John Roberts - CHIEF JUSTICE for next 30 YEARS!!!!! Dems are WEAK...

A man who will be CHIEF JUSTICE of the Supreme court for the next several DECADES has 4 YEARS worth of DAMNING work that is being HIDDEN away.

The Dems did a lot of crying about not getting access but when the line was drawn in the sand, they dropped back and now have fallen in line behind THEIR president saying they'll take Robert's word on things when he didn't F-ing answer any of their DAMN QUESTIONS!

THIS IS A LIFETIME APPOINTMENT, PEOPLE

I know our crusty dems in Congress salivate over being able to make speeches about the guy for 30 years but we need ACTION and less rhetoric from our representatives in Congress.

CLEAN HOUSE IN 2006

then there's the rest of us.

Going to Yale alone won't do it either. You've got to be in one of the royal families.

the power. they put in judge to court. hence, why we fought so hard to win 2004

The Dems, IMO, could properly communicate to the American people

a)the importance of seeing what the administration is hiding from these 4 critical years

b) tell the American people that the democrats WON'T be a rubber stamp for a lifetime appointment to the CHIEF JUSTICE position on a man who has served only a few months as a judge without seeing his ENTIRE background.

The Dems need to grow a SPINE to show AMERICANS that they can stand up for something worthwhile.

MANY people who voted in 2004 are becoming more and more apathetic...

I fear this Roberts confirmation is being handled FAR too casually given his age and position.

consistantly and across the board. and yet, the repug again ignore. the dems have done their job. they did have spine. repugs ignore and put him in. as they did with bolton.

ergo, the problem is the repug got all power in 2004. this is solely on the repug party's back, and on all repugs that voted for this administration

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4837488

who do you think is watching and listening. gonna get on msm. how do we know. we research and know it is being said. though i have suspicsion that a lot on this board doesnt listen to cspan 2 or read these threads with some of the attacks i am hearing on the dems

and this is the dems fault???? how????

or does blame and responsibility go to those that are actually doing this

So I guess the dems need new PR people, huh?

AP: Democrats split over Roberts
http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/localnews/ci_3048666

Frankly, the Democrats have failed by NOT insisting that their questions be answered and they see the necessary documentation that permits a lifetime appointment to the 2nd most important position in our government.

Instead of the Dems agreeing that the Ginsburg confirmation set the precedent, the Dems should have stood up and said that the GOP was at fault for their own decision and that they want answers.

but this smacks of prophecy being fulfilled as we enter the rise of Armageddon. (I know, I know, Democrats are not supposed to believe the Bibvle, but I do and, as a Democrat I seeeeeeeeeeeeeee this mess).

We are in deep do do.

I will say no more about the Biblical implications but I see it clear.

just curious, thanks.

also who says Democrats are not supposed to believe in the bible? that is new one to me.

is coming to pass as we see evil men come into mor3e and more power... introducing the concept of the anti-Christ.

From what I have read since I came on DU hoping to find a powerful bunch against * .... not many believe the Word or want to have it as a part of our country. It's alright and their freedom is same as mine... just not what I expected. I have been a democrat for all my years (64) and I never knew "we" were so down on Christianity. It has been an eye-opener.

which could used to proclaim any "evil" (very subjective description) person's appointment to a position of considerable power (also very subjective).

secondly, since democrats are so down on christianity can you name the last anti-Christan democratic candidate for president?

also how have you come to the determination that "we" are so down on christianity?

i think you would find that most here have no problems with christians, just two-faced, power hungry pharisees that we see personified by the religious right.

whatever you say.

Arguing will get me banned. I shant go there. I knoow what I know, as do you.

God bless.

you have already made the assertations/conclusions, backing up those up imo would not get you banned. why don't you give it a try?

prove that "we" collectively are down on christianity.
if you cannot that might lead one to believe that you believe something that is not true.

like i have said, imo most posters here have no problem with christianity as long as it is not being used as a tool by hypocrites.

i believe you are making a false assumption when you assume that "we" are down on christianity.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

are you saying because some people may make remarks you find not respectful towards your beliefs that makes the democratic party down on christianity?

i fail to see how the words of a few constitute the entire party.

it would seem that you want the few to represent the majority, i would beg to differ. this is also what republican stratigists would also like as well, they want the democratic party to be associated with anti-christian rhetoric so it will turn off people like yourself. the republican party has played their base of christian conservatives for fools, they talk the talk but they most certainly don't walk the walk.

will not.

