John Roberts

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Can someone please explain me to how we can possibly block the nomination of John Roberts via filibuster when Antonin Scalia was confirmed 98-0 in 1986 when the Democrats controlled the Senate....


The president appoints nominees and the senate advises and consent....

Even if all forty four or forty five Democratic senators withhold their consent Roberts would still be confirmed...

I have read some of his opinions... He's no better or worse than your typical Republican lawyer and doesn't seem to be a total wingnut like Scalia or Thomas....

Unfortunately the Republicans control every apparatus of government and the only way out of our current dilemma is to elect more Democrats....

[Son of California]

1. or......................

do such a good job of digging up dirt on this guy that we totally sway public opinion against him.
Let our leaders stand back and be dignified, while the bloggers and the rest of the media show this guy for the screwball he is.
He's already doing shitty in the polls. Give us a month to tear him down. Repub senators will vote against him if they feel the pressure from the public.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. If Scalia Was Confirmed 98-0

a candidate would have to be to the right of Genghis Khan to be defeated.....

the Scalia vote should be sobering to everybody....

he was vetted by the FBI in 2003 before going on the DC court so presumably if there were skeletons in his closet that would have been uncovered then...

[shance]

2. It's called balance. We have to stop allowing rigid, agenda

driven individuals who are ironically incapable of making fair, coherent decisions.

Simply put, they are not fair. The most important qualification of a judge is to utilize fairness and impartiality in every one of his decisions.

Scalia may to some be scholarly and well-versed in law, but he doesn't value fairness like he seems to value the Conservative agenda. Roberts looks to be even worse.