For crying out f--king loud, cut the hyperbole and get a grip, all of you.

[TheWraith]

Once again, DU had been turned into a quagmire of piss and bullshit. Everywhere you turn, crazy ass theories, extreme DUers ripping others to shreds for the slightest percieved infringement, and generally people going nuts.

First and formost point: regardless of whether or not Roberts gets appointed to the court, Roe vs. Wade is in no danger whatsoever. If they appointed the incinerated ashes of Adolf Hitler to fill O'Conner's seat, it would still be 5 to 4.

Do try to assimilate that little bit of information, since it's very important for our converation. There's no danger of Roe being overturned. So, calm down and try to think rationally.

Roberts will likely be confirmed. The Democrats don't have a majority in the Senate, and if neccessary it will probably come down to a party-line vote. Despite the filibuster, stalling tactics, etc., unless a sizable number of Republicans defect--and the chances of that are slim--he's going to make it. I'm not saying he shouldn't neccessarily be challanged, but I'm simply pointing out the probable reality once all the shouting is done.

Likewise, quietly rubberstamping the guy is no way to get business done. The Republicans will never run out of political capital if they're never forced to spend it. I saw a suggestion that Senate Dems offer to confim Roberts if Bush answers questions about Rove's security clearance and the Downing Street Memo: that should be on the lips of every Senate Democrat who gets on TV within the next month.

The hyperbole around here has grown far out of all proportion. Once again, we're seeing the return of the claim that if abortion isn't federally protected, then women aren't considered people under law. That's horseshit. If abortion isn't federally protected, then it's not federally protected. Only decades of extreme rhetoric could equate abortion and personhood. Ironically, it's the same way the wingnuts feel--they see abortion as the end of personhood for fetuses, our wingnuts see not having abortion as the end of personhood for women, both opinions being equally batshit. Pro-choice activists, by all means support your cause, but try to stay grounded in reality.

Last but not least, there are people running around savagely attacking other DUers, calling them freepers, issuing "with us or against us" ultimatums, and generally spewing venom whenever they feel threatened. This has to stop. This is the real freeper behavior, the paranoia and assaults against anyone who disagrees with you.

People here need to calm down and get some perspective. This is politics, not Armageddon.

[mattclearing]

1. You're right. I will just agree with everything you say.

Because it will be easier that way.

[pocket]

2. great sell us out A LITTLE AT A TIME

today Roberts, tomorrow Janice Rogers Brown.

THEN it will be time to break out the coat-hangers.

[Dogmudgeon]

5. You forgot to mention Hitler

One-armed paper hanging and all that.

--p!

[ramapo]

3. Well said

Worse case with Roe v. Wade is that it is overturned and the issue goes back to state control.

[slackmaster]

4. Great subject line!

[SheepyMcSheepster]

6. agreed. eom

[Connie_Corleone]

7. Just another day at the DU.

Don't hold your breath. Hyperbole is on red alert for now.

[Melodybe]

8. Once again, people claiming to be democrats

tell real democrats to go ahead and give up.

"Roberts will likely be confirmed. The Democrats don't have a majority in the Senate, and if neccessary it will probably come down to a party-line vote. Despite the filibuster, stalling tactics, etc., unless a sizable number of Republicans defect--and the chances of that are slim--he's going to make it. I'm not saying he shouldn't neccessarily be challanged, but I'm simply pointing out the probable reality once all the shouting is done.

Likewise, quietly rubberstamping the guy is no way to get business done. The Republicans will never run out of political capital if they're never forced to spend it. I saw a suggestion that Senate Dems offer to confim Roberts if Bush answers questions about Rove's security clearance and the Downing Street Memo: that should be on the lips of every Senate Democrat who gets on TV within the next month."

Democrats can and should fight both tooth and nail. The majority of the American public are pro-choice, why on earth should we give up on this one.

How about focusing on how Roberts is pro corporation and anti environment?

I totally disagree with you.

[Melodybe]

9. Once again, people claiming to be democrats

tell real democrats to go ahead and give up.

"Roberts will likely be confirmed. The Democrats don't have a majority in the Senate, and if neccessary it will probably come down to a party-line vote. Despite the filibuster, stalling tactics, etc., unless a sizable number of Republicans defect--and the chances of that are slim--he's going to make it. I'm not saying he shouldn't neccessarily be challanged, but I'm simply pointing out the probable reality once all the shouting is done.

