Skip to main content

View Diary: On Reacting to Roberts: It's Not Just Fairness, It's Smart Politics (225 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well... (none)
    The burden is on Roberts to prove his acceptability, true.

    But, should he turn out to be unacceptable, the burden will be on us to loudly and aggressively inform the public of that fact.  That means we have to explore every possible negative angle right now just in case.  Doesn't it?

    Frankly, so far it sounds like Roberts is the best we're going to get out of this admin.  But I mean... we know so little about him that we have to be very wary here.  We can't let our guard down.

    You know what the Midwest is? Young and restless... - Kanye West

    by ChicagoDem on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 11:54:24 AM PDT

    •  this thing about convincing the public (none)
      the public re-elected Bush. What will convincing the public do for our side? How much power does the public hold, in this particular case?

      "Bush is a liar and a loser." Harry Reid.

      by steelman on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 11:58:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yeah but (none)
        Even then he could only scrape out like 51% of the vote.  And to do so he had to lie about his plans for Social Security.  Bush has gone way downhill in public perception since the election, and Congress is seen with absurdly high levels of distaste.

        The American people may be easily misled, but they are not stupid.  They're seeing the cracks in this admin, and if we find hard right tendencies in this guy that make him an unfit replacement for O'Connor we have a simple duty as the democratic opposition to forcefully oppose him.  And the only way to do that is to target the public.

        You know what the Midwest is? Young and restless... - Kanye West

        by ChicagoDem on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 12:05:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Schiavo and Roe (4.00)
        The public reelected Bush on national security. They are extremely, extremely uncomfortable when it gets to these key privacy issues.

        We need to build on that, but we do it by playing this smart.

        lib·er·al: Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

        by Joan McCarter on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 12:05:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Which is why I agree w/ BIllmon (none)
          Anyone who is interested (key), can look at the SCourt and see that if this guy is confirmed we will have 8 guys and 1 lady deciding issues that impact women the most.

          I would argue that's reason enough to oppose him.  Although, if they turn over enough rocks, I'm sure they'll be able to find a female version of Clarence.

          In the long great history of the SCOTUS, the injustice of having 9 white guys decide what was fair for African Americans was in the spotlight.  Can't we liberals shine a spotlight on the fact that a woman (who was for protecting privacy rights and women's reproductive rights) is being replaced by a man -- no matter how brilliant and experienced he is?

          Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.-- Blaise Pascal

          by Pandemoniac on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 12:21:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  First we must disabuse the American Public (4.00)
          of the notion that nominating a Justice who is a "mystery man" is "okay".  The public have every right to know EXACTLY what they are getting with this decision.  This secret squirrel will make important decision that will affect their lives.

          Second, we must make sure the public (and we) understand that there is a big difference between Bush nominating the candidate and his confirmation. (Too many people are acting like this is a "done" deal and frankly that totally goes against our Constitutional system and the foundations of our democracy.)  No individual should get a free pass to the Supreme Court.

          Third we need to make sure that people understand that they can petition their Senators to oppose this nomination because it is not a done deal until there is a vote in the Senate.  Again, Bush does not have unilateral powers in this selection.  Your Senators actually make or break this deal.

          Fourth, we see who this guy is and use the best of the worst to stop the nomination.  If nothing else we are acting as responsible citizens.  Screw the bastards who think exercising your rights and responsibilities of citizenship is "impolite".  

          What more do we have to lose before we start fighting every battle?  How could anyone think giving a pass to a battle on the Supreme Court would eventually work out in our favor?  What about the next appointment to SCOTUS?  Do we pass on that too?  

          •  Don't misread anything I say (4.00)
            I'm certainly not going to advocate not going to battle when we need to go to battle, and when it's smart to do so.

            I disagree with acbonin that this nomination was a victory. But I also caution against making that battle look like a temper tantrum. We need to fight smarter on this one.

            lib·er·al: Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

            by Joan McCarter on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 12:37:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree with you - not advocating the (none)
              "Screaming MiMi" approach at all.  

              But I do think we must respond to this nomination because Roberts is a VERY conservative candidate.  Much more conservative than the vast majority of the public.  Americans deserve to have that information unvarnished.

              For me the key is that we have a right to know just what we are getting.  We also have a right to petition the Senate if we don't like what we see.  There is no returning this one to the store if you have buyers remorse so best get it straight now.

          •  Exactly (none)
            No Blank Slate deserves the Supreme Court. He must reveal his views in detail.

