Is there any chance - any chance at all - that Roberts can be defeated?

[WilliamPitt]

Republican majority in the Senate.

Even with a filibuster, a significant number of Republicans would have to cross the pond.

Just wondering.

Oh, P.S., anyone who states or infers that I am a 'fake Democrat' or 'Freeper' or whatever can dine on my feces. Anyone who thinks my question isn't important needs to trot down to the Clue Store.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Hey Will.. where ya been? *hugs* Have only seen a couple of posts from you

lately.. about Andy and travelling.

[WilliamPitt]

8. I was in Seattle and then New Hampshire

Got back a little while ago.

[GreenPartyVoter]

11. Are you melting? I think someone stole our Maine weather and swapped

it with Virginia's.

[WilliamPitt]

15. It's better than it was

Friday and Saturday were swamp-air days. It's better today. Seattle was glorious, weather-wise.

[SaveElmer]

2. No...unless

Something very outrageous comes out in the hearings...

There is no way the Democrats would be able to sustain a filibuster.

[MisterLiberal]

122. Cingular

I want the Democrats who say that we should just accept defeat to talk to me a year from now if he's confirmed and tell me they did the right thing by automatically declaring defeat.

[SaveElmer]

170. I tell you what...

I will come back when we have won back the White House, and regained our majorities in Congress.

And of course you are misrepresenting the strategy. We are not advocating simply accepting defeat, we are talking about laying low until the hearings to keep pointless opposition to someone we know very little about so far (though what we do know is negative), off the front pages. The focus now, while we have them on the ropes, is to concentrate the media's attention on the White House thugs running the country into the ground.

When the hearings occur, Democrats need to publicize where this guy is coming from philosophically, but the political reality is, unless something far worse comes up about him than is apparent now, we will not be able to sustain any kind of filibuster, and will look weak and inept trying.

[efhmc]

3. Do I have to answer? My answer is there is no chance in hell. It really

hurts to have to write that. UGH!!!

[Sparkly]

4. Second question...

If he were defeated, is there any chance -- any chance at all -- Chimpy would then nominate someone "moderate?"

[bigtree]

52. not moderate, but likely a known quantity

someone more transparent and centrist. This crap that Roberts is a moderate needs to be the first target of our campaign.

[tjdee]

5. I don't think there is a way.

Basically, I see it as a switch up. Mild conservative for a less mild conservative.

I don't think abortion is in any danger.

[stray cat]

6. Not unless some really nasty surprise about Roberts

Like he has multiple wifes and families at the same time.

[LeftNYC]

7. "dine on my feces"-I love it :)

[tritsofme]

9. I don't see how he could be.

If there is anything about this Roberts guy, it seems he is eminently qualified for the job.

Unless some skeletons come out of his closet I see him getting 70+ votes.

Remember that even Clarence Thomas won confirmation when the Democrats controlled the Senate.

[WilliamPitt]

10. And Scalia was pretty much unanimous

I believe it was 99-0 with one abstain.

[NewJeffCT]

44. the Left was worn out after fighting Robert Bork...

and when the younger & paper trail-less Scalia was nominated, nobody was up for another fight. Just too worn out, no money left to pay Charlton Heston for more ads, etc.

I had thought Bush would follow that route again to make MoveOn, etc "shoot their loads", but he went right out & chose a Scalia-type.

[djg21]

171. Roberts last confirmation was unanimous

That was May 2003 when he was appointed to the DC Cir.

[mitchtv]

12. My guess is No

unless he is incredibly stupid during the hearings. Key senators to watch Spector/Snow /Lieberman/Feinstein

[Goldmund]

13. I've been asking that all afternoon.

People seem to be forgetting that the likelyhood of victory should be one of the main considerations in deciding whether to drain resources on a particular fight.

[mmonk]

14. Don't see how

unless we somehow make it too difficult for Republicans to stay in lockstep with the administration.

[Kraklen]

16. No, it's a pointless fight.

But then so is everything else we do here.

[WilliamPitt]

19. *That* I disagree with

The hearings should be an all-out ball-buster, and his record on everything should be run across the sky in kleig lights.

[Kraklen]

30. That's my point.

Fight like hell but don't pretend you'll see results.

[napi21]

33. I agree Will. I think the Dems should ask EVERY difficult

wuastion they can think of, and demand answers. No, I'm not advocating they treat him disrespectfully, but be real hard asses. I still think he'll be confirmed, and with a fairly high margin, but he shouldn't get a free pass!!!!

[NewJeffCT]

48. I agree as well

Get his position on everything out there and on record. Frame him as a conservative activist who favors big corporations over the little guy.

[leveymg]

43. The Dems should point out the obvious conflict of interest here -

that Bush's SCOTUS appointees may have to sit in judgment over cases involving this Administration. At minimum, the minority leaders need to insist that any nominees confirmed have to recuse themselves from such cases.

Second, I believe we should all be raising hell about granting Bush any judicial appointments at all, until the Plame investigation and prosecution cases are decided. We may well be in a situation akin to that after the convening of the Watergate Grand Jury, with the President an "un-indicted co-conspirator".

The Democratic members need to decide exactly what strategy they will take in case one or more major Administration figures are, in fact, indicted. If there are no indictments, the matter is moot as far as nominations is concerned, but if the Grand Jury does charge Rove and/or Scooter, we should have a clear, unified position staked out.

This case is more serious than Watergate, is it not? Would we let Nixon appoint Supreme Court members in 1974 without a fight?

[tavalon]

140. Is there any legal precedence for that?

I mean, it makes sense to some degree but without precedence it won't happen.

[MisterLiberal]

74. Agreed!

I'm tired of being told:

* "We need to pick our fights"

* "Let's let this one go through to concentrate on something else" (as if we can't walk and chew bubblegum at the same time

* "We have no chance of stopping this candidate"

All I have to say is

DAMN RALPH NADER!

[Walt Starr]

104. Will, that isn't "fighting the nomination"

That's rhetorical posturing.

