If Roberts isn't filibustered what's to prevent a rerun for the next one?

When Rhenquist dies or retires what grounds will democrats have to filibuster another right wing RePUKE nominee like Roberts?

But the Democrats philosophy of "we'll fight on the next one, it'll be more important" MUST END NOW.

Roberts is going to be confirmed. Bet the farm on it, unless you know of some obvious skeleton.

Call Bush's bluff and frustrate him, by letting the oxygen back into Plamegate. The Dems should be absolutely quiet about Roberts nomination until the Senate hearings. There they must come down heavy with probing, searching questions, and then let the nomination slip through quietly on a party line vote.

Get the focus off the nominee and back on Rove / Cheney.

Congress & Shrub are both taking August off, but hopefully the press will continue to investigate the Rove issue, and hammer home the implications involved.

After all, Watergate was certainly as big a story as any Supreme Court Justice appointed during the 70's, and it is the bigger picture right now.

There will be time to look into this obvious diversion in September, and hopefully something damaging will come up between now and then. But the focus should continue to be on TREASON! By our current so-called leader.

If they do, when Rehnquist dies or retires, Bush comes back with another one (a woman or hispanic or black) who's almost as bad, just not quite. Then the Repubs can say "You let Roberts in, and this one's even more moderate!" They can't filibuster later if they don't do it this time. Otherwise you can kiss Roe goodbye, and god knows what else.

eom

That's what the Democrats will do...especially since they are the minority party. They know Roberts will pass. Democrats will question Roberts, but not put out a major campaign against him. THEN, when Renquist retires and Bush brings up an EXTREME RIGHT nominee...then the Democrats will fillibuster.

At that point, the Republicans can't accuse the Democrats of being "obstructionists" to ALL Republican nominees because.....the Democrats gave Roberts the "OK".

and instead gives us another Roberts, the Repubs say "How is this one different?" Your strategy risks too much. Fight him now. The majority of the country agrees with us. We can win.

right into Bush's hands. Don't jump the gun. The BIG battle is still ahead of us. (God forbid, Bush may even have TWO more nominations after Roberts!) Be cool.

as well as keeping congress in Repub hands in 2006. This IS the big one. If we are serious about keeping abortion safe, legal, and rare, then we cannot say "Oh, this one's okay, give him a pass." That makes us the hypocrites. If they're wrong, they're wrong. Why would we surrender when the country agrees with us?

I realize this is all based on gut feelings (and experience), but I just can't wrap my head around any strategy that says it's okay to put someone on the court for the next thirty years who wants to overturn Roe. Forgive the analogy, but it's like an intentional walk. There are a handful of times when it's appropriate, but usually it just bites you on the ass later in the inning, and the other side gets an extra run or two when the out would have ended things right there.

And believe me, Roberts is NO Barry Bonds...