norm.

[Nederland]

23. No it wasn't

Edward Kennedy and the ACLU opposed the elevation of Rehnquist to Chief Justice on idealogical grounds.

[Dr Fate]

31. Back then there was a perception that we could "work with each other"

Whether true or not, we did indeed operate under that perception/illusion, at least most of the time.

Any Democrat who still holds that perception after 5 years of Bush back-stabbing is either lying or an idiot.