Likewise, quietly rubberstamping the guy is no way to get business done. The Republicans will never run out of political capital if they're never forced to spend it. I saw a suggestion that Senate Dems offer to confim Roberts if Bush answers questions about Rove's security clearance and the Downing Street Memo: that should be on the lips of every Senate Democrat who gets on TV within the next month."

Democrats can and should fight both tooth and nail. The majority of the American public are pro-choice, why on earth should we give up on this one.

How about focusing on how Roberts is pro corporation and anti environment?

I totally disagree with you.

[Generator]

17. Good points!

My husband just said this and I can quote him:

That's why people are AFRAID Demo's are soft on terrorism. they don't want somebody who can "<shrug> live with that, we'll try to be reasonable" when we've been attacked.

Fight fight fight. IF you have a something you believe IN, that's what you do. That's the point, isn't it? Is there some other point? To just appease, and look pretty perhaps? That's why Dean gets called out-passion isn't always pretty.

[JuniperLea]

10. hear hear!!

especially this last bit...

"Last but not least, there are people running around savagely attacking other DUers, calling them freepers, issuing "with us or against us" ultimatums, and generally spewing venom whenever they feel threatened. This has to stop. This is the real freeper behavior, the paranoia and assaults against anyone who disagrees with you."


i have personally been singled out as a whipping post more than once while basically posting reworded reiterations of things already posted all over this place. a lot of people sure have their knickers in a bunch right now! eating our own will only give the wingnuts fodder.

in my best bart simpson voice: "QUIT IT!"


i wonder if it's a bi-product of the fact that so much is coming to a head all at once? the frustration that it is so crystal clear that the administration is not only corrupt, but arrogant and bonkers, and yet they are still there?

[BurtWorm]

11. "Dems offer to confim Roberts if Bush answers questions about Rove"

I think something like this is a good idea. Not offer to confirm, but decline to make problems, if they can get a committee with subpoena power to look into DSM. It might be possible.

[KurtNYC]

22. But the OP paradoxically

says both that the Pubs don't need Dem votes to confirm Roberts

AND

that the Dems should "offer to confirm" Roberts if * answers questions about Rove/DSM

???

[BurtWorm]

25. Right. The only way the Dems could "offer to confirm"

is if they actually fillibustered. But they wouldn't be able to fullibuster unless they whipped those "moderates" back into line. How likely is it that Holy Joe would want to hold up sailing Roberts through just to give John Kerry an open shot at Rove? Not very, unfortunately.

[me b zola]

12. 5-4

Yeah, it's not as if Rehnquist is very ill and could *die* anytime soon

I have two Grand-daughters and I'll be damned if I will quietly allow the courts to be stacked with wingers who have an agenda to take away their right to choose. Speaking of agenda....

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. Well, Renquist isn't the problem, since he's firmly in the

'4' group.

But none of them are exactly spring chickens, except Scalia and Thomas, and they are not going anywhere soon. That's 3 of the 4. If any one of the 5 goes in the next 3 yrs, and it is easily possible, bye-bye RvW.

[LeftNYC]

13. While this is politics and not Armageddon...

this does effect the way we, our friends, our family, and the others around us live in this country...As for your first point, here is something from mediamatters.org that might be relevant:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507190003

Public opinion polling has consistently demonstrated that most Americans support Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that established the right to abortion. As a result, conservatives have sought to avoid criticism of a potential nominee's anti-abortion stance by deceptively claiming that Roe is not threatened by the current vacancy on the high court. For example, former White House counsel and Committee for Justice chairman C. Boyden Gray has argued that the Supreme Court "has a 6-3 majority favoring Roe v. Wade, so replacing will not challenge Roe's core."

Such claims understate the potential impact O'Connor's successor could have on the scope of abortion rights. While a majority upholding Roe presumably remains even with O'Connor's departure, Justice Anthony Kennedy, the likely fifth vote against its reversal, has supported significant restrictions on the right to abortion (including restrictions that O'Connor cast the decisive fifth vote to strike down). The New York Times wrote on July 10 that even though many experts agree that the "basic right to abortion, declared in Roe v. Wade in 1973, will survive regardless of who replaces Justice O'Connor, given that the current majority for Roe is 6 to 3," a reshaped Supreme Court could "restrict abortion in significant ways" by "seriously limit the decision's reach and chang the way abortions are regulated around the country."