            The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

            by Armando on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 12:38:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  ahh (none)
              I don't think anyone is prentending that he is not going to answer questions, but I can see where this heading already.  Someone is going to ask him to prejudge a case, or a hypothetical potential case, or some such contrived example.  He is going to refuse.  Then all the sudden we have the "extraordinary case" and the filibuster is on the table.

              If you are expecting someone to ask him "What do you think about abortion?" and get substantive a answer, you are going to be disappointed!  First, it's not a fair question.  Second, it's not relevant.  And third, it'd be unbecoming of a person in his position to answer it.  The cases they hear are over filled with minute details.  The question is really how it is presented.  Half of the power of the SCOTUS is deciding which cases to hear.  The solidness of the test case is very important in virtually every situation.  Asking someone to review his or her views on a topic without having a real case at hand is just plainly dangerous, no jurist anywhere should be pulled into that trap.  It's simply wrong.

              It is patently unfair to expect or demand that he answer questions like "will you reverse the Roe? decision".

              My opinion on the matter apparently differs from many on on dkos, and probably yours.  I want to see judges with allegiance to the law and precedent.  I want to see judges with a substantial devotion to correct intrepretation of Congressional iniative.  The law, right now, is heavily anti-environment, anti-labor, pro-corporate, pro-crony.  You know what?  That means that when hearing cases, the federal courts should uphold these laws where and when the Constitition permits it.  Congress is GOP controlled.  It sucks.  Hopefully that will change.  And when it does, the best thing is to have judges which have what it takes to uphold the law.

              Anyways, I guess what I am getting at this.  Saying that Roberts "must reveal his views in detail" is fundamentally wrong.  It supposes that his views are relevant, which to a large degree they are not.  Reading over Supreme Court decisions, much of the text relates to deciding which precendents to apply, which tests are appliacble, and to what degree.  

              Asking Roberts his view about "immenient domain" is not the same as asking his opinion on Kelo decision.  

              •  How about a card-carrying member (none)
                of "The Federalist Society." Sounds "extraordinary" to me.

                The name is not the thing named, the map is not the territory. -- Gregory Bateson

                by semiot on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 01:27:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Look Last Night Bush Told Us: (none)
                That the guy loves his family and that he is nice.  Great.  I could care less.  

                This man is going to be one of nine people who make extremely important decisions about our lives.  I want to know what kind of professional he is.  I want to know if he is a conservative thinker or a political hack.  

                There is a big difference between a conservative justice and a partisan judge.  

                So he is smart.  So were a lot of other people of substandard character who I wouldn't trust to judge a dog show much less weigh the important cases brought before SCOTUS.  

                A mere two years on the bench does not a justice make.  If he were a Clinton nominee, I would still have numerous questions about him.  For me this is standard operating procedure - not partisan politics.  This appointment towers above our petty differences.  I believe Bush has not considered that many in this country see this as something elevated beyond our respective agendae.

                Robert has to convince me that he is worthy of this position.  He has to convince me that he has more loyalty to the principles of democracy than he has to the Republican agenda.  He has to convince me that he can thoughtfully adjudicate each case that comes before him without prejudice.  I might be able to live with him if I could trust him to honor American democracy and act unfettered by his political affiliations.  

            •  How 'bout someone who helped (none)
              funnel money to the Contras.

              See Sherlock Google's diary.

              Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.-- Blaise Pascal

              by Pandemoniac on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 01:06:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  souter (none)
              souter didnt exactly reveal his views in detail, and neither did Ginsburg. While ginsburg was obviosly liberal, Souter was being talked about in the same way Roberts was.  Thought to be conservative, little paper trail.  Roberts could end up on the left side of the court, i wouldnt discount it at all.  
    •  I really apologize for jumping the line (none)
      but I wanted to say something that is important: Roberts should be "borked."  He is not acceptable, and this shrub should not get the benefit of nominating or I should say having anyone confirmed.

      Regardless of the long or short of his record, I highly doubt that he is as squeaky clean as presented.  I am sure that something or somebody knows something about this guy, and the internet is the best way to find it.  Don't wait for the
      mainstream media to find it.  

      And, by the way, the point of Billmon that I agree with is that the Dems (and the left) are just too nice: We want to fight it intelligently, honestly and fairly.  Screw that, and screw them.  Par for the course is the Plame affair.  Look at what they get away with-he deserves a medal, a journalist told him the name Plame, he was just helping a reporter get a story right and on and on it goes!!!!!!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site