I support rhetorical posturing by those Democrats who will benefit from it. I further support Democratic Senators supporting the confirmation where they are vulnerable in 2006. We can also bully the Northeastern moderate Republicans into voting against the nomination as well and still use it against them come '06. They are extremely vulnerable now and we can possibly increase our numbers so that after '06, we're in a position to filibuster the moonbat who'll be picked to replace Rhenquist.

But that cannot be considered fighting the nomination. It's taking the lemons we've been handed and making lemonade.

[dogday]

17. I don't see the Party lines crossing of course unless

you want to count our own party. This judge is dangerous.


Get 1 or 2 More Scalia Like Thinkers on the court and they could possibly overturn 100 previous precedents set by the Supreme Court. Put in that context, it will make you think....

[WilliamPitt]

It sucks out loud

but anyone who is shocked by this needs a kick in the chin.

We waved our arms at the Greens and Independents in 2000 and screamed "Supreme Court!"

We did the same in 2004.

Selah.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

27. Oh, but 90,000 Nader votes in Florida didn't make the difference in 2000!

[blindpig]

65. they didn't make a difference in 2004

And what about the many more dems who went for bu$h in 2000?

Do you need a new hobby or something?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

66. Incumbency made the difference in 2004.

Politics is obviously just a hobby for you.

[blindpig]

100. along with a half hearted campaign by Kerry

So explain why the Nader votes were more important than the much greater number of registered democrats who voted for shithead. The Democratic party needs to get its house in order if it expects to attract progressives. The continued drift to the right is unacceptable. This lesser of two evils bs gets old.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

102. Don't like "lesser of two evils"?

Fight to change the system. Fight to make it feasible for third party candidates to win. Fight to remove corporate money from political elections. Fighting those fights does not result in cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Voting for Ralph Nader because you disagree with the system, even when it allows someone completely antithetical to your beliefs to win, is asinine, plain and simple.

[blindpig]

111. if you remember

one of the main reasons for voting for Ralph in 2000 was to get that 5% so that the Greens could get matching funds in the next cycle. That was my primary motivation(SC voter!). That and I find Gore's environmentalism lame: I don't believe it possible to solve our environmental problems and maintain a growth economy. Retrenchment and redistribution will be necessary regardless of how they feel in the board rooms.

[tavalon]

142. But, in 2004

Didn't the vast majority of the Greens and Independents step in line to try to help the common cause of ousting Bush? I know a very few refused to budge but my understanding is that it wasn't anywhere near the numbers who didn't in 2000.

[napi21]

18. Not unless he paid for an abortion, or murdered someone, and

someone has proof!

I just don't see it happening!

[Burma Jones]

20. It's less about defeating him than presenting a clear cogent

argument that he is wrong. Wrong not only because of his animus toward reproductive rights, but also wrong because of his corporatist ways, his exceptionally partisan behavior, his willingness to sacrifice environmental laws at the altar of profit. If he gets confirmed, which I believe he will be, it will be with at least some knowledge that the inevitable American Bhopal will lay partially on his head....

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

32. No one said we shouldn't question and vote against him.

But a protracted filibuster fight is lunacy.

[Burma Jones]

40. Yeah, I have to agree with you

But, surprises often occur in these things.....

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

45. Okay, so I'll give you a best case scenario

We successfully filibuster and force Roberts to withdraw his nomination.

What happens next? Bush nominates ANOTHER guy exactly like Roberts or worse. So what, exactly, did we win? And this is in the absolute BEST case scenario, of which the odds are very slim.

[Burma Jones]

54. Nah, by surprise, I meant something like he's a Pedophile

A filibuster on this guy wouldn't work, too many "centrist"
Democrats would go along with the 'Pukes. Anyway, if a Democratic Senate confirmed Clarence Thomas, there's no way this guy is failing. I think though, we need to make sure that some of the shit he's representing sticks to him....

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

59. well, yeah, of course.

Ask him as many tough questions as possible, but don't bother throwing up any serious roadblocks. It's simply not worth it.

[MisterLiberal]

76. Really?

I think lunacy is allowing a rightwing nutjob into the most powerful federal seat for a minimum THIRTY YEARS is lunacy!

Our GRANDKIDS are probably gonna have to put up with this idiot!

Think about that...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

84. Please, propose a detailed plan on how we can stop his nomination

And then please tell me how we get Bush to not just nominate another wingnut once Roberts has been defeated.

Think about that...

[MisterLiberal]

87. I already did

In another thread here.

Basically, we fight. SHOW the outrage at having such an ideologue forced on us! Publicly call for Republicans to stand for moderation.

Even if we lose, we show the public that we DO STAND for something.

And if we DO win, that will give us political momentum to tell the pRESIDENT that we expect a moderate.

Now, what is your plan?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

91. Part 2 of your plan is the problem.

WE don't get to show the public anything. The media gets to show them whatever they want with regards to our fight. And if you think for one moment there will be kind words spoken, you haven't been watching the news for the last 10 years.

My plan is that Roberts is going to pass one way or another, so ask him as many embaressing questions as humanly possibly, then when a vote is called, cast a "no" vote, and resume the focus on Plamegate, a battle we can win with meaningful results.

[MisterLiberal]

113. So basically grab the KY

It's like you're treating this as something minor.

Do you realize what our nation would be like if we'd had conservative justices in the 60's???

Prayer in school
Abortion
Gay Rights

Think about that for a moment and then try to seriously tell me that we shouldn't spend political capital on this...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

98. What? No response to my plan?

[MisterLiberal]

114. Again

You've spent more time and energy attacking me than your entire plan does toward fighting Roberts.

Sad, sad, sad.

[MisterLiberal]

88. I will be waiting

to hear your highly analytical plan.

If it calls for me to switch to Cingular and ROLL OVER you can forget it, though.

I'm tired of being told that we can't win or that this isn't worth fighting over from people who have already given up.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

93. Perhaps you should wait more than 3 minutes.

Patience, obviously, is not your strong suit.

[MisterLiberal]

110. Actually,

I just figured that if you were going to criticize MY plan that you had one of your own.

Surely you wouldn't attack something without thinking it through.

