Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why are so many smart liberals being fooled by John Roberts?

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
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 01:20 AM
Original message
Why are so many smart liberals being fooled by John Roberts?
Take this obviously knowledgeable and intelligent author, for instance:


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-05072700...

<snip> That brings me to John Roberts. During the 2004 presidential election, George W. Bush promised to appoint Supreme Court justices like those he most admires: Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. In nominating John Roberts, Bush has broken that promise, to the great good fortune of the American people. The last thing the nation needs is for one-third of the Supreme Court to be off the deep right end of the law."
<snip>

Have we gotten to the point where a rightwing Republican hack can spend his entire professional life expressing unmitigated hostility towards civil rights and women's right, advocating every single goal--from banning abortion to destroying the independence of the judiciary--of the extreme right, and be called a moderate?

Newsflash, naive Democrats and progressives: Just because someone dresses up his agenda in pretty talk about principle and restraint doesn't change how illiberal and dangerous his agenda is.

Wake up! Roberts record is perfectly clear where it exists--he's to the right of Clarence Thomas.

Wake up! George W. Bush would never dream of nominating an indenpendent thinker to the Supreme Court. The only kind of nominee Bush would consider is an ideologically-driven extremist who shares Bush's rightwing absolutism. Bush hires company men, not independent contractors.

Wake up! We may not be able to stop Roberts from joining the SCOTUS, but we must DEMAND that Senate Dems present a united front--Roberts is a rightwing ideologue who will always follow the dictates of RNC headquarters. Any Dem voting for this Manchurian Justice should face a primary challenge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 01:20 AM
Response to Original message
1. filibuster
This is the time to do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DanCa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Agreed
Unless, and this is a big unless there saving there ammunition for Traitor gate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 01:25 AM
Response to Original message
3. Roberts was a GOP political suck up
all the years in his life. A rich kid with priviliges. W thinks he's just the average American as Roberts does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gumby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 01:25 AM
Response to Original message
4. Who wrote that?
My registration isn't working.

You are correct, Roberts is to the right of (expletives deleted) Clarence Thomas. Roberts is off the political charts. He's right up there with the enablers of the worse names in history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Prof. Geoffrey Stone--U of Chicago Law School. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. Isn't the University of Chicago Law School pretty conservative?
The home of Law and Economics? Milton Freidman and various other conservatives? The Chicago Boys?

Now this is not to say the entire faculty is consrvative, but it looks like it is definetely skewed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. It's conservative by law school standards, but it has its share of liberal
professors too.

Stone is a liberal:

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/stone-g /

He's also naive, at least in this case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
expatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 01:26 AM
Response to Original message
5. because he's a " beltway insider" rather than from Texas
and Bush has been able to play the expectations game in his favor... everone was expecting Satan himself to rise up and accept the nomination. It is sad... Bush has shifted the whole paradigm.... by appointing someone who is not clearly a zealous religious SOCIAL conservative but someone who is a ultra- CORPORATE conservative... everyone thinks he is moderate.... BushCo has been so effective at fanning the flames of culture war in this country that even many liberals have fallen under the spell and in the trap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Roberts is also a hardcore social conservative. He just doesn't talk
that way in public. He hides it behind legalistic hocus-pocus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anitar1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 02:13 AM
Original message
Have the become LINO's? Just as many Dems are DINO's?
Edited on Thu Jul-28-05 02:13 AM by anitar1
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ugarte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 01:27 AM
Response to Original message
6. They're not being "fooled"
They know he'll be an abject disaster for the next 30 years. So what does that tell you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. I get the feeling that they have really bought the "independent thinker"
bullshit.

And it is bullshit. Boy is it ever bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ugarte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. The Harvard mystique
Nobody wants to believe that someone who has gone to Harvard and spent 6 or 7 years living in Cambridge can be a Neanderthal neocon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 01:48 AM
Response to Original message
13. He doesn't drool
therefore he's intelligent and thoughtful. :shrug:

Is this nuts or what:

"This does not mean, of course, that he will not vote to eviscerate Roe vs. Wade or reject the rights of homosexuals or narrow the scope of affirmative action or expand the role of religion in public life or endorse the so-called "new federalism." He may vote to do some or even most of those things. But if he does, it will be in an open-minded, rigorous, intellectually honest manner, rather than as an ideologue whose constitutional principles derive more from fiction and faith than from legal reason."

He concedes the guy is likely to overturn every liberal principle of the last 50 years, yet calls that open-minded. Must be some kind of rationalization to avoid acknowledging the country is going insane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 01:54 AM
Response to Original message
14. He doesn't have anyone fooled. Blackmailed, maybe.
Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Journeyman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 02:06 AM
Response to Original message
15. Hamlet said it best: "One may smile, and smile. . .
and still be a villain."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deadparrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 02:13 AM
Response to Original message
16. Since the MSM has been practically worshipping at
the altar of John Roberts. How wonderful and intelligent and thoughtful and handsome and well-spoken he is...ad infinitum. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wickerwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 02:15 AM
Response to Original message
17. I'm not fooled, I'm just exhausted.
I just can't think of any really strong *legal* objections to Roberts.

He doesn't believe what I believe but since I'm not president and people with my beliefs don't have the majority in the Senate, I don't really get the luxury of having someone I want filling the seat. And honestly, who is Bush going to nominate who is going to be any better?

He's young but it just sounds like sour grapes when we say this. There isn't a constitutional age limit so what are you going to do?

He may not have the experience for the job and we might be able to make the argument here but it will almost certainly fail because the media won't cover it and we'll look like desperate partisans.

Are we really going to filibuster for three damn years? And on what grounds besides he's young and we don't like him? I don't see it happening.

This just feels like a battle we lost last November and I'm sorry if I can't work up the energy to keep beating my breast about it. I hate to sound defeatist and please don't flame me but I really have yet to see an honest, *legally precedented*, non-sour-grapey reason to keep Roberts off the court. If anyone has one, I'd love to hear it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 02:45 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. He worked to help Bush steal Florida in 2000. How's that?
Edited on Thu Jul-28-05 02:50 AM by Carolab
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. How about the fact that he doesn't believe in an independent judiciary and
has been extremely hostile to civil rights for most of his career?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConfuZed Donating Member (856 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 02:47 AM
Response to Original message
19. "He's cute!"
Screw gay rights,civil rights and abortion! :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
21. ::::clamps hand over mouth, refrains from stating the obvious:::
Edited on Thu Jul-28-05 09:22 AM by Solly Mack
You're right, Roberts is a typical right wing extremist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kalish Donating Member (402 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 09:21 AM
Response to Original message
22. The guy may be a corporate hack
but I see nothing that indicates he's an extreme social con fundy hack...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. That is why Kerry and other Dems are calling for the release of all
documents related to Roberts.

The little bit that has been released show that he *is* an extreme social fundie hack. He is anti civil rights, anti affirmative action, and believes Roe should be overturned.

Combine all of that with his pro-corporate agenda and his war profiteering and you have the mother of all disasters as SCOTUS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
converted_democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
23. Leahy does not like Roberts, called him an activist judge, and he said he
would move to filibuster. At least there is one Dem with some balls left.
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 Mon Dec 11th 2017, 12:04 PM
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