So I think the Roberts nomination should be a litmus test for Democrats. Barring him showing fangs and eating a baby live on t.v., he’s going to be confirmed. Fine. But Democrats in the Senate need to start realizing something: their votes matter. Consider the Democrats, like Joe Lieberman, who voted to allow Mike Brown into FEMA or Democrats like Barack Obama who do silly things like voting for Condoleeza Rice to be confirmed as Secretary of State even though he noted that she had done a crappy job as National Security Advisor.
This is a new world, folks, and simply because you’re on the minority doesn’t allow you to slide by voting for bad things. John Roberts may be a perfectly amiable guy, but he’s a stone cold conservative that believes in an ideology that dismantles a lot of what we hold dear. You may want him helping out with the little league team — but not on the supreme court.
I really think if any of you are serious about ‘08 or want to be brought in from the cold on that day when Dems regain a Senate majority – you need to vote no on him, and vote no on the right-wing agenda whenever it comes up (that means estate tax, income tax, social security, and foreign policy among others).
Sure makes you long for the days when somebody’s actual qualifications were what mattered when they were appointed to the bench. Makes that 98-0 vote on Ginsberg seem downright incredible.
This is just so much hogwash. No so – called conservative serving on the Supreme Court has ever succeeded in dismantling anything.
In actuality, most of the so – called conservatives roll over for the liberals, as we see the Supreme Court getting more and more activist and liberal everyday.
What you probably mean is that you do’t want to stop the inevitable radicalization of the Court, or even slow it down.
but he s a stone cold conservative that believes in an ideology that dismantles a lot of what we hold dear.
I wish just once, you could actually put forth a clear and concise argument about something. Saying Roberts should not be confirmed because he “believes in an ideology that dismantles a lot of what we hold dear” is not an argument. It’s emotional blathering. Ideologies cannot ‘dismantle’ anything.
So let’s see it. And I don’t to see links to that loon Ralph Neas who would oppose anybody to the right of Michael Moore. Make a case, but please, dispense with all of this silliness.
John Roberts is not going to be confirmed because he’s an “amiable guy.” He’s going to be confirmed because his credentials are impeccable. It was fun watching some of the hearings and seeing him run circles around the likes of Kennedy and Leahy. They could not rattle him. They couldn’t trap him with their ridiculous “Gotcha!” questions.
Justices are not political beings. Once Roberts is on the bench, he’s just another face in the crowd of 9. He owes nothing, will not be worried about political fallout, and is there for life. As long as he understands that, can write opinions that make some form of legal sense, then he’s fine with me.
Justices should be appointed for their ability to deal with law, not political situations. This is not (read: should not be) a political situation.
This is not (read: should not be) a political situation.
I guess that would mean something if the choice of Roberts, the timing of the announcement, the nomination of him for CJ, and the cagy way he chooses which questions to answer and not to answer, were not all blatantly political.
Here’s what the Republicans are saying: “sure our side is playing politics with this nomination, but it would be really, really wrong for your side to play politics with it.”
If we really want in independent judiciary composed of the best legal and constitutional minds, here’s what this president, and all presidents R or D should do: seek advice from a broad range of constituencies: R and D, rich and poor, legal and non-legal, and then actually take that advice into consideration when making an appointment. Nobody really wants that, though. Everybody wants justices that will decide things their way. So the nominee ends up being the most reliable ideologue that the nominee can find without a damning paper trail. Or the most reliable ideologue whose genetic makeup allows the nominator to play the race/gender card against his opponent. Regardless of who is chosen political supporters of the nominator will pronounce the nominee’s credentials “impeccable”, which usually means he hasn’t done enough to have actually done something to be criticised for.
Oliver, you’re right, the vote does matter. When the right to choose is taken away, we want people to remember that Democrats fought for womans’ rights.
But with the Dems voting for coat-hanger conservative judges most everytime, can it be said that they are fighting for reproductive rights?
Do you run for office saying I am for reproductive rights, but I voted for the judge that took them away?
Do you run for office saying I am against the Iraq war, but I voted for it anyway?