Come to think about it, you've spent more time and effort attacking ME than you have Roberts.

Don't you HAVE a plan?

If not, what are you suggesting? We grab the KY?

[blogslut]

21. Two years experience as a judge...

...doesn't seem like very much for the highest court in the land.

What are the requirements for SCOTUS appointees?

[mmonk]

26. I think we can at least score points

with that.

[BrotherBuzz]

82. Earl Warren had Zero experience as a judge

Yet he hit the ground running. Fortunately he ran in a direction that I approved of. I think the biggest requirement for SCOTUS appointees is to be nominated. The second hurdle is to be approved

[tritsofme]

143. I think he is extremely qualified.

Though I disagree with his legal philosophy.

He has worked at high levels of the DoJ in the Reagan/Bush41 administrations and he argued 39 cases before the SCOTUS in private practice, which I find to be pretty extraordinary.

I don't think we'd get very far calling Roberts unqualified.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. No chance in hell.

And thank you, once again, for being a voice of reason. Sometimes you need a fucking jackhammer to get through some of the skulls around here.

[MisterLiberal]

78. You're WRONG

There is ALWAYS a chance.

We spend too much time analyzing, thinking and wondering.

WE NEED TO GET BACK TO FIGHTING!

Is there ANYONE here who thinks that we can analyze our way back to power????

ANYONE???

FIGHT!!!!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

80. Yes, because we can blindly flail our way back into power.

That strategy always works!

[MisterLiberal]

83. Gee Vash

I guess we'll just organize clubs to analyze our way back to power instead.

You go ahead, sit at home and think.

Analyze.

Pontificate.

The rest of us will roll up our sleeves and make a difference.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

You go right ahead and do that.

The world needs both kinds of people.

[MisterLiberal]

89. Well?

What's your plan?

Surely your highly analytical mind has some kind of plan, right?

Other than sitting there declaring defeat in advance, I mean...

[yvr girl]

23. Checks and balances can only do so much good

when one side has all the cards.

[Midlodemocrat]

24. I would hope so, but I wonder what it would take.

If he is proven to be so stridently pro-life, would some of the more moderate rethugs feel conflicted by that and cross the aisle? Is there a chance of that?

Americans, I think, by a reasonable majority still support choice, so if it doesn't play well in Peoria maybe that bodes well for us.

[WilliamPitt]

The only shot

might be to push hard on the GOP moderates in the Northeast. I don't know if the math is there, tho.

[Midlodemocrat]

34. I agree with you there.

Certainly not going to get any no votes from the guys in my state.

How ya doin' Will?

[WilliamPitt]

71. Good

Getting back to normal.

Good thing there's plenty to do.

[radio4progressives]

147. I called Senator Spector's Office (among others)

I took the day off from work just to make phone calls to the judiciary committee members - mostly the dems, but a called two republican offices. Senator Spector and Orin Hatch.

The staffer at Hatch's office started arguing with me regarding my claims that Roberts is anti-citizen, anti-environment and pro very big business. Asked if i was reading People for the American Way or MoveOn. I said i got my information from other sources, such as the Center for American Progress which also has links to court clerks and read of his opinions and decisions there.

I think there is some hope with Senator Spector. don't know for sure.. didn't try any others except for dems.

[msongs]

159. a public relations campaign showing americans roberts history/views n/t

[seabeyond]

25. depends on his crap that got bush to nominate him. on our side

bush hires horrible people. bush is dishonest in all things. i can see that possibly something may be found on this guy. with being involved in election 2000 and possibly other areas, may be able to find something on him. outside of that i dont see it happening. they had thomas in crosshairs. and still the guy didnt go down

[MsTryska]

28. there may be a small chance.....

check out my thread here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...



i think if we soften things up, by working the rove scandal and getting that as much press as possible - we might be able to set up for a knock down.

[NoPasaran]

29. Maybe if he eats a puppy in the hearing room

This is a battle we lost in November. I hope that he undergoes rigorous questioning, but I expect he will be confirmed.

[leveymg]

64. Did you see those bulges in his jacket pocket?

[Son of California]

31. HAHA

sure its uphill. But the American people like those who are willing to fight a losing fight for the principle of the matter.
Cyrano said, "I have never needed the hope of victory to spur me on to fight!"
So yeah, valid concern -but if public pressure is enough -and we can dig up some weird unsavory sounding stuff about the guy- we can get a few Moderate Repub Senators to come over I think, but no matter what, politically, the American people will respond positively to Dems standing on principles here -I think even a fillibuster. Let's watch the polls and see......

This Roberts is far far far Right. We should stand on principle and fight him.
I think he is goofy looking and the American people will instinctually want to reject him, we just need to give them good reasons, like he is a RW soldier, he will try to overturn Roe v. Wade etc etc etc.
and no, you are not a freeper in my mind, this is an important question.
I think we can win this one, mostly because I don't think this guy is as likable as people say, and given some time, we can frame him as a total born-again nut.

[BeHereNow]

35. The situation is indeed, DIRE.

However, we must not let it happen without
screaming bloody murder.
BHN

[ewagner]

36. Already there are two Dems

"off the reservation". Lieberman, who claims Roberts was one of those he told Rover would be acceptable to him, and Jeff Sessions, who thinks Roberts is a "brilliant" choice.

Given that there are probably a few more lurking out there I don't think we could sustain a filibuster even if we wanted to...

soooooo..

maybe we can bruise him up a little but I'm not sure he can be defeated unless the stuff coming out of Dailykos turns out to be the same Roberts....

[KC21304]

41. Jeff Sessions is Republican Senator from ALA

and as conservative as they come.

[ewagner]

56. Sorry.........my error......n/t

[KC21304]

166. No problem, ewagner.

Too bad everyone can't have nice Democratic Senators like we do here in Wisconsin, right ?

