Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  yabbut, it doesn't matter how much we prove (none)
    he is unacceptable

    He WILL be on the SCOTUS whatever we do.

    It's unlikely that more than a handful of Dems will vote against  him.

    The best we can do is use the forum to present the D agenda, and make this a "good loss" as SteveM wrote

    •  I don't think there is a 'good loss' (none)
      Why not fillibuster? It's legal, it's the Democrats' right because the Repubs only hold a slim majority. Why the defeatest attitude? There's a perfectly legal, acceptable, ethical method to stop non-moderate Supreme Court justices available to the Democrats, why not use it????? Who cares if the Repubs cry murder?
      •  With a filibuster... (none)
        ... there is a burden on the party to convince the American people that the nominee is far enbough outside the mainstream to justify what is a relatively extreme tactic (it's only been used once to block a SC nominee). Failure to do so would be costly in the midterm elections, which are probably more important than the difference between Roberts and Bush's second choice. And that would be even assuming Reid had the votes to sustain a filibuster.
        •  I disagree.... (none)
          All this political calculus is destroying the left wing of this nation. Stand up and fight for what you believe, people will come around if you do! Has it hurt anyone on the left to fight social security or Bolton? Not fighting this nomination is falling into Bush's trap, because they know that the Supreme Court is where it's at. This is a lifetime position where you get to decide what is the absolute law of the land!! There is no more important fight. It would be nice to take back seats, yes, but people don't respect politicians who try to ride every issue to see where it's going to lead them in the polls.
          •  The thing is... (none)
            ... the filibuster is a drastic and politically risky tactic, and the consequence of winning would still probably only be that Alberto Gonzales winds up on the Court instