A Modest Suggestion. Opposing the Roberts nomination is politically sound.

[McCamy Taylor]

I keep reading posts in DU from people who are saying "Roberts wont be so bad." "He is fair man" "We dont want to distract from the PLame investigation" "The Republicans are hoping for a long, nasty Senate confirmation battle so that they can take the attention of America off White House scandals" "If the Democrats fillibuster, Frist will go nuclear and then the Denmocrats will lose all their power."

Hmmm.

First things first. Ignore any post which seems to be written by a Freeper mole. It probably is. Second, ignore any post which suggests rolling over for Roberts in the Senate so that the press will have more time to focuse on Rove. The Press can spend 24 hours a day focusing an a lost blonde co-ed if it so chooses. It does not need real news to distract it from Plamegate. Third, if the Dems can never fillibuster for fear of setting off a nuclear explosion then they have already been castrated by Dick Cheney.

Now, consider the facts. Roberts has been praised by the president of the Family Research Council as another Scalia or Thomas (see the NYT). The religious right would not be coming all over themselves if they were not certain that this man is anti-abortion and for all their other so called "family values". We know that that he is a federalist. He clerked for Rehnquist. He will be on the court for 30 years, just as Rehnquist was.

The big issue here is ABORTION. He wrote a memo. Sure it was a brief for a client, but the average American wont understand the difference between that and a judicial opinion. And the average American is in favor of preserving abortion rights for adults.

If the Dems choose to paint Roberts as Judge Abortions-Made-Illegal, you will see Democratic voters, especially women, who have been politically univolved suddenly take an interest in politicals. What the GOP calls mobilizing the base. Right in time for the 2006 election.

And this is the reason why the GOP and the WH does not want a prolonged nasty Senate battle over Roberts or any of its nominees who will, by necessity, HAVE to be anti-abortion, to placate its own base. Because it the average American Democrat begins to fear that her abortion rights are going to be stripped from her by the same president that lied to her about the reasons for invading Iraq, she is going to register to vote and she is going to vote Democratis in 2006.

So, I say reveal Roberts for the right wing anti-abortion ideologue that he is. Give the complacent Democratic base a good scare. Teach them that they can not take their democracy for granted any longer, they have to get out there and get involved.

[Erika]

1. If the average woman, dem or GOP, understand Roberts

wants to control their bodies and do away with abortion, they will vote and not for the republicans.

[McCamy Taylor]

2. Thats right! And I want to see PLanned Parenthood, NARAL and NOW

start talking about this issue. If these groups would lead the way, with the Dems following, it would really stir things up.


Good point about pro-choice GOP women. There are a lot of them.

[snowbear]

4. Yep..

And in the meantime, I'm actually glad Democrats were as cool as cucumbers when they were interviewed tonight.

The media wanted OUTRAGE and only got professionalism..

He'll have his thorough review and the nation will learn about him as we do..

[brentspeak]

3. Makes sense

There's no reason why any Democrat should fear political repercussions for taking a vocal stand against Roberts. I can't imagine voters going to the polls thinking "Senator So-and-So disapproved of Judge Roberts, the one who Bush appointed to the Supreme Court! No way he's getting my vote!"

As for the "complacent Democratic base" - harsh but necessary observation. It's been gradual apathy that's handed the Red States over to the Republicans, and is now even chipping away at the Blue States.

[imenja]

5. I'm more concerned about the court than politics on this issue

and I don't want someone worse. Who do you think you'll get if you managed to derail this nomination? And compared to the other options, I don't see evidence that he is a "right wing ideologue." I think the confirmation hearings are important. They need to question him thoroughly about his judicial philosophy. But at this point I don't see anything that makes me react the way you are. I don't care to devote my energy to making sure Roe and Civil Rights are overturned, which may very well happen if you succeed in derailing this nomination and replacing him with an ultra right wing nominee. If more information comes out that suggests Roberts is as bad as you describe, then I will change my views. But agitating for the sake of it is a waste of time and in this case may be counterproductive.

[McCamy Taylor]

6. "Another Scalia or Thomas" is as bad as they get.