When people have a choice between a con and someone who votes like a con 85% of the time, they will vote for the con every time. Time for Dems to go on the record.
I guess that would mean something if the choice of Roberts
So Bush choosing a well to do white man is blatantly political? Wouldn’t the choice be more political were he to have nominated a conservative Hispanic or minority woman?
the timing of the announcement
Yes, following the announced resignation of another Supreme Court Justice. How political!!
the nomination of him for CJ
That William Rehnquist is one sneaky SOB huh? He knew exactly when to die.
and the cagy way he chooses which questions to answer and not to answer
Yes, following the ABA’s canon of ethics for judicial nominees is just a terrible way for him to act isn’t it? Blatantly political.
Jay, you seem to be a reasonably intelligent guy, so I’m just going to assume that you realize what a reasonable person of a different political persuasion from your own would respond to each of your casuist arguments here. Your choice to make casuist arguments rather than addressing the real issues means you’re either trying to yank my chain or obscure the issues for anyone else following along. In either case I ain’t playin.
I’m making casuist arguments? You’re claiming the entire process is “blatantly political” on the part of the GOP. Yet you offer zero evidence to support that allegation. If that’s what you’re concerned about, then I ask the following:
1. How is the choice of Roberts blatantly political?
2. How is the timing of the announcement blatantly political?
3. How is his nomination to be CJ blantantly political?
4. How is the ‘cagy’ way he does answer or does not answer blatantly political?
Let’s address the real issues then. I look forward to seeing your responses.
Robert’s nomination is not political per se (at least not insomuch as it was time to nominate someone to fill a vacancy), but the refusal to release relevant documents showing his legal reasoning and history post Reagan is most decidedly political and typically Bushco. Obscure relevant information until after you’ve gamed the system and screwed the public.
GOP: Look! We’ve released tons of documents from Robert’s tenure as part of the Reagan administration!
Dems: But many of Mr. Robert’s opinions reveal strong opposition to Affirmative Action, equal pay for women, federal regulation of interstate commerce, particularly with regards to environmental protection, the separation of church and state, and at best weak support for privacy rights.
Roberts: That was then, this is now. Besides, those opinions don’t mean anything as they were written decades ago and reflect the people I worked under, not me.
**Some info on Roberts, take note of how many issues list nothing thanks to a lack of public record (if people are too damn lazy to Google, I can also list tons of remarks by Roberts on the aforementioned issues):
http://www.issues2000.org/John_Roberts.htm **
Dems: Then can you give us something tangible from your work in the 90’s to today that we can develop a clearer picture of your position on the issues? I mean, let’s be honest, your history on the bench is nearly non-existent and your resume has gaping holes. Why confirm you and not some other candidate with stronger qualifications?
Roberts: No, and I believe your own minority leader, Harry Reid already commented on my qualifications, which he probably should have waited to do until he actually did some research, but since the Dems are congenitally stupid, he had to open his yap and say something dumb. Wouldn’t be the Democratic Party if they actually understood the meaning of the words “effective opposition.”
GOP: And to all of the above the answer is…No! No records for you! (brought to you by the FOIA Nazis, aka the GOP)
Dems: No? What do you mean “no?” That’s unacceptable and we won’t let a blank slate on through to the highest court in the land.
GOP: Remember our filibuster agreement. You let Owens, Pryor, and Brown through, and as long as we obstruct any revealing history on Roberts, you gotta let him through. I mean, come on, those three were as openly hostile to the middle and lower class as it gets, so Roberts can’t come close to being an “extreme” candidate. You confirmed a judge that actually deliberately delayed trial until the plaintiff DIED for Christ’s sake, how are you gonna claim Robert’s is worse than THAT?
Dems: Doh!
GOP: Oh, and we want him to be Chief Justice, too, so role over on that please. You press whores, be good little tools and forget that Katrina debacle and focus on this, ‘kay? Well, it doesn’t really matter, because either way, you Dem clowns have let us set Robert’s up as the judicial equivalent of Wonder Bread. Bland, white, and full of hidden ingredients that’ll probably kill you 50 years from now. Now you’ve got to either focus on Katrina or the Court. Katrina will fade, but Robert’s will be here to f*ck this country up for the next 30+ years. Aren’t lifetime appointments great?
