Roberts - WHY fight to the death on THIS nomination?

We're in the middle of a major scandal with Traitorgate. OK, Roberts is a conservative nominee for SCOTUS with views that everyone hates. BUSH IS IN OFFICE. Every nominee he picks will be revolting. We don't have the votes to counter this nominee, nor the political cover to justify filibuster.

Write your representatives to make your views known. But DON'T agonize over this one.

The strategy should be get our people in office in 2006 and 2008 so we can get OUR people nominated to SCOTUS. To do that, we need to focus on Traitorgate. Unless you want BushCo to get their boys in for another 8 years and nominate who knows how many revolting people?

Let's stay focused and stay on message.

And interestingly all of the people who have started these threads have less than 500 posts....

whistling...

I know they won't get much traction.

Maybe because we need to stand up and fight MORE, not less!

WHO'S WITH ME?

We CANNOT LOSE ANY MORE SEATS IN SCOTUS!!! This guy is what, 50?

THINK ABOUT THIS: He's there for at least 30 years maybe 40; if medicine improves maybe FIFTY YEARS!!!!

Our GRANDKIDS might pay for our negligence here!!!!!!!

...what do you think our chances are for blocking Roberts? And what political price will we pay for attempting to block him? Is it worth the cost?

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

decisions will see that they have a voice in America. A voice that will fight for the environment, the people, the law. We can't keep rolling over and not fighting for the unrepresented. They need hope. Lets give it to them.

I am well aware of the likelihood that we will lose this fight, though that is no guarantee.

But somebody needs to represent the 49% of Americans who did not vote for this president.

or gore, or conyers... with names like "liberalxyc"

such fucking idiots... i'd love to meet in a backalley somewhere.

scroll on through the forums.....look for yourself.

That's the claim. It's not true.

Me: 1000+
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1940978&mesg_id=1940978

Husb: 1000+
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1941051

Ruffhowse: 1000+
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1941211

There may be others, but that's enough to disprove the claim about "ALL."

I agree with the poster, because my understanding is as follows:

1) To stop his nominations would probably require a filibuster
2) Public perception about this guy does not seem to make him look that extreme, thus agreement made in the gang of 14 or whatever (that we would only do it in extreme cases) would be breeched in the opinion of the seven republicans.
3) This would allow republicans to pursue the nuclear option, thus getting rid of our ability to filibuster a far more extreme candidate, and a whole lot more badness that they might think up after we can't filibuster.
4) The said scenario would create a lot of media noise that might distract from the unfolding investigation into Rove etc.

How does fighting this with all we've got seem a good idea?

Public perception about this guy does not seem to make him look that extreme, thus agreement made in the gang of 14 or whatever (that we would only do it in extreme cases) would be breeched in the opinion of the seven republicans.

Could we wait a bit & see what comes out before we decide what the 'public perception' is?

If we can wait a bit and see before fighting him with all we've got and losing the power to filibuster over him!

but you also have to be willing to take risks, and yes, risk failure and its consequences, if we are ever again to be a majority party.

Playing it safe might keeps things at equilibrium for awhile, but right now that equilibrium favors the Republicans. To be a majority party, you have to be willing to disrupt the existing equilibrium if you want to establish a new equilibrium with a Democratic majority.

In late 1993 Republicans were in the congressional minority, yet they opposed the Clinton health care plan root and branch, even though the polls showed that it was risky to do so. That worked out pretty well for them.

I think Hillary's right:

"I look forward to the Committee's findings so that I can make an informed decision about whether Judge Roberts is truly a guardian of the rule of law who puts fairness and justice before ideology." - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

.... I have 7000 posts and I've been here a very long time.

There is nothing we can do to stop Roberts, NOTHING. Why waste a lot of time on it?

I don't believe that all battles are worth fighting, but sometimes you just have to take a stand, even when the odds are against you, to draw a line in the sand, and let the voters sort it all out in 2006.

There are some people here who want the Democrats to filibuster every last Bush judicial nominee, every Bush cabinet nominee, every Bush appointee for ambassadorships and every Bush appointee for undersecretaryships. I am not one of those people. If John Bolton becomes the UN Ambassador, that's not good, but he'll be gone from that job in 3 years or less. Even a lower court judgeship is not a catastrophe because there are hundreds of other federal judges at other levels of the judiciary.