This is not a "Compromise" nominee. This is a federalists wet dream nominee in stealth mode so that he has a chance of passing Democtraic muster in the Senate. Do not be fooled by appearances. If his record is "clean" it is only because he has been groomed for this job for a long time.

[imenja]

8. and what makes you say this?

What has he written that leads you to this conclusion?

He took the abortion position on behalf of a client. That is not the same as a legal opinion. Should all defense lawyers be disqualified as murders and rapists because they took the defense of those clients?

[McCamy Taylor]

9. Read this link.

base gets when * did not deliver those judges they were promised.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/politics/politicsspec...

"Still conservative leaders who had been well-briefed on the choice before it was announced, were delighted with the selection, and notably none raised any immediate objection to any part of his record.

"'The president is a man of his word," said Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group. "He promised to nominate someone along the lines of a Scalia or a Thomas, and that is exactly what he has done.'"

[imenja]

14. Not convincing

You are opposing him because Bush picked a candidate that doesn't automatically outrage Democrats? I'm not convinced. I need to see something in the man's judicial record before I decide to oppose him.
Bush is president. We hate that but it is a fact. He chooses Supreme court nominees and there is no way he would ever choose one who is not conservative. He could end up choosing one far worse. Perhaps that is what you want: someone who believes the New Deal was unconstitutional?
Who has made clear he would overturn Roe and consistently rejected civil rights claims? And if you're going to oppose Roberts you better be able to talk about his record and not just what the New York Times and some conservative groups have said.

[MissMarple]

7. To the Republicans it's a side show, a diversion.

What else can I say?

[McCamy Taylor]

10. To the federalists, THIS was the reason for Bush v. Gore.

[MissMarple]

11. Correct.But in down and dirty (as usual) politics,it's just another coin.

Sad to say, truth to tell. This adds just more steps in the dance, and we should be ready to lead and tread on toes. No one said democracy would be pretty.

[w13rd0]

12. Bush is a bad judge of character...

...he should not be allowed to make ANY lifetime appointments. He has proven that he is an AWFUL judge of character.

[orleans]

13. i'm sure he did not make the ultimate decision

he was given a list of names, said he was "reading" about them on the plane the other day--(yeah, sure, for about five minutes!).

wasn't roberts someone who went along with the court that said cheney didn't have to disclose his secret circle-jerk energy task force. so....it's cheney making the pic for some payback. (my guess)

[Emit]

15. I think you're right about Dems needing to push back on this issue

Simply put, it's the right thing to do. Stand and fight. The rightwingers are betting we will roll over, and abandon the abortion fight.

Despite the fact that I recently was challenged for posting rightwing garbage, I'm taking another chance and posting this rightwing garbage in order to make an important point (again). This is a look into what they are banking on, and rightwing garbage allows us insight into their thinking. Here's what the American Spectator is saying:

The American Spectator
By Sean Higgins
7/20/2005

"Every senator, Republican and Democrat, should understand that women will not stand idle as the right wing attempts to take control of the Supreme Court and impose government interference on our most personal decisions. If that happens, I fully expect to see a political firestorm like the one we saw after the Thomas confirmation."

That's Ellen Malcolm, president of the pro-choice group Emily's List and a major figure in Democratic circles, laying down the law in a press release regarding Sandra Day O'Connor's resignation. What's noteworthy here is that she felt it necessary to direct her "Fire Next Time" warning to "every senator, Republican and Democrat."

Huh? Aren't the Democrats eager to start a knock-down, drag-out slugfest to fight off any Bush nominee who might have a question about Roe v. Wade? Maybe not. While still the pro-choice party, for the first time in years Democrats are actually nervous about the issue and how it plays for them politically. They've spent the last few months quietly but unmistakably downplaying the abortion issue in the hopes of winning over socially conservative "red state" voters.

<<snip>>

So Democrats have an interest in not making the fight over O'Connor's replacement an out-and-out battle over Roe v. Wade. To do so would expose their own strategic divisions. At the very least it could damage their efforts to quietly reframe the issue, convincing pro-lifers it was all just rhetoric. Of course, given the fact that pro-choicers are some of the party's staunchest activists and control so much of its fundraising, the Democrats may find that they don't have much of a choice on the matter. Ironic, huh?

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8463