And I hope that you will stick around and keep speaking up for Liberal Christians. We need a voice and unfortunately it is very muted on DU.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But I believe we have free will and were NOT supposed to just roll over, hold our hands to the air and say "Take Me". We're supposed to fight these people until we physically can't or don't need to fight anymore. I believe we're also supposed to protect our families as best we can, not just say "it's in the hands of G*d". We're NOT supposed to be like those RW-religious extremists that are trying to hasten the day here. I swear my MIL showed signs of being like that this weekend.

I figure I'm alive right now, because I'm supposed to be. Maybe it's just because of the fact that I don't drink the Kool-aid and can see that the lil' emperor has no clothes!

Think about all the people/leaders that have been Neo-con-like/Republican-like throughout history? I just cannot believe that the Bible is still intact the way it was originally written, not with people like * spread throughout history. I'm thinking they left the good parts and rewrote other parts as needed. In that respect, I find it more like the Pirate code - more of a guideline.

No one did enough.

It's the fact the guy was an architect of Bush v Gore.
Should automatically disqualify him as nothing but a political
payoff.

What is the matter with the Dems?

...Ready...Aim...


I'm standing back on this one. I just hope the bloodletting is quick. We've got other, bigger fish to fry.

The Bush years have changed that.

We still have until 2009 with this f-cker.

Alarms ARE going off.

If you think this is just politics as usual, you are falling under the same democrat strategy that LOST in 1998, LOST in 2000 (congress), LOST in 2002 (Congress), LOST in 2004 (Congress).

See a PATTERN here?

The game here is there wasn't much the Senate Dems could do. Fillibuster and give this regime a rallying point for their base while we've got them on their heels? This is where ya need to play smart.

As long as the Repugnicans control the Senate and the GOOP caucus held 50 votes, Roberts is fait accompli. It also creates a lot of pressure on the next nomination we know is up ahead.

By Leahy saying "ok, we took this one without a question" (playing the well he can't be any worse than Rehnquist game - which I agree with) so that when the next one comes up in a month or three, this removes the "Ginsburg/Breyer" meme and allows him and other Democrats to attack and hang up this nomination.

Booooosh also is now put in a tricky position. With his political capital...even within his own party...falling apart, he doesn't have the flexibility to ram through the next nomination like he did this one. He might even be forced to hold off a name for a bit until the problems are worked out in his own coven.

That pushes this next nomination well into the Fall session...and there's a bet this regime is gonna be weakened further. There's the Plame investigation that's one timebomb, the failing Iraq invasion and a crumbling economy that is putting this regime into reaction mode. They're just trying to hang on. Let's let them hang and stew. Let's not help them by creating a distraction. But I suspect we'll see a ton of screaming here on DU for the next few days (some justified) but it's a fight that is meaningless since there was little the Democratic party could do to stop this nomination from going through.

The anger here should be directed at going out and working for local candidates and party building. The Repugnicans put their sites on getting the House and Senate majorities, maintaining them and then grabbing the executive...they're reaping 20 years of getting out the vote, supporting their candidates and putting party squabbles behind the big goal of control and power. I sense few here realize this is the job the Democratic party faces if it expects to get the true majority status we all dream of here.

Cheers...

Some folks are playing chess while others play checkers....


Think about it....

Cheers...

:toast:

It's a given, I agree, that Roberts will be confirmed by the GOP majority.

But the right to question and receive answers and those 1989-1993 papers are what is important here. It's a powerplay that the dems lose AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN.

It's weakness. Nothing that a bully like the GOP likes to see more.

And they know the dems WILL roll over again and again and again.

The moderate voter sees this too, agrees the dems are weak-spined and voted GOP in 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004....

It's not ABOUT Chess and CHECKERS. That's a lot of mental masturbation, IMO.

This is a political street fight that the dems keep backing down from.

What could be more important than getting answers about the next Chief Justice of the SCOTUS?!?

