New Senate "ASK ROBERTS" site -- Let's find out his stand on Bush v.Gore

Ask Roberts

IT'S YOUR SUPREME COURT... What would you ask Judge Roberts?

Site launched by the Democratic Women of the Senate: Mikulski, Boxer, Murray, Landrieu, Stabenow, Cantwell, and Clinton (Feinstein and Lincoln are conspicuously absent). (See Press Release)

-------------------------- Let's find out his stand on Bush v.Gore --------------------------

Submit your questions!! Here's mine:

Where does Roberts stand on Bush v. Gore?

It is critical that we know whether or not the nominee stands with the five black-robed political operatives, who arrogated to themselves the perquisite of sentencing the nation by their fiat to live under appointed rule as opposed to elected leadership.

Call constitutional scholars to testify and ask Roberts to respond to their assessments. Ask him to respond, point-by-point, to the case presented by Bugliosi in "None Dare Call it Treason"? (The Nation, 2/5/01).

We are not over it. We never will be. Hold them accountable.

Selected References

Bush v. Gore and the Boundary Between Law and Politics
Jack M. Balkin
The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 110 http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/articles/essayonbushvgore.pdf

None Dare Call it Treason
Vincent Bugliosi
The Nation, 2/5/01
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20010205&s=bugliosi

Bush vs. Gore is the litmus test
Sidney Zion
NY Daily News
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/330083p-282082c.html

This is important, incredibly important.

Shameless promotion, but if you think it is important, please recommend it!

He was involved in the 2000 Selection of Shrub, and he knew that his reward was down the road. Guess what? It's here.

A national civics lesson on the horror of Bush v. Gore is long overdue. The confirmation hearings provide a forum for that lesson -- if the democrats on Judiciary have the courage.

It is an opportunity to seriously undermine Bush's legitimacy. Not only did he coerce the American people into war by terrorizing them with threats of a mushroom cloud, he had NO LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY when he did it.

Five black-robed political operatives sentenced the nation to live under appointed rule as opposed to elected leadership. They violated the principle of consent, our founding principle. We must take every opportunity presented to expose the truth. It is the first step in holding them accountable and healing the breach.

I am definitely liking this site.

Maybe Feinstein stayed out since she's on the Judiciary Committee. Maybe the other women are giving her the questions.

Meant Lincoln (Blanche) Don't ask how I managed it, but Burdick was s one-time Senator from ND... long gone.

Senior moment.

It seems odd that she and Feinstein would not take part.

She's not listed with the others under "Thank you for your help" on the Ask Roberts site.

Florida State legislature to issue a public threat that even if a recount handed a popular vote victory to Gore, the Legislature would appoint its own slate of electors, as it was empowered by the state constitution to do?

We know the Constitution of the United States requires the slate of electors to be decided on the day the Congress sets aside for the people to vote. The slate of electors must be decided in the manner set out in the State Constitution. Florida's state Constitution dictated the slate of electors would be selected as a result of the popular vote.

It is unconstitutional to change the way the slate is selected AFTER the day of the national election.

Did you render this advice to Jeb Bush to condone this threat? If you did not, do you know who did?

As a judge who has been presented to the American public as a Constitutional expert, do you condone this type of public lying to influence the outcome of an presidential election?

If you did not influence public officials in Florida to make this illegal, unconstitutional assertion, what would you publicly say now to he or she who did?

of the three branches of government, do you contend the framers of the Constitution intended the judicial branch of the United States Government could appropriately select the Executive Branch without distorting the equanimity of the three branches in their weight of influence on the functioning of the United States Government?

in his Supreme Court argument, did you influence Olson in the judicial integrity of this argument prior to his making it?

Is it fair to say the negating of 51 million votes cast for Al Gore across this country was a judicially-defensible move because of the Equal Protection Clause? Olson in effect said that it was necessary to do so to protect the rights of voters who cast legally counted ballots in one state against a disadvantage which would be presented when recounted votes would be subsequently tallied. How can any sane person defend canceling the votes of 51 million American people across the country to protect the weight of the votes legally counted in one state against a potential counterleverage presented by a recount in that same state? How can that asinine assertion be either legally, morally or even logically championed?

Do you stand by that Supreme Court decision?

Great questions! Did you send to Ask Roberts

include the internet address/web page. I am in SO much aggreement with you on this one, and have recently read None Dare Call it Treason and many other pertinent articles. We should also request ALL DOCUMENTS RELEASED. All polls posted on the internet agree that Roberts should turn over Everything by about 75% (CNN,MSNBC,AOL...ones I've seen. What's up with Feinstein? She is on the committee. KICKED AND NOMINATED.

:kick: :kick:


"We are not over it. We never will be. Hold them accountable."

My Question:

In a political climate where individual rights are being taken away by the government daily and corporations are being granted inalienable rights instead, how can we trust you - who have been a lawyer for corporate interests - to be a champion for justice that WE THE PEOPLE need if this country is to survive?

Seriously, don't you see your past record and close involvement with this administration as a major confllict of interest?

The position of Supreme Court Justice demands that you have the ability to be an impartial servant of the people (not an extension of the executive branch's power). When your record so clearly indicates a clear bias against people and for corporate interests how can anyone believe that your appointment is in the best interest of this country?