Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

the reason to oppose Roberts is that . . .

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:25 AM
Original message
the reason to oppose Roberts is that . . .
as an unelected president who stole the office in two elections, Bush has no legitimate right to nominate anyone to the Supreme Court . . .

further, during his illegal occupation of the presidency he has committed unspeakable war crimes, has repeatedly violated international law, and has facilitated a massive terrorist attack on our country -- all of which are acts of treason . . .

no Bush nomination should even be considered . . . rather, he must be brought to account for his illegal actions and those of his administration, removed from office, and his successor left with the responsibility of filling Supreme Court vacancies . . .

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:28 AM
Response to Original message
1. Good luck...
Most of the country doesn't pay enough attention to what they're, well... told not to pay attention to.

Nice fantasy though. I do enjoy informing people and then destroying their MSM-fed arguments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:28 AM
Response to Original message
2. You bet he stole the election...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:31 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Good job, autorank! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:50 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Thanks, there will be more...f' the system!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 03:03 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. Actually, I think it was Bruce Ackerman who first made this statement, in
early 2001:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010416&s=editors

Article in the Feb 12, 2001 edition of The American Prospect, titled "The Court Packs Itself"

Excerpt:
In our democracy, there is one basic check on a runaway Court: presidential elections. And a majority of the justices have conspired to eliminate this check. The Supreme Court cannot be permitted to arrange for its own succession. To allow this president to serve as the Court's agent is a fundamental violation of the separation of powers. It is one thing for unelected judges to exercise the sovereign power of judicial review; it's quite another for them to insulate themselves yet further from popular control. When sitting justices retire or die, the Senate should refuse to confirm any nominations offered up by President Bush.

The Supreme Court has often functioned perfectly well without its full complement. During the 1990s, the justices have cut their workload dramatically and now deliver only 80 opinions of the Court each year. They can readily maintain this pace even if two or three vacancies open up. President Bush can fill these positions if he wins the 2004 election fair and square.


There is a precedent for my proposal. When President Lincoln was assassinated, he was replaced by Andrew Johnson, who threatened to nominate justices who would consolidate the conservative wing of the Court. The Reconstruction Congress responded with a statute providing that retiring justices could not be replaced. By the time Johnson left the White House in 1869, the Court was reduced to seven members. After the election, Congress returned the Court's size to nine, giving Ulysses S. Grant the power to fill the vacancies that it had denied his predecessor. The Reconstruction Congress explained that it was John Wilkes Booth, not the American people, who had transformed Andrew Johnson into the president. The citizenry would not have deprived Abraham Lincoln of the power to make appointments.


A similar logic applies today. The right-wing bloc on the Court should not be permitted to extend its control for a decade or more simply because it has put George W. Bush into the White House. During Reconstruction, Congress made this judgment by passing a statute shrinking the Court whenever a justice left the bench. But such draconian action isn't necessary. Forty senators should simply make it plain that they will block all Supreme Court nominations until the next presidential election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 03:21 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. I think that Scalia, Thomas, and this clown, should be impeached...
...just to make a point. This is really too much. Now we have the "country club" faction of the Republican Party represented. Just wonderful, and the guy's 50!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:29 AM
Response to Original message
3. Totally agreed
He is a farce. I would be ashamed to call myself a GOP or a voter of this jerk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oldtime dfl_er Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:36 AM
Response to Original message
5. In other words
Impeach the bastard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
queeg Donating Member (529 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:40 AM
Response to Original message
6. Too freakin late---lets just move on here with the business of the country
isn't there a web site like that ---gee I think its Moveon.org
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:57 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. if we believe it's too freakin' late, we are doomed . . .
the bastard must resign or be impeached . . . the fight isn't between left and right, it's between the people and the corporate/military (i.e. fascist) oligarchy, of which Bush is the figurehead . . .

