Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why are so many willing to roll over for this nomination?

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
 
smartvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 03:59 PM
Original message
Why are so many willing to roll over for this nomination?
Seriously, he's anti-choice, worked with Starr, is relatively inexperienced as a judge, was on the legal team the killed the recount in 2000.

Why would we roll over for this guy? I don't get it. Am I missing something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. The Dem in Congress are being awfully quiet...that scares me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mistress Quickly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
2. 30 years people!
That's what we're looking at with him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JHB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. It's a deliberate strategy by the conservatives...
Age was one of the big things with Thomas too, and it's not an accident.

The conservatives have developed a deliberate strategy of naming relatively young judges so they can maximize "their guys'" time on the bench. If nothing else, this guy's age is a signal flare that * is following the Federalist Society's playbook on this, and they're not looking for another Souter.

Clinton nominated judges whose names were suggested to him by Orrin Hatch. Let * follow THAT precedent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Son of California Donating Member (467 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
3. DAMNIT!
the Repubs always nail us with this! that we are wusses and scared to fight and not willing to stand on principle.
this is our moment to prove them wrong!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smartvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #3
19. Agreed. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
4. there is always a bunch on here that want us to shut up and sit
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 04:18 PM by jonnyblitz
down, everytime there is an anti-war protest or an event where one should take a stand they chime in. they live in constant fear of pissing off the block of swing voters in the "center" (i use that word losely) who they presume to be prissy and easily offended by a raised voice or people with conviction...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
5. We need to fight this!
The guy is a religious fundamentalist extremist nutjob. If we dont fight this, I'll be posting from Europe!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:07 PM
Response to Original message
6. I would like to see the senate do its job
They should question and investigate Roberts and find out if they should vote for him, against him or fillibuster him. However, I'm tired of republicans spinning falsehoods and dems meeting the republicans on their terms and just spinning the opposite to fulfil their role as the opposition. Just once I would like to see both sides do their job and use their reason instead of being mindless political hacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
B Calm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
7. This fight is down the road, nobody is rolling over! Right now
we have TRAITORS in our White House and we have to keep the press talking about it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fiona Donating Member (993 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. they're two distinct issues
and one doesn't detract (or distract) from the other. The press will cover new developments in the Rove case, but it's silly to expect 24/7 coverage absent new news.

As for Roberts, here's the issue - we can't win the fight. Engaging in it will damage the Dems. If we try to filibuster, the Repubs will go nuclear, and we lose the filibuster for another battle.

The guy is qualified for the bench. We don't like him, but that's not sufficient to win the battle. Does anybody really think we can convince 6 republican senators to join the Dems in defeating him? That's a pipe-dream.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tjdee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
9. He's been a judge for two whole years, that's why!
I'm getting exponentially pissed, actually, that Bush is nominating someone who's basically a GOP operative with two years of judicial experience. Which he'd need, considering the SC is a JUDICIAL APPOINTMENT.

Why have the Republicans become the party of "brand spankin' new people are perfectly suited for all positions"?

:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
B Calm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. I'm pissed too about this nomination, The bastard worked against
workers rights and has a huge pile of money from corporations to get him nominated. But the fight is down the road, and right now we need to keep the press talking about the traitors in our White House!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smartvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. I think this is a big deal. Do you have a link to this? I would
like to spread it around right away.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tjdee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Here's the Slate article, with links to others:
The Slate article hotlinks/references other articles:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2123066 /

This article in the LA Times talks about his two years on the bench:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-as...

There are a few threads going on at DU which talk about Roberts' work with the Bush recount fiasco, among other things.

I may have spoken too strongly by calling a GOP operative, as far as operatives go. He's no...Karl Rove, for example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DELUSIONAL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
12. Learned helplessness
"It's no use -- we can't do anything -- people will be mad at the dems if they fight -- we want to be liked -- if the dems fight -- people won't like them anymore . . . . it doesn't matter what we do -- we need to save our energy for the 'real' fight .... the 'real' battle is Rove . . . the dems can't fight on two fronts . . . this nomination is a sure winner -- let's wait for the 'real' fight when the next (and the next) justice dies or resigns. . . ."

Just a sampling of learned helpless type responses I've seen in the last few hours.

Learned helplessness is real -- why don't abused women leave their husband/lovers/partners -- the reason: Learned helplessness.

Watch for the symptoms -- learn to fight it. Escape.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
13. Give me the names of 41 Senators who will filibuster Roberts
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 04:20 PM by Walt Starr
After that, give me the names of 51 Senators who will refuse to go nuclear over Roberts.

Anything short of a filibuster on this or a straight vote with fewer than 50 votes against the guy cannot be considered fighting the nomination. It's rhetorical posturing, nothing more.

I'm all for rhetorical posturing where Democratic Senators who will be vulnerable in 2006 do not engage in the rhetoric. Furthermore, I'm in favor of bullying the Northeastern moderate Republicans who are VERY vulnerable on this nomination.

Neither the rhetorical posturing nor the bullying is fighting the nomination. It's taking the lemons we've been handed and making lemonade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. I'll settle for one senator with the backbone to do what's right.
As for the "moderate" republicans and "vulnerable" dems, that gave us 3 district court fascist judges without a fight to save an unusable filibuster because they were wetting themselves in fear of losing their seat at the trough, they've made their bed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Starr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. In other words, you can't do it
so you'll whine about how it's not going your way instead of playing it like the Republicans did for decades until they moved themselves into a position where they could do something about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
14. People would rather play politics than take a stand.
They see the lifetime appointment of fascist SCOTUS justice as less important than and a "distraction" from whatever hobby horse they're currently astride.
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 Wed Jul 23rd 2014, 01:18 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