[peacebaby3]

123. Jeff Sessions is my Senator and one of the biggest POS Repukes ever!

Sorry, I almost had heart failure thinking about Sessions being a Dem. LOL He was state AG before he became a senator and then had Bill (William) Pryor, his apprentice, take his place as AG. Yep, same William Pryor who now sits on the 11th circuit for life after the filibuster deal! Talk about two big pieces of walking scum. They smiled (like *) when they got to execute someone. Sick bastards!

[tavalon]

146. Neither Lieberman nor Sessions are Democrat

Granted, Lieberman has the designation of being Democrat but saying it's so don't make it so in his case. Ignore the designation and look at the acts. He is a Republican and will almost always toe the party line. He isn't even a wavering Republican, he's hard core.

My thought is that we have five weeks to dig up dirt on him. Yeah, they've picked someone who will be hard to dig up dirt on but hey, we never thought this would be easy, did we? And, we pick through his life with a fine tooth comb while we simultaneously keep slamming the Rove thing home. Hopefully, within the next five weeks, the constituency will be so disgusted with this administration that we may be able to influence a few Republicans who want off of the sinking ship. Yeah, there are a lot of maybes there but we've worked miracles with less before.

[KC21304]

37. Some very good comments about this on KOS.

http://armando.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/20/14513/9419

[DoYouEverWonder]

38. Of course he can be defeated

but not with wimps like the ones responded to this thread.

Bush made a big mistake by coming out too early with his nomination. Congress is on recess for the next five weeks, which gives the rest of us plenty of time to dig around into this guys past, which is already turning out to be interesting. If Bu$h didn't need a distraction so bad, he should have been waited one more month and then rush his confirmation through as quickly as possible.

So far in less then 24 hours we are finding out that he was a key member of the Bush 2000 Recount Team, which at the least proves he is a political partisan activist, not a good combo for a Supreme Court judge. Plus Kos is working on a Ollie North / Iran-Contra connection. Possibly something involving their funding.

I'm sure between now and when Congress reconvenes we can find a few more pieces of spagetti to sling at this fellow and at the least, make things difficult.

[tavalon]

148. My thought exactly

It took us less than 5 weeks to tease out the Gannon/Guckert thing.

And being in the walking and chewing gum cadre, I believe we can do this while still nailing Rove, et al, to the wall.

I think it's way, way too early to be deciding if this is a win or a lose. It's like we're on the up ramp to a roller coaster - that's too early to know what you're up against. But it is time to prepare.

Hopefully, we'll get the gnawing our legs and gnashing our teeth part done relatively soon so we can stay focused. That is yet another reason they handed us an amazing gift. Granted, they didn't hand it to us out of altruism but as an attempt to save Rove, but whatever, we'll take the gift of time and run with it.

[The Magistrate]

39. Probably Not, Mr. Pitt

It seems to me the confirmation is assured.

But a fight should be made, to raise the maximim stink, and inflict what wounds can be managed on the regime and the nominee.

The best line of attack seems to me to be the fellow's participation in the "re-count" portion of the '00 Coup. Sharp questioning from DEmocratic Senatots on this line would have good effect in the current climate of scandal and mistrust, by reminding people of the basic illegitimacy of the regime. Questions on how he could rule fairly on cases involving the administration and its policies, questions on how he viewed the decision that sealed the '00 Coup, would be very useful.

The fact that he ruled against U.S. servicemen seeking recompense from Iraq for torture while P.O.W.s in the '91 conflict can be a brutal and brutally effective propaganda line here.

Queries about his views of the War Crimes Act of 1996 would be useful as well: sooner or later, charges are going to be brought against officials of this regime under it....

[WilliamPitt]

58. Agreed and agreed and agreed.

[ibegurpard]

72. Correct

He'll probably be confirmed but I don't want to see an "AYE" vote for him behind a single Democrat's name.

[tavalon]

149. Well, if you consider Lieberman to be a Democrat (I don't)

you are already set up for a disappointment. Lieberman will be following his other party line.

[G_j]

92. absolutely

I agree with all you have said. My next question would be, is there a possibility the Dems will do a thorough job and ask these questions?

[The Magistrate]

96. That Is Beyond Me, Sir

Some may well. People indicating desire and support for such questions might have some influence in the matter....

[proud patriot]

42. For me it doesn't matter , but I assume he will be approved

I hope the woods were restful for you .

my thoughts on this matter can be found here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[patcox2]

46. There's always the possibility of a skeleton in the closet.

Remember Kimba Smith? Nannygate? There is always a possibility his college roommate will out him as a cross-dressing devil worshipper. But barring that, not likely.

[ArkDem]

47. We need to get those republican sentators ip addresses and

hit them with the ram!

[Kathy in Cambridge]

63. that's illegal

but thanks for your quality response...

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

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

[bigtree]

49. I dunno

What do we know about this man that hasn't made the press yet? You never know what will catch the public's ire. The nomination could be withdrawn if we hit some deep dirt.

This may not be analagous, but did anyone predict Nannygate? What about the pot smoker? Who knew that would knock him out? We just never know until we try.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. Probably no chance. Which doesn't mean they shouldn't fight it.

Complete with the "wait 'til it really counts" unused filibuster.

Sometimes you just have to do what's right rather than collaborate with the fascists.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

61. To what end though?

What do you expect to gain from that?

[bigtree]

68. At least folks will know where the opposition to Bush is come voting time.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

73. We told them about this in 2000 and 2004.

It didn't work. People didn't care.

Oh, and we're not running against Bush again. That's a very important point.

[bigtree]

117. midterms

the most motivated voters participate. The ones who vote against something usually dominate the midterms.

We may not prevail. For the life of me though, I can't see any benefit in spending your time hammering folks here with this line about the certain defeat and how much you think voters don't care. If you want to sit on your ass and watch, fine. But I don't understand the motivation of folks harping in with despair and doom in threads designed to motivate DU'ers to action.

I don't need your reality check. I need a hand in helping our elected reps, our fellow Democrats, and others fullfill the responsibilities of the opposition. If, at the end of the process, we haven't achieved our ultimate goal, I believe that at least we will have generated more contempt for this administration among potential midterm voters. I don't know what your plan is to attract votes, but I think demonstrating that the Democrats can mount a vigorous opposition would be a good start.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

119. But the average moderate voter doesn't care about this.

If they did care about the Supreme Court, it would've been compelling during the Presidential elections. They will care about treason, however. They will care about being lied to. THOSE are the fights we need to get in on.