And don't blame Diebold...this is thanks to the increase in seats for Repugnicans that created more weak knees. It was what happened to Daschele in South Dakota...a great Democrat who was left hung out to dry and now his vote belongs to the Repugnicans. So you'd like to see more of these?

I would have loved Roberts to spew all he could and that we could have found some smoking gun that would have embarassed him off the bench, but this game was defensive and weak at best. This battle wouldn't have had to be fought had Democrats worked to win House and Senate seats as hard as Repugnicans.

Now if you want to avoid the repeated steamrolling, it's time to get into the party and start working from the roots up.

in 2004 were the most important in the history of the US and why losing guarantees an America whereby even putting dems in power later cannot reverse the damage. Legislation but forth by dems especially relating to equal protection of the law for all Americans will be struck down continually as well as precedents already established. Dems in the future will have to practice court stripping.

That is the fault of the American people as well.

We have to save it for SCOTUS! Must protect SCOTUS! Oh, wait...

:sarcasm:

I'm pissed as hell too.

for him. Roberts will pick up more than enough Democrats to avoid the possibility of if filibuster.

There aren't any actions that they can take that would stop Roberts. What do people want? A futile act that would accomplish nothing and only make it easier for the next nomination?

snip

The administration’s continuing refusal to seek a bipartisan solution, even though the Congress like the nation is closely divided, leaves the modern-day filibuster, the Senate procedure requiring 60 senators to agree to a vote on significant issues, as one of the Democrats’ only tools for resisting the administration’s court-packing plan. Failure to use that tool would mean acquiescence in an ideological takeover of the federal judiciary by judicial activists who are eager to turn back the clock on decades of legal precedent and social justice progress. It is imperative that Senate Democrats make judicious use of the filibuster in order to preserve important legal principles and indeed the very constitutional framework that permits the federal government to defend individual liberties and address national problems.

While Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch and some of his colleagues have repeatedly suggested in recent weeks that use of the filibuster is inappropriate and even unconstitutional, the historical record is clear. Both Republicans and Democrats have often demanded 60 votes on what each considered controversial nominations as well as legislation. During the Clinton administration, a number of Republican Senators repeatedly used the filibuster, which has a long and bipartisan pedigree. But they also made extensive use of the much less open and accountable tactic of secret holds by a small number of senators to delay and prevent votes on an unprecedented number of appeals court nominees. Indeed, one third of the Clinton circuit court nominees were blocked between 1995 and 2000. Sen. Leahy has recently described Senate Republicans’ approach during the consideration of Clinton administration nominees, which permitted one or a handful of senators, through secret holds, to prevent a nominee from even getting a hearing. Republican leaders who participated in such a scheme have little credibility suggesting that a filibuster is unconstitutional because it permits 40 senators to prevent a final vote. In fact, in 1994, while some Republican senators were engaged in a filibuster against a Clinton administration nominee, Hatch called a filibuster “one of the few tools that the minority has to protect itself and those the minority represents.”

# When he chaired the committee during the Clinton administration, Hatch permitted a single home state senator to prevent action on a nominee through use of the “blue slip” policy; now that there is a Republican in the White House, Hatch has abandoned that policy.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=10302

So it's only useless and pointless if it is the Democrats who do this? A-Ok for the repukes though? Apparently Harry Reid agrees with you on that. What a great leader! :sarcasm:

in the article. It is a lot easier to block something if you are in the majority.

So the question is why won't the minority use the filibuster to protect their interests??

that has 100% GOP support, they will lose it through the 'nuclear option.' It is still useful against nominees where the GOP is split, such as Bolton. Had the nuclear option been used this spring, Bolton probably would have been approved by the Senate.

It's not being used, anyway. Then if/when the dems regain power the repubes would not have it.

Edit: Nearly anything the GOP backs has their 100% support. They go off the reservation maybe .001% of the time.

Roberts is a much more lethal threat to the US than Bolton being our UN lackey.

All is well...all is well!

Except the losses in 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004.....

Yeah, "strategic" thinking is going SO well in the dem. party.

:eyes:

what happened? You know they were working hard at blocking Bolton and were at least keeping him from being appointed by the Senate, but after that, where have they been and what have they been doing?