Should Democrats Filibuster Roberts?

[oxbow]

Poll question: Should Democrats Filibuster Roberts?

Feel free to post arguments supporting your position as well. I have my own views, but for the sake of not skewing results, will hold them until later.

Edited to add: no attacks on this thread please. We are one family here

Poll result (86 votes)
yes	(63 votes, 73%)	Vote
no	(23 votes, 27%)	Vote

[Jim Sagle]

1. HELL yeah!!!!

[Melodybe]

3. Lets see he is anti-choice, pro-corporations, pro-torture, anti-civil rig

rights, has no problem not checking on the powers of the executive branch, and thinks that the Endangered Species Act is worthless. Wow, Bush really picked someone to cover all the bases.

If they don't filibuster then I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT!

[bilgewaterbill]

7. I said the same thing on another thread. No filibuster- no money!

[readmylips]

16. Hell yeah 50 times....

Filibuster all the way.

[evlbstrd]

The Repugs are in a weakened state.

They have used "divide and conquer'" for years. It's our turn now. Go for the jugular.

[KingFlorez]

2. They need to know we mean business

If we don't take action against their tactics, then what good out we as opposition? We can play hard ball and be as nasty and vicious as they are.

[AndyTiedye]

4. Talk About PlameGate While Filibustering Roberts

America needs to know, in great detail, even exhaustive detail,
how Roberts would rule on possible cases of national security leaks
by officials of the regime.

[proiowadem]

21. Talk about PLAMEGATE, Iraq, DSM, and SCOTUS

Since they work so well at deflecting one thing at a time, hit them on all of it.

[jsamuel]

5. Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both Both

[Swamp Rat]

6. They had better or else they will NEVER get my support again.

[renaissanceguy]

8. FUCK YES.

THIS IS IT. I WILL GO GREEN IF THEY DON'T.

THIS IS THE NEXT THIRTY YEARS OF OUR LIVES, PEOPLE.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.21326737

[caligirl]

13. I thought Hell yes. But yours gets to the meat of it.

[jrthin]

9. No. Let's keep

the news story and focus on Rove and possible * impeachment. There's a poll out which suggests that 42 or 47 percent favor impeachment if it's proven that Americans were lied to in order to go to war.

[Greyhound]

10. Every Issue Every Time, but especially this one, he's young and might...

be around for 40 years

[Kool Kitty]

11. Absolutely, yes.

Too much is at stake here.

[Alcibiades]

12. No to filibuster of Roberts

It would be silly to filibuster Roberts. He's qualified, not a mental defective, insane, corrupt or any of the other things that would disqualify him. The filibuster in practice is reserved for extreme cases, and the Senate Democrats acknowledged this in their deal concerning the lower court nominees.

Conservative appointments to the supreme court are one consequence of Bush's election in 2004. Lots of moderates, including many women, who are pro-choice and pro-birth control, voted for Bush. Overturning Roe might just be what the left needs to energize it, the way the evangelicals have been energized by Roe ever since it came down.

Roberts' nomination may not only endanger Roe, but even Griswold. It the Republicans outlaw the Pill, how well will they fare electorally? It would consign them to a permanent minority status, where they belong.

[kevsand]

17. "Roberts' nomination may not only endanger Roe, but even Griswold."

That's exactly why he must be stopped. I will not play political parlor games with my daughter's future, or generations to come. Even if it costs the Republicans at the ballot box in the short term, how many decades will it take to restore balance to the Supreme Court? The price is too high, the risks too great. Stop them here, and now.

[Alcibiades]

30. Such advantage would not be merely short-term

That’s the point. I don’t think that reversing Roe and/or Griswold would cost Republicans merely in the short term: it would cripple them for generations to come. Such a decision would provide for the solid, stable Democratic majority that would ensure reproductive freedom for our children, along with the other things the constitutional right to privacy brings, such as the right to refuse unwanted medical care.