Kennedy was appointed by President Reagan on February 18, 1988, and drew the ire of conservatives by joining the controlling plurality opinion in the 1992 case Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, which preserved the "essential holding" of Roe. Yet even in Casey, the Court adopted an "undue burden" standard of review that curtailed the broader right defined in Roe and upheld numerous restrictions on the right to abortion in Pennsylvania, including the 24-hour waiting period, informed consent, parental notification requirements, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements on facilities providing abortion services.

More recently, citing Kennedy's decision to join two dissenting opinions in 2000 when the Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska law banning late-term abortions and upheld a Colorado law requiring abortion protesters to keep a specified distance from clinic patients and employees, Time magazine noted on June 29, 2000, that Kennedy "has apparently been overtaken by serious reservations as he considers the future of abortion in America -- leading many to wonder if an anti-abortion plurality could be looming on the horizon."

[Son of California]

14. OK you're right

but I think as more comes out about this guy, the more unsavory he will look to the people of America in general.
yes, the logical point of view is that we would still have the 5-4.
However, we should try our best to turn this nomination into a fight over abortion anyways, it is a losing battle for the Repubs.
American loves an underdog fighting against the odds.
Maybe we can't stop the nomination -but maybe this is the place where Dems grow a pair in the eyes of the average American onlooker and fight upon principle.
I do think we have a chance to tear down this nomination,if we can convince the American people he is a bad choice.
but let me commend you all around on the comments about hyperbole. You are right.

[Lecky]

15. We should be discussing how this gives democrats a political edge

It's most likely Roberts will be confirmed, all the hysteria is not going to stop that. Time to use Bush's unethical pick to our advantage.

When we whine and cry we just look like idiots. Be smart about this!

The majority of Americans are pro-choice...

I smell swing state votes!

[quiet.american]

16. Let's just get back to Rove on the front burner.

Appreciate your "remain calm."

I, for one, am just ready to return Rove to the front burner. It's really ironic how all the blogs and AAR predict that Rove would move out of range once Bush named his nominee, and now they've been talking about almost nothing else but Roberts since last night.

Let's get back to Rove.

[Just Me]

18. Thanks. Makes one go "hmmmm".

It's pretty frustating. But, I guess this too shall pass.

[Catbird]

19. Get all the questions answered

Roberts should answer all the questions put to him during the Senate confirmation process.

Bush should answer all the questions about Rove and the Downing Street Memo. He shouldn't be offered a "deal" to convince him to do this.

There might be some reason to try to put the nomination on hold until Bush answers these questions. But that's not the same as trading a confirmation vote for answers.

There is no reason to trade off one set of questions for another.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. The Supreme Court is not about "politics" and bargaining.

Roberts is 50 years old and will be appointed for his lifetime. I say "will be" because that is probably the case.

That is where we part company.

You rather blithely say that "if abortion isn't federally protected, it's not federally protected." As if removing that protection will have no effect.

"Only decades of extreme rhetoric could equate abortion (I assume you mean abortion 'rights") with personhood." Perhaps you're right. A woman could be forced to give birth and still find a way to lead an acceptable life. Some slaves liked being slaves and found it acceptable. Which is hardly an argument for chattel slavery or the slavery of women to their own bodies.

If staying "grounded in reality" means surrendering to slavery for women in the name of politics and being nice to those who embrace the concept that it's just politics, I regret to inform you that I will have none of it.

"Armegeddon" for you or me? Not likely seeing as I'm male. But, for a woman being forced to resort to a knitting-needle or being forced to give birth, I think that would qualify as "Armageddon".

Feel free to count me among "our wingnuts".

[Bunny]

23. Oh, you're not TOO condescending, are you?

No, I guess when you know everything, and are the very picture of calm, rational thought, you get to be condescending.

It's unfortunate that you see my right to control my body as "extreme rhetoric". Well, your people are in driver's seat now, so I guess that's just my tough shit, ain't it?

[Jersey Devil]

24. "Do try to assimilate that little bit of information"

I agree with your conclusion that Roberts will be approved, but I do not agree with your patronizing and condescending attitude.

Something very big just happened that does not occur every day. It is only natural that we collectively kick it around for a while to see what the best course of action is. To do that we have open and free debate here, sometimes very spirited to be sure, but nonetheless when it is all over some of us will change our minds and we will then all hopefully go forward together.

[The Magistrate]

26. locking

Flame-bait: excellent flame-bait, but flame-bait nonetheless....