[bigtree]

120. They seem to care about the threat to Roe v. Wade

And, who said that we abandoned the Plame fight? Do you know who the ultimate target of Fitz will be? I don't. That fight is hopefully being waged under wraps. That's a good thing in this case I believe. If the case bears fruit then there will be indictments. What's to stop you from working on both?

Is it true that all the administration have to do to throw you off is pile on more than one major issue? Or, can you do more than one thing at a time?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

174. We're not talking about OUR ability to work two issues.

We're talking about an ADD society that is incapable of focusing on more than one thing at a time.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

90. What end? Just doing the right thing is an end in itself.

Gain? I'm male, so I expect to "gain" nothing.

What "end" are you seeking? What "gain" do you expect?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

105. I seek us returning to power.

I seek tangible victories.

I fight to WIN the right thing, not just talk about the right thing.

I fight not to pay lip service and pontificate on what we should or shouldn't do. I fight for the power to IMPLEMENT the right thing.

THAT is what I expect and THAT is the thought behind every political decision that should be made.

This is politics. This isn't happy hour for the philosophy and ethics club.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

115. How? By abandoning what the party stands for and pandering?

Wanna win "tangible victories"? You want "power to implement". You want to play politics to gain that power?

Nifty. What then is to differentiate you from the Republicans and pantywaist Democrats whose only goal is to get and retain power at any cost?

You want real change? Then work to toss out the establishment "politics as usual", corporate, one party state.

Pandering sure did work well for Gore and Kerry and all those "practical" Dems in 2002.

[tavalon]

150. You know

The last five years have taught me something very important. It's the same thing that I hope I would have learned had I been in Nazi Germany. It isn't the odds of winning the fight or even the likely endpoint that matters. What matters is doing the right thing.

When the only thing left is the fall, it matters how you fall (paraphrased and stolen from somebody).

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

175. We're far, FAR from that point.

We are NOT hopeless, by any means.

[Jersey Devil]

51. Sure, if we can turn up a photo of him screwing a chicken

No chance otherwise.

[tavalon]

151. We have five weeks and a hell of a lot of blogosphere power

Let's start looking at the chicken coops!

[Zorra]

53. Excluding a miracle, no. But does that mean we have to smile, bend over

take it up the ass, and then say thanks for the memories?

When you quit fighting is when you become a punk.

[WI_DEM]

55. only way he can be defeated is if they find something very damaging

otherwise Dems plus Jeffords (if they are united) is still just 45 votes and we need six votes to defeat it--at this point I don't see it happening.

[tavalon]

152. What about the sinking ship phenom?

If within the next five weeks, things get much worse for the Bush administration, there may well be some Repugs who want to save themselves. Sure, it's a long shot but given what's been happening these last couple of weeks, not without some possibility.

[necso]

57. Little enough chance,

but one never knows.

A "miracle happened" at the Battle of Okehazama.

[smartvoter]

60. No, but we can beat them over the head with it.

Let's see, the White House was in deep trouble for lying to the public about its involvement in intentionally blowing the cover of an undercover agent, so it dropped Clement, and floated a right wing hack with only two years worth of experience as a judge in order to create a fight over the nominee and away from the actions of its staff.

This is ripe for continuing the exposure of their corruption. At least, that's my two cents (though it's not always worth the copper...)

[alcibiades_mystery]

62. The only winning strategy

at this point is to turn the public conversation to the real consequences of voting for conservative republicans. That is, you give Roberts a relatively hard time in confirmation hearings, but really focus on getting the dialogue opened: he's gonna get confirmation, but this is the type of thing you get when you vote for these people. That's the move, and the winning move for 2006 and 2008. Because people generally still support all that legislation that a moderate interpretation of the commerce clause allowed. The fucking Endangered Species Act saved the bald eagle, fer chrissakes: can people really be against an interpretation of the commerce clause that allows that? The Clean Air Act saves lives, children's lives. Can people really be against an interpretation of the commerce clause that allows that? And, of course, 70% still think that abortion should be legal and available. Drum on that issue. Elections aren't about "moral values." They're about concrete consequences in your lives. That's the "fight" we can win, not this inane filibuster or bust option that seems to have gripped certain DU factions

[Lecky]

103. DING DING DING we have a winner here!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

107. Thank you! Brilliant post!

[emulatorloo]

127. thanks for your post n/t

[tavalon]

153. I agree with all of this with one exception

We need to frame what's happening to these people, these concrete consequences, as coming from a party that pays lip service to "Moral Values" but in fact, has neither. Then we need to move ourselves back into the values angle. Hell, we were doing really important values work for a long time before the Repugs framed us out of it.

We're the party that protects the little guy, that helps the little guy help himself and so on.

[Zorra]

158. Good post.

Wage a guerrilla war. Fight on your terms and minimize your losses.

But we really do have to fight. Turn this nomination around and use it against them as much as possible. Paint Roberts as the fascist that he is, publicize every shortcoming he has as much as is possible, and try to make Bu*h look like an extremist lunatic for even considering nominating anyone so radically partisan and unworthy. But every Dem legislator must vote against him as a matter of conscience. He is, after all, undeniably, a horrible choice for a Supreme Court Justice.

I really hope our Democratic legislators don't simply roll over on this and say. But we don't want to expend all of our energy in a one battle that we almost certainly can not win, barring a miracle

[Walt Starr]

67. Well, there might be some pictures of him naked

with a live boy or a dead girl.

Barring that, no. There is no chance whatsoever to defeat this nomination.

If we did defeat it, Rove would put up a moonbat that makes Roberts look like Ginsberg.

[barb162]

69. the NE Republicans... if they get together with the Dems

[Douglas Carpenter]

70. any reasonable person operating in reality has to asked that question

I suspect, it will take a little time to answer. In the mean-time-there is nothing else to do than to make it clear to the public that he is an activist-judge outside the mainstream and corporatist-special-interest lawyer. Perhaps, just perhaps we might see a change in public attitude once the real John Roberts is exposed to the public. There is no doubt, it is not going to be easy.