"moving on" means capitulating to every illegal act they've perpetuated, and this is unacceptable if we are to remain -- or maybe become -- a democracy . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spindoctor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 03:16 AM
Response to Original message
10. Assuming Cheney would be impeached to, that makes it DeLay's pick...
...no thanks.


;)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 03:38 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. not necessarily . . .
when election fraud in 2004 is proven (and the evidence is certainly there), a case can be made to delay filling the vacancy until after the next REAL election . . . the Court has functioned short-handed in the past, and they can certainly do it again for awhile . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 03:21 AM
Response to Original message
11. interesting perspective from a Metafilter poster . . .
responding to another poster's comment that "Democrats who don't like this should have worked harder last November," poster realcountrymusic says . . .

Hard work . . . where have I heard that before? Needless to say, in my opinion, to paraphrase William Munny's line in Unforgiven as he blows away Gene Hackman's evil sheriff, "work's got nothin' to do with it." But at least it's now clear just what was at stake that led decent Republicans to remain silent about one of the most unethical and incivil campaign machines of all time and its blatantly dishonest gaming of the political process using the full resources of the state, including trumped up terror alerts, staged "arrests" of al Qaeda minor leaguers that just happened to happen, say, right in the middle of the Democratic Convention, the miraculous appearance of Osama on television to solidify Bush's one substantive (though phony) advantages with voter opinion in the last days of the campaign, the pure slander of the Swift Boat Veterans and their commandant, Karl Rove, and the rigging of the electoral process in Ohio and many other places.

Even so, Bush was delivered no mandate in that election. The tissue of lies, conspiracies, brutality, and manipulation that the administration used to construct the pretext for Bush's supposed "popularity" as a "wartime president" has become more and more obvious, and its consequences more and more ugly and sickening -- say, as we approach the 1800th American military KIA in Iraq. And now, at the beginning of a furious wave of nausea and recognition about to break on Mr. Bush's shore, as he twists and lies furiously through proxies and even in person to evade taking any responsibility for the treasonous conduct of his "architect," this crew cynically schemes a 9 PM surprise announcement, complete with deflecting leaks and arrogant posturing right out of the dictator's handbook, of a divisive choice for SCOTUS, knowing -- counting on the fact that -- this will change the subject long enough to allow them to regroup and coordinate the next pack of lies. Roberts is not the issue. He seems competent and a good soldier with the predictable views. He's irrelevant. The point is we are deep into a Potemkin Village version of politics as usual here. The emperor's bare ass is waving in the fucking wind. They know time may be short before the law actually touches them, a classic choice faced by nascent dictatorships, and even more brutal measures may soon be called for. They've even heard derisive laughter *at* King George II from the normally whipped and docile mainstream press corps (yesterday, and if you missed it, it was eerie shit to hear Bush endure outright guffaws as he twisted in the wind). Enjoy the feeling of flying through the air for a few more minutes. This shit is about to get very real, one way or the other. These guys are masters at the art of distraction, so if Roberts doesn't hold the media mobs at bay, be sure we'll need to get all worried about "terra" again soon. Maybe they'll even bring in their favorite consultant, you know, the talk guy with the beard and the turban who comes on TV whenever Bush gets in trouble.

It ain't the hard work that the opposition hasn't done; it's the equivalently dirty work.

posted by realcountrymusic at 7:45 PM PST on July 19

http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/43586

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
14. kick . . . if we want to honest about this . . .
yes, I understand that in practical terms, this perspective will not prevail . . . but we on the left must hold to it if we are to maintain our integrity about BushCo and their "contributions" to American society and world affairs . . .

there's no way Bush should be nominating anyone to the Supreme Court . . . period . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
15. thanks, that makes it a lot easier
I don't have to bother learning a SINGLE thing about Roberts, I can just blindly oppose him.

In addition to being pure and right, it's also a whole lot easier!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
16. Great. Please spell out the actuall steps Congress should take to
achieve these things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 19th 2014, 04:45 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC