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

[smartvoter]

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?

[barb162]

1. The Dem in Congress are being awfully quiet...that scares me

[Mistress Quickly]

2. 30 years people!

That's what we're looking at with him.

[JHB]

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.

[Son of California]

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!

[smartvoter]

19. Agreed. nt

[jonnyblitz]

4. there is always a bunch on here that want us to shut up and sit

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...

[Initech]

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!

[stray cat]

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.

[B Calm]

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!

[Fiona]

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.

[tjdee]

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:

[B Calm]

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!

[smartvoter]

17. I think this is a big deal. Do you have a link to this? I would

like to spread it around right away.

[tjdee]

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-assess20jul20,0,394768,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines

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.

[DELUSIONAL]

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.

[Walt Starr]

13. Give me the names of 41 Senators who will filibuster Roberts

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.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

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.

[Walt Starr]

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.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

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.