Apparently Dean urged Reid to give very strong opposition to Roberts.

From Reid's statements in The Hill, I gather that Governor Dean might have pushed for a stronger stance than just opposing...perhaps a filibuster. Don't know that for sure. I admire Harry Reid, but I am not very happy with these statements.

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/092105/vote.html



Well, Harry, wait until you start selling us women down the road some more, trading our rights off in order to win. You ain't seen "hard to satisfy" yet, my friend.

If you remember Howard Dean opposed John Roberts before the others did. Here is his letter.
http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/09/the_verdict_on.php

Unfortunately, I feel that simply voting against Roberts is about like voting yes. We know what the Federalist Society stands for. They want to undo all that FDR did, they want to drown government in the bathtub.

We saw the sad and tragic results of that this week. I am not very happy that we are not going to fight them on this nomination.

We can't keep on "keeping our powder dry" forever. It is getting to where we have to start using it. I never did see how opposing Roberts and filibustering him would hurt us when the next nomination came. I think that is the way the right wing keeps us in line. I am tired of it myself.

Naw, really, we're easy.. All we want is a government that accurately reflects the will of the people, are honest stewards of our treasure and personnel, and not lie to us.

How hard could it be?

:hi:

We all know Bush wants to get rid of everything that FDR did and stud for so he can give his wealthy friends more money. He wants everything privitized and/or "faith-based" so he doesn't have to pay a dime and all the corporations can get the money and himself. It's all about being very very rich. FDR was a rich democrat but he knew how to share.

as chief justice for 40 years than something is seriously wrong with him.

I was listening to some of the people speaking pro and con on roberts when we were driving back from our trip and RCA President Rabbi Dale Polakoff "testified on behalf of the Rabbinical Council of America at the Senate Confirmation Hearings for Judge John Roberts to be the next US Chief Justice".

I could not believe my ears that this supposedly intelligent person didn't have a Freakin' Clue.

More at..
http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=100623

Roberts seems to have wide public support at time when Bush's numbers are in the toilet, and we have just gotten through several months of hearing about how Roberts is the greatest legal mind of his generation.

If Democrats filibustered, which they shouldn't, it would give the GOP their best PR opening to use the Nuclear Option and paint the Democrats as obstructionist and opposing anyone Bush puts forward.

Bush could then get SDO's successor confirmed with 50+Cheney with no nuclear option to worry about the filibuster, even if the public turns on the extremist nominee.

Do you really think they will get that much PR power still? Don't you think we should take a chance on standing up?

Like I said in my earlier post, from a PR perspective it would be much easier for the GOP to go nuclear on the popular Roberts than it would for an unpopular Bork-esque nominee who may replace SDO.

Roberts doesn't change the balance of the Court

The next nominee will.

But ultimately, what we are learning through this process is that presidential elections have consequences.

Please tell me how you know what he stands for?

And BTW, the GOP has already gone nuclear on our country. They are destroying every last piece of the government that they can, and what you see in New Orleans is only the tip of the iceberg.

If you think they will do anything about fixing FEMA or anything else, think again.

That it would be more politcally expediant for the GOP to go nuclear on Roberts than an unpopular Bork-esque nominee?

Either way both judges get on the Court.

But if the Republicans are forced to stick their heads out and go nuclear for an unpopular nominee, it will hurt them politcally, whereas if we filibuster the popular Roberts it will hurt us, and he will still get on the Court.

Filibustering Roberts makes no political sense and is purely an emotional and non-rational response.

I very much disagree with you though that we should simply just vote no.

They have all the power, they can do whatever they want to do. We have chosen not to fight back so many times that now it is probably too late.

We have been politically expedient for so long, so careful, that they do have it all right now.

What have we got to lose?

When we can do it at a more politically opportune time if Bush appoints an extremist to replace SDO?

Reid is playing chess in this game, and you're trying to force him to play checkers.

W wins this one.

That sounds infinitely logical.

But I'm sure they have a plan "b" for when the Dems don't take the nuclear bait. I'm sure the next nominee will be the Repub's idea of "affirmative action". How nice that they suddenly support that idea. But only for Republicans, apparently.