I want the Democrats to go down fighting in this case. The stakes are just too high to defer to the Joe Liebermans and Mary Landrieus of the Senate cloakroom, senators who seem more interested in social acceptance from the DC elite and their corporate allies, or having nice things said about them on Fox News. This is the Supreme Court, not some pissant ambassadorship to a tinhorn country, or some deputy undersecretaryship of an obscure agency. The USSC is the ultimate arbiter in the culture wars, as well as such issues as affirmative action, the Patriot Act and corporate power over individuals. Stand for something, and take your case to the voters in 2006. That's how you mobilize your supporters and build a party has clear, crisp principles.

... if properly managed, we can take this to the voters in 2006. But it will be in the context of a confirmation of Roberts, because there is nothing, I mean nothing we can do to stop it.

So yes, I agree with you in that if we worked together, we could make this an issue for the voters. It will require a level coordination never seen among Dems before, but perhaps Dean can help. :)

how can they be expected to fight on DSM? Rove? The next scandal? What difference would the voters see between the parties in '06? This nomination will move the court to the right for the next 20-30 years. This nomination is more important than Rehnquist's replacement. BTW, I have less than 500 posts. It's due to limited free time.

We can handle more than one fight at a time. If you think Bush gets a free pass to do whatever he pleases just because Rove is in the news, you're mistaken.

Whatever we decide to do, we need to retain a longterm vision. Bush wiill be gone in a few years; so will justice Stevens.

Fight this nomination AND fight against Rove.

Sorry, but Roe vs Wade is important.

WTF?

Logically, ALL OF YOU had low post counts at one time or another.

I know my politics.

It's very Rovian of you all to take such a "You're either with us or you're against us" mentality.

If we cannot logically and civilly discuss different points of view on issues here, then what is the point of being here at all?

You have a donation star (thank you) -- s/he doesn't.

I'm much more willing to give you the benefit of the doubt than the OP.

... if I kept my $5 - thus no star - and posted something you didn't agree with, would that automatically make me a troll ?

Jebus Pizza, people CAN have differences of opinion on this board and NOT be disruptors.

:eyes:

But if you had no star and less than 100 posts -- I would look more carefully for "troll-like" behavior.

I have given multiple times during the period grovel-fests as I have lurked here for quite some time. But one shouldn't have to donate money to not fear being called a troll for posting opinions that run counter to the majority opinion.

People can have different opinions and still be intelligent, well-meaning and liberal.

Not to mention, trolls are usually pretty obvious.

On this issue, I see the points on both sides. "Fight the right-winger who would take away our rights" versus "Did you expect them to nominate a liberal? Of course he's right wing."

I happen to think the second is more logical and pragmatic this time around.

But it sure as hell doesn't make me a troll.

It just so happens that my star has expired, and I will be donating again soon.

I'm in the middle of a serious health issue and have had to let my donation lapse -- no star for the first time on over 3 years.

Does that make me suspect too?

Here's an idea for all of you with stars -- why not use your ability to search the OP's past posts and THEN ponder the rope.


:banghead:

This man is an extremist. A supreme court appointment is for life. He is young. We need to fight this guy with everything we have.

I feel the same way that you do about this guy. I'm a woman, so Roe v Wade is more important to me than most. Especially since I have no doubt the whack jobs I used to talk to in the Republican party would use every foothold they can get to not only overturn Roe v Wade, but eliminate ALL abortions with NO exceptions. Do I like the idea that Bush can nominate somebody for SCOTUS - h*ll no!

But if we can pressure hard to weaken Bush with Traitorgate, it weakens him as we go into confirmation hearings for SCOTUS. If we can generate enough heat on Traitorgate, we can use it as leverage to put off hearings on the nomination. But, we can't do that unless we can generate enough public outrage on Traitorgate to pressure Congress to put it first before hearings on the nomination.

Roberts is the tough fight. Traitorgate is doable. And we can use one to fight the other.

What could Democrats do, and what would be the outcome?

We don't need to bang our heads against the wall or make a 2006 win impossible.

But we shouldn't do nothing, either. At bare minimum, every Dem should vote 'no' on Roberts. I'd like to find a middle ground where the fight on Traitorgate can help us fight Roberts.

Emphatically.

I know what you're saying, but I don't think there's a way to persuade Repugs to go against BushCo. What if your idea were reversed -- use Roberts to fight rightwing credibility and more specifically, Traitorgate and Iraq as a whole?

Bush is going to put in a sure right-winger and can't be stopped.

Democrats should fight this at least a little bit. They should point out that this guy has only held his current position for two years and that he worked on the Bush/Cheney campaign in 2000. Seems like some payback. Democrats should point that there were probably much more qualified candidates out there that Bush could have chosen from.