[tavalon]

154. Activist Judge

is a very good framing point.

The neocons have been slamming that idea for a while. Average people have a pretty good idea that that isn't good. Give him the label via media and we've got a much better chance. Yeah, the media isn't our friend even barring what's happened in the last few weeks but we've forced them to do their job before and we can do it again.

[theboss]

75. Not with the deal of 14 in place

I just don't think Roberts is going to fit the profile of a radical. He doesn't have enough of a record to attack.

I think cloture is easy for the Repubs. I don't see any of the 7 breaking ranks. Byrd may as well since he's on record in support of more conservative judges.

[Generator]

145. How ironic if you are correct as you may well be

Will Pitt's take on that: "We just saved Roe v Wade." I guess not huh?Hmmm seems all we do is capitulate and call it the best we can do.

I just realized why this thread bugs me so much. Winning is not the point. Amazing that is all the Republicans care about: winning (whatever that prize may be) at all costs. Is that the point? Is politics just a game or is it something more?

So in essence if we can't win, why play? Indeed. Imagine doing the right thing and knowing it's enough because when the deck is stacked that's what you do.

The question is the wrong one. I was wondering what Will Pitt would come out with. Defeatism again. No we can't win. Does saying we can win make it so? No..but when you start with the premise that we can't win: as was the deal with the 14: you have stacked the deck against yourself.

[understandinglife]

77. Perhaps, by focusing on certain issues, we can cause him to 'regretfully

... inform the President that I have decided to withdraw.'

Issues that may be available to bring enough heat on him to do just that include his civil rights and environment record, in addition to his right to chose record, coupled with what may be able to be uncovered regarding Iran-Contra and Bush 2000 recount.

Background info like the following give reason to bring the heat to the guy:

While working under Presidents Reagan and Bush, Mr. Roberts supported a hard-line, anti-civil rights policy that opposed affirmative action, would have made it nearly impossible for minorities to prove a violation of the Voting Rights Act and would have “resegregated” America’s public schools. He also took strongly anti-choice positions in two Supreme Court cases, one that severely restricted the ability of poor women to gain information about abortion services, and another that took away a key means for women and clinics to combat anti-abortion zealots.

<clip>

Interestingly, he advanced interpretations of both the Takings and Contracts Clauses that went against long-standing precedent and explicitly rejected “plain language,” or literal interpretation of the Constitution’s language.

<clip>

Recent statements by Roberts prior to his nomination also serve to belie assertions by the Bush Administration and other supporters that he is not an extremist and would not act as
an ideologue if confirmed to the federal bench. When asked in 2000 for his opinion of the Rehnquist Supreme Court, which has been characterized by many legal scholars as the most right-wing and activist in decades,45 Roberts stated, “I don't know how you can
call court conservative . . . .”46 And when asked specifically about the 1999-2000 Supreme Court term, a term in which the Court rendered numerous highly controversial decisions,47 Roberts said that “taking this term as a whole, the most important thing it did was make a compelling case that we do not have a very conservative Supreme Court . . . .”48

<clip>

John Roberts’ legal career and professional writings reveal that he is out of the mainstream in his legal views in a number of areas, most prominently civil rights and the right to choose. His record as a member of the Bush and Reagan administrations reflects opposition to the rights of women and minorities, as well as a restrictive view of the proper role of federal courts in protecting the environment and the rights of criminal defendants. His comments about the Rehnquist Court reveal Roberts’ extremist ideology, a view confirmed by his membership in and connections to ultra-conservative legal groups.

More, including the referenced footnotes, at:
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/John...

Bush rushed. That's our first tactical advantage.

Second tactical advantage is the guy has hardly any bench experience and has been a rabid partisan spanning more than 20 years. Dig for the dirt. Given his extremist idealogue attitude, so well recorded in his comments about the Rehnquist Supreme Court one can expect to find stuff that might sustain a public outcry that could force him to withdraw.

Fighting to save our Constitution and our dignity as a Nation does require multi-tasking; let's send this dude back to private practice while we force Bush to resign and get a stack of indictments filed against as many of the neoconsters as possible.

And, then, instead of resting, let's make sure pardons like the one Mr. Iran-Contra Abrams got, don't ever happen again.


Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[converted_democrat]

79. Don't anyone yell at me too hard over my answer, okay?????

I think we could win. I think it would be hard, but I think it could be done.

The "fight" for Roberts won't really "start" for 5 another five weeks due to congressional break. If we could draw out the progress just another 4 weeks on top of that for a total of 9-10 weeks from now, it would coordinate wonderfully with the end of the grand jury session. Indictments from "treason gate" could come as early as tomorrow, but chances are they won't be here till October, when the Grand Jury session is over, about 9-10 weeks from now. If we could stall off until then, we could be looking at a whole new political climate. No "American" would allow Bush to have his SC pick, if he is involved and indicted in "treason gate." Hell, even if it's "only" Rove that's indicted we could still be looking at the "momentum" we need politically to swing things our way. If we could just stall off until indictments are handed down, we could get momentum back on our side to get what we want.

[David Zephyr]

81. No, because Harry Reid is anti-choice.

That's why there will be no filibuster. Won't happen. Reid will not let it happen.

[evil eggplant]

85. nope (sigh) n/t

[King Coal]

86. Yes Will, there is a chance. Maybe a very good chance.

But it will involve something you haven't considered. Do you want to shop for a clue? It's really quite obvious how he could be defeated. Well, not really obvious. But not obscure either.

[WilliamPitt]

99. Illuminate me.

[King Coal]

116. Prevarication, Will.

The ol' dilly-dallying hedge to beat around the Bush. Stall. Evade. Time is on our side. The longer we can put this off the more help we will get from the Rove scandal. If you want to get Republicans to cross the pond, the best way is to get them to jump ship, Will. If the fact that we went to war based on wicked lies that were told to line the pockets of "evil-doers" becomes common knowledge accepted by the majority of the population, don't you think there could be a good chance? I do.