For decades, the Republicans have been able to energize their base by depicting Democrats as extremist, while moderates have been able to vote Republican in good conscience because their rights will be protected from the extremism that Republicans have sought to desperately to put into practice. There’s a very real question whether any filibuster would be able to stop Roberts anyway, given the so-called nuclear or (un)constitutional option. That’s their very clear-and appalling-backup strategy: the further consolidation of executive power through the elimination of the filibuster for judicial nominees. If Roberts is the sort of conservative who is nominated with the “advice and consent” of the Senate, who would get the nod if the threat of filibuster were to be removed? Has anyone thought that Rehnquist may be strategically putting his retirement off just in case of such an event?

[MisterP]

14. if not now, when? there'll always be calls for "later...later..."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Yes. It's past time the Dems realize they have to stand for something.

If they don't stand for something as basic as women's rights and roll over (again) to play politics, then any claim they have as anything other than a rubber stamp for the other corporate party is confirmed.

[Hippo_Tron]

18. OTHER: He was nominated 9 hours ago

Can we give Leahy, Schummer, Durbin, Feingold, etc. a little time to look into this guy first?

[oxbow]

20. good point

and I did consider putting a third option on this poll, such as "not unless we get something more on him" but decided against it. I mean, of course if some new dirt about Roberts arises, it will change the entire dynamic of the situation.

I think it's a good idea to do this poll again in a month or so, before the confirmation process begins. I just wanted to stick my finger in the proverbial wind and see which way DU's swingin on this.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. Don't tell me you didn't already know the outcome of this poll?

Of course DU isn't going to like this guy, of course they are going to want the Democrats to fight.

A month or so before the confirmation process begins is fine. Like I said, the guy was announce 9 hours ago. If anybody can do a comprehensive investigation of a man in 9 hours, then I think that there are several government agencies that would like to know this man's phone number so that they can offer him a job.

[oxbow]

25. Of course I would like them to fight as well

however, there are some consequences to consider if the dems filibuster this guy as he now stands. They could be regarded as obstructionists by the American public, which could hurt their chances in '06. A lengthly confirmation battle could also serve as a diversion from the Rove scandal, no doubt what Rove wants to happen. He could even be planning to leak fake dirt about Roberts to the press as we speak, ala CBS memogate. Fighting is not without consequences in politics, and I think most DU'ers realize that. A filibuster could very well backfire, just as it could succeed.

I also tend to think that Roberts is fairly clean if Rove chose to out him as the nominee over 5 weeks before the confirmation hearings even begin. Surely he did not expect this story to eclipse his own troubles without something juicier for us to bite into?

I'm mostly hoping that this poll will give people a chance to get their views out, make clear how DU feels at this moment and allow us to move on until we get new facts about Roberts

[Hippo_Tron]

26. You tend to think Roberts is fairly clean...

The White House thought tended to think that Bernie Kerik was fairly clean. And they actually vetted the guy.

Like I said in my thread about this (which got 2 replies), this man could molest children and kill puppies. We simply DON'T KNOW yet...

[oxbow]

27. There's a reason they put this guy out early

I agree with you that we should proceed with caution and reserve judgement. We don't know what their game is yet. But, I also think there's nothing wrong with DU'ers getting their opinions out there. We need to vent and move on until the battle is joined in earnest.

By the way, there is a much better poll being conducted in GDP here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[oxbow]

19. Can I get 2 more nominations?

The more people vote, the more accurate this poll will be of the mood on DU. Thanks y'all

[Behind the Aegis]

22. HELL YES!

This guy is a nightmare! His appointment would spell a 'hat trick' for the BFEE! If he is placed on the bench, we better be prepared for King George!

[oxbow]

24. What does BFEE stand for?

I've been meaning to ask someone this for a while now!

[VOX]

28. Bush Family Evil Empire.

And typing out that name, * , nearly made me

[VOX]

29. Hell yes. He's totally unacceptable, and he'll "legislate from the bench."

Roberts is the compleat BushBot.