Roberts: Bush vs. Gore is the litmus test

[pat_k]

Bush vs. Gore is the litmus test
Sidney Zion
NY Daily News

Don't bother John Roberts about Roe vs. Wade. Make him tell us what he thinks about Bush vs. Gore.

That's the key question, and the answer will advise the Senate and the country as to his bona fides, advertised as a jurist who will read the Constitution as written and never legislate from the bench...

And what decision in our history was more contemptuous of both than Bush vs. Gore? That 5-to-4 ruling, which ran against everything the Rehnquist Five stood for, put George W. Bush in the White House. It was nothing less than a judicial coup d'état, and it embarrassed principled conservatives as it outraged liberals...

"A bolt out of the blue," said Prof. Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School, a supporter of the Rehnquist Court. "There is no precedent for it . . . a real embarrassment, the worst moment for the court . . ."

See also this TableTalk post.

Call to Action

Fax Zion's Article to Schumer (Fax in DC: 202-228-3027; Fax in NY: 212-486-7693)... and others on the Committee if you can.

Patrick J. Leahy (VT) Ranking Dem
DC Phone: [phone]
DC Fax: [phone]
Burlington Phone: [phone]
Burlington Fax: Not Available?

Edward M. Kennedy (MA)
DC Phone: [phone]
DC Fax: [phone]
Boston Phone: Voice: 617-565-3170
Boston FAX: Not Currently Available

Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (DE)
DC Phone: [phone]
DC Fax: [phone]
Wilmington Phone: [phone]
Wilmington FAX: [phone]

Herbert Kohl (WI)
DC Phone: [phone]
DC Fax: [phone]
Milwaukee Phone: [phone]
Milwaukee FAX: Not Currently Available

Dianne Feinstein (CA)
DC Phone: [phone]
DC Fax: [phone]
SF Phone: [phone]
SF Fax: [phone]

Russell D. Feingold (WI)
DC Phone: [phone]
DC Fax: [phone]
Milwaukee Phone: [phone]
Milwaukee FAX: Not Currently Available

Charles E. Schumer (NY)
DC Phone: [phone]
DC Fax: [phone]
NYC Phone: [phone]
NYC Fax: [phone]

Richard J. Durbin (IL)
DC Phone: [phone]
DC Fax: [phone]
Chicago Phone: [phone]
Chicago FAX: [phone]

And While you are at it:

Harry Reid

DC Fax: [phone]
Las Vegas Phone: [phone]
Las Vegas Fax: [phone]

[bushisanidiot]

1. Bush V. Gore should be brought up, but Roe V. Wade HAS to be the litmus

test.

it is very interesting how involved roberts was in making sure AWOL Bush "won" the election.. he did have his finger in the pie.

however, for the sake of AWOL Bush's fundie base and for the MAJORITY of americans who want Roe V. Wade to remain INTACT, Roberts MUST fess up to his opinion on RVW. blowing this important piece of information off to focus on whether he believes the supreme court should intervene is a recount is LETTING HIM OFF EASY. it would be VERY easy for him to lie about and go back on his word later if another election decision came to the Supreme Court.

Roe V. Wade IS the litmus test!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[shelley806]

4. I'm all for making BOTH issues the litmus tests...why does there have

to be only ONE? I think they are both somewhat related...He obviously believes that the Supreme Court should not pay much attention to 'the little people'...he supported abuse of power in the SCOTUS Presidential Election AGAINST the will of the people; Hey folks, last time I checked this country was called a Democracy. I don't think it will matter much to Roberts that MOST people do not support the overturning of Roe vs. Wade...He didn't care that MOST people voted for Al Gore!!

[ClassWarrior]

16. Let's make it three - where does Bob Roberts stand on committing...

...TREASON by blowing the cover of an American agent??

Hell, when I went to school, I NEVER had a test with only one or two questions on it!

NGU.

[pat_k]

9. The dems on the can side step ALL their propaganda by doing the unexpected

They are ready to defend against a Roe v. Wade litmus test. The dems on the committee can side step ALL the Republican propaganda and framing by doing the unexpected.

Bush v. Gore IS OUR Nuclear Option. Bush v. Gore put the Constitution into breach. That trumps all.

The Bush Regime and the Republicans on the committee don't want to touch that festering wound to our most fundamental principle -- the principle of consent.

Pushing them to focus almost exclusively on Bush v. Gore is not just the right thing to do morally; it is the right thing to do politically. (Note "almost exclusively" -- Roe will be right up their whatever we do to shift the debate). A Bush v. Gore litmus test moves the game to our turf. We have allowed them to move the Roe v. Wade and choice to their turf. It's their frame now and that will not be undone any time soon It's time to stake out our frame. The American Fundamentalist frame.

[Southsideirish]

2. I agree. His "work" on the 2000 election has infected the whole world and

will continue to do so for many years to come.

[shelley806]

3. I agree...THIS IS the issue; impartial to B* ROBERTS IS NOT!!

Thanks so much for posting this and organizing potential action. Roberts was chosen for his potential aid to B*'s impending impeachment problems IMHO. He is as much to blame for B* being in office as anything else. BTW; DU was started when B* was sworn in in 2001!!! I just found that out yesterday.

It was nothing less than a judicial coup d'état...
"A bolt out of the blue," said Prof. Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School, a supporter of the Rehnquist Court. "There is no precedent for it . . . a real embarrassment, the worst moment for the court . . ."

KICK and Nominated!

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[Smarmie Doofus]

5. All the more appropriate in that the spin....

to judge by the Times analysis today... is on his alleged advocacy of "restraint". Hard... and embarrassing... to square that with the super-radical interventionism of Bush V. Gore.

Makes him look like a hack.

[shelley806]

7. A hack AND a liar...but hey, he'll fit in quite well with these ethical,

honorable, Christian men we have currently in the WH...
:sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[shelley806]

6. Pat, I just realized what thread this is posted in...could you please post

it in another thread more commonly viewed? Like GD, GD Politics, etc. That way more people will participate, and its likely to be nominated for greatest page, with even more attention and participation...Thanks!

[pat_k]

10. Done

Posted on General Discussion: Politics link

[shelley806]

13. Thanks so much...just logged back on; I'll go kick it there!!....n/t

[Village Idiot]

8. Roberts was an ADVISOR to Jebbie during the 2000 recount.

It looks a lot like this is patronage for services rendered.

[pat_k]

11. Shameless promotion -- request to recommend

If you agree, please recommend for greatest page (this link will recommend the version of the post on the General Discussion: Politics thread.

[shelley806]

15. This is a very important issue...NOT shameless promotion..n/t

[wli]

12. also an aide during Iran-Contra

[shelley806]

14. Also Ken Starr's protege and contributed personally (at least $1000)

to GWB in 2000, and his law firm ($80,000). Roberts will NOT be an impartial judge; therefore he is not conservative in a constitutional sense because the founding fathers aim for the Supreme Court was to be impartial, apolitical, and objective. One of the reasons I suppose, that they are granted lifetime appointments.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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