[WilliamPitt]

118. And how do we do that?

[tavalon]

155. We do every thing we can to keep him in committee

for as long as possible. Then we continue that out on the floor. Call it the Bolton Manuever.

We try to run out the clock until the indictments come down. Then it will be a free for all in which Roberts will be off the front page and off the schedule for ...........?

[theboss]

177. That seems incredibly risky politically

I don't think the public cares too much about appeals court appointments. But pulling parliamentary nonsense on a Supreme Court nominee may be seen as more of a travesty.

It even makes me a little uncomforable, and I'm pretty sure I don't want Roberts.

[donco6]

133. And even if we derail this nomination, Bush has many years

left. Do we do that for four years? Do we wait for an even worse candidate?

[clovis29]

136. Huh? You want to lie?

That is what BushCo* does!! What do you want to lie about? The truth is enough to at th every least make our point about Roberts and, if handled skillfuly, gain us important political momentum.

[Lecky]

94. Nope, Roberts will be confirmed...BUT

Democrats should be thinking strategically instead of going into hysterics.

The majority of Americans are pro-choice. How can this help us win elections?

[rinsd]

95. It will take a dead girl or a live boy (nt)

[Lecky]

97. WilliamPitt is not a 'fake Democrat' but a smart one.

He is right.

We all need to think about this in a more strategic manner...

[donco6]

131. Strategy, schmategy . . .

. . . we just need to FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT, FITHG. . . FIDHGS . . . DKFJLS D. . . whatever.

Jeez. Trying to talk strategy here is like offering broccoli to 3rd graders. Roberts is a total lock and there's no point in wasting time even trying to fight it. We should focus our efforts on the fight we know we have a good chance of winning.

[Lecky]

161. Yeah emotionally driven ideological rants are always effective

Especially on the Senate floor...



If anyone can find a reason that Roberts should not be confirmed besides the fact he happens to be a pro-life conservative I'm all ears.

[Armstead]

101. Maybe, maybe not. .....But that is not what matters

The Democrats should FIGHT it.

Roberts represents everything we are supposedly against, and he represents a threat to everything we supposedly believe in.

You, of all people, should support the idea that it is the opposition that is important, not the assurance of victory.

If we keep rolling over on everything we can;t win at this point, we might as well stop pretending any of this matters at all.

[cmd]

106. No - keep up our fight with Rove and DSM

That's a war we can win.

[tavalon]

156. And we can't do some closet searching in the ensuing five weeks?

And we can't also put pressure on the confimation committee to stall this (like we did with Bolton). And we can't try to stop this from happening (like we did with Bolton) while all the while keeping up our fight with Rove et. al.?

An opposition party must fight on many levels, many fronts at all times. Hopefully, after we get done gnashing our collective teeth, we will still have a month to work this.

I have hope that this can be a major victory for our side. I have less hope that we can actually keep him off the court, but you see, the two are not mutually exclusive.

[cmd]

163. I don't want to see the Rove/? thing dropped by the media

Bush made the announcement now to get the heat off the WH. My priority is to keep the heat on. We can handle more than one project at a time. The media can't. Without them we lose.

[tavalon]

172. Very good point

We need to keep them on track, true enough. We can walk and chew gum at the same time but the same doesn't apparently hold true for them.

[progressoid]

108. Depends on how clean his closets are.

But I'm betting they have been doing background checks on potential candidates for the last 4-5 years and he passed the test. If he has a skeletons, they are minor or well hidden.

Sadly, he'll be confirmed.

Hey - wasn't the filibuster/nuclear option deal supposed to be our great tool here? Hmmm.

[catmandu57]

109. Sure there's a chance

The man is too young, our senators here will tell us to fuck off, smile then vote to confirm, but the people here in missouri, values voters are getting a very bad taste in their mouthes after electing baby blunt to the governorship.
That may be a factor here, I certainly intend not to just roll over, fucknutz* may get a victory, but it's not going to come cheap, and there is five weeks to dig something up.

[samsingh]

112. yes, momentum may build

its happened that way with bolten

[_testify_]

124. I posted this in Skinner's thread earlier

Here's what I think:

Roberts is most definitely a scumsucking idealogue who obviously does not have the depth of judicial experience one would presume necessary for a SCOTUS nomination. His participation in the 2000 debacle is icing on his anti-choice cake. Incidentally, I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.

VERSUS

Every action by the current residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is a cold, calculated one that we must view from all angles before knocking our own teeth out with a savage kneejerking. This nomination serves to cloud the current PR disaster gathering around the White House. I think it's obvious they want us to gnash our teeth and pull our hair because they can depend on the MSM covering that rather than Rove's fat quivering, pale ass.

SO HERE'S WHAT WE DO!

Our focus *should* remain on destroying Bush's credibility through the DSM & traitorgate, followed by pinning the nearly 1800 dead US citizens on his simpleton ass and having him impeached. Not even the nomination of Ann Coulter to SCOTUS should not sway us from that path.
Now, that does not mean we should allow Mr. Roberts a painless ride into judicial history. Even if we cannot muster the votes to defeat him (which we probably can't), we ought to fling as much shit as we can, because SOMETHING might stick...and that something MIGHT be enough to derail his nomination. Remember, this vote will be coming at the same time Fitzgerald indicts Cheney and Rove. If Bush's SCOTUS nominee is found to have a penguin fetish around the same time, we'll be swearing in Skinner before you can say 'OMFG it's pronounced noo-cleer'.

Lastly, don't depend on our Senators to do this for us. They're embattled, desperate, and politically clumsy. We need to crash google in our search for ammunition. WE ARE THE ONES WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR.

[clovis29]

165. I think the DSM is no help to us anymore

When they revealed it was a reconstruction from memory, the MSM abandoned it, despite what it revealed about what was going on

I think we need to focus our efforts on using the Roberts nomination to garner political strength and momentum. Make them use their support to give conceptual concessions so we can quote them for the '06 and '08 elections and get our strength up.