Dems: Chief Justice?!?!? Why not someone already on the court who has dutifully served for decades?
GOP: What, you mean a well known conservative nutjob like Scalia? We calls ‘em like we see’s ‘em, and you pussies are ripe for gettin’ knocked into the cheap seats on this.
Dems: Doh! Doh!
GOP: Idiots don’t even press the fact that Robert’s has already violated ethics by failing to recuse himself from a case involving this administration. Morons.
There are two issues here, Jay. 1) are your arguments casuist? 2) are my arguments justified? Let’s take these problems one at a time.
1) are your arguments casuist?
I should preface this discussion by conceding a point implicit in my earlier note: your arguments might not be casuist, they might simply be stupid. You may prefer one of these options to the other, but I really don’t see a third alternative…
So Bush choosing a well to do white man is blatantly political? Wouldn t the choice be more political were he to have nominated a conservative Hispanic or minority woman?
So if Bush’s appointment is not as political as you can imagine, then it is not political at all? Wrong. The fact that Hitler did not gas billions of Jews doesn’t mean that he didn’t gas millions. You also overlook the fact that Bush’s appointment of a well-off white man (in the face of many calls to do otherwise) did indeed earn him political capital among crucial constituencies in his increasingly shaky base. Since these are fairly obvious points you are either being casuist or stupid. Take your pick.
Yes, following the announced resignation of another Supreme Court Justice. How political!!
Um, yes, all SC nominations follow, rather than precede, the death or resignation of a sitting justice. Does that mean the circumstances of the nomination cannot be engineered for political purposes? Of course not. In this case you have 1) a shorter than average search 2) a highly unusual televised nomination ceremony, preempting prime-time programming on all the networks 3) the priming of the media by the leaking of false rumors that other candidates (women, no less) would be selected 4) The fact that this circus coincided with the most embarrasing part (so far) of Plamegate. If none of this occurred to you, you’re stupid. If any of it did, you’re casuist. We report, you decide.
That William Rehnquist is one sneaky SOB huh? He knew exactly when to die.
You seem to be saying that once Rehnquist died, Bush had absolutely no choice but to nominate Roberts to his post, in preference to all the sitting justices. There are only two adjectives that could possible describe that argument: “stupid” or “casuist”; the choice is yours.
Yes, following the ABA s canon of ethics for judicial nominees is just a terrible way for him to act isn t it? Blatantly political.
If you interpret the ABA canon to mean that a judicial nominee may make no statement that suggests his judicial bias in regard to types of cases and to past decisions, then the problem is that Roberts has already transgressed that strict construal of the rule a number of times. For instance, he has stated in testimony that he has no problem with the constitutionality of the voting rights act. How could that fail to prejudice any case he might hear in the future where the constitutionality of that act is questioned? The trick is that Robert’s position on this issue is non-controversial to almost every American. Not the case when it comes to abortionn and privacy issues. It’s in his choice of where to keep his mouth shut and where to open up that Robert’s political calculation is so evident. Evident to anyone who is neither… door number 1: casuist; door number 2: stupid.
Now I know you’re not stupid, Jay, so I’ll take it that my case for your casuistry has been sufficiently proven.
2) as to whether my statements about the polical nature of the Roberts show have any evidence to back them up: I believe I have already alluded to a considerable amount of evidence above. Yes, all of it is circumstantial. I don’t have a physical copy of daddy Rove’s Roberts battle plan, and since that is probably the only thing that would satisfy your casuist heart, I may be flapping my figurative gums in vain, but I think there’s probably enough there to convince anyone who hasn’t become a temple prostitute to the idol of eristics. I mean good god! Who is that sitting behind Roberts at the hearings? Noted constitutional scholar Ed Fucking Gillespie for chrissakes! Give it up, Jay!
Amen Oliver, that is the spirit. We don’t need another Brooks Brothers suited racist on the court to replace the one that just died.