[bloom]

125. I think the more democrats that vote against him the better

whether he is defeated or not.


I hate it when there are these people who represent corporations - the energy companies,for instance - and not us - who get nearly unanimous votes.

[GOPisEvil]

126. Can we win? Maybe not. Is this a fight worth fighting? Absolutely.

Go through this guy's professional life with a finer-than-fine toothed comb. Ask the tough questions. If he's a partisan hack first and jurist second, expose that, and take your chances.

[suffragette]

130. And who knows what dandruff might turn up in that comb.

[_testify_]

128. you heard it here first...

penguin-fucker.

I'm not saying who...but c'mon, isn't it obvious?

[MidnightWind]

132. Some people say. . . .

LOL! Love it.

Seriously though, my response is: No. Unless something like penguin-fucking comes up. I think that our resources would be better utilized elsewhere, possibly with the next nominee. What if we waste all our cash with this nomination only to see them nominate a very extreme fundie the next go-round? What then? Meanwhile, we've wasted our prime opportunity to sink RoveCo. I don't necessarily think we should roll over and play dead but I'm not convinced that this is THE battle we should be gearing up for at this time and place.

[donco6]

129. No. eom

[oasis]

134. Put the Roberts "debate" to rest and let's get back to Rove/Plame. Bush

tossed the Roberts nomination in at this time to cool down the flames that were curling around Rove's ass.

Chimpy's going to get him anyway, so toss them this bone sooner rather than later.

[meppie-meppie not]

139. are you saying that Dem's don't have the ability to handle more

than one issue at a time? If so I couldn't disagree with you more. Both issues are of paramount importance and should be addressed like tigers on a carcass. Will the elected Democrats have the balls to counter Robert's life time appointment is another question and I highly doubt they will.

[oasis]

169. Dems can handle a full plate. The corporate media's minutiae pile on the

Roberts nomination will suck all of the oxygen out of the room.

DU Dems won't appear on the Sunday talk shows. Elected Democrats will be forced to talk about the Roberts/SCOTUS distraction.

[meppie-meppie not]

176. no they don't have to be forced! all they have to say to the first

Robert's question is "the hearings will determine" and from there they can say "but the question about our leadership in the WH blah blah blah..." and keep parroting talking points about Rove and national security just like chicken man (Scotty) does and the rest of the repricks do on anything their asses are itchy about ...but no the Dem's won't ...

[kohodog]

135. It may take a French Fry

Or some other skeleton we don't know about. He was approved 99-0 by the senate so it will be a real uphill battle. That doesn't mean we shouldn't look for weak points in his resume and exploit them though. Personally I think he's a stealth candidate and will be more reactionary if he gets to SCOTUS. He's obviously smart enough to handle the clowns in the senate, but his record isn't out yet. His work with Jeb in 2000 scares the hell out of me though. We're in for a tough ride.

[me b zola]

137. I believe there is a chance that he could be defeated

Here is a bare-bones time line of questionable events:

~2000 Roberts works as a republican *activist* in the Florida recount.

~2003 Roberts is appointed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals

~2004 Roberts as a lobbiest donates 80,000 to the bush/cheney campaign



Important questions raised by the above timetable:

~As a political activist, doesn't this raise the possiblility that he will *legislate from the bench* ?

~Are federal employees allowed to be paid lobbiests?

~Isn't it a conflict of interest for a sitting federal judge to lobby Congress?




The more these points are discussed, the dirtier the */cheney team appears. All but the die-hard bush-bots are now regretting their voting for bush.

The above points could well derail this nomination.

The above points may expose more illegal activity by this corrupt administration.

[meppie-meppie not]

138. nope, none at all because the Democrats have no spine

[noiretextatique]

141. don't jump the gun...a lesson you of all people should have learned by now

it's too soon to predict anything. roberts may have a secret or two these arrogant assholes didn't bother to find out about.

[realFedUp]

144. We should use the whole toolbox this time

Unfortunately we have to not only convince
Dem Senators who know better, but we have
the added challenge of changing the minds
of those 14 "moderates" to move to filibuster.
I hate that deal...so unfair to half this
country.

I don't know the answer yet, but gathering
the truth about Roberts is certainly first.

[Cocoa]

157. yes there's a chance

it hasn't even started yet, anything could happen.

[gulfcoastliberal]

160. Filibuster, filibuster, filibuster

It's the only hope. Let em go nuke it - one day they will regret it. No more mealy-mouthed compromises.

[two gun sid]

162. I feel there is not much chance...

of defeating Roberts' nomination and confirmation. It's a damn shame too. I think Roberts confirmation is the death knell of Roe and The New Deal programs.

[geomon666]

164. Probably not

Wasn't that 'deal' great?

[Zomby Woof]

167. Although I figure his odds are good...

I am bloodthirsty, and will whet my appetite on this feast. So I have no plan or idea on IF he can be defeated or HOW, but I sure as hell woke up and want to scrap. I think we will be most effective when the hearings are underway, in any event.

If we can get the majority of the Senate in '06, and Rehnquist holds on to the seat of his decrepit shit-smeared robe until after then, we could have one helluva fight for his seat. Worst-case scenario is Chief Justice Scalia, but potentially mitigated by some Democratic presidential appointments between 2009-2017.

That's also the best-case scenario, come to think of it.

[shugah]

168. it doesn't matter

your question doesn't matter. it's principle time. we all have to find a way to sleep at night and i know i won't be able to for all the nights this man may be on the SC until i die if i don't try. whatever the outcome, we have to try.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

173. Barring Any Serious Revelations He Will Get At Least Eighty Votes

Don't forget he was vetted by the FBI and Senate in 03 before going on the DC bench and was confirmed with over ninety votes...

These are the consequences of losing elections...

I fucking hate losing....

[theboss]

178. That's the pickle we are in, ain't it?

If you don't control the Presidency and you don't control the Senate and you don't control the House....it's a pretty difficult road.

[donheld]

179. We just have to do the best we can you freeper you

http://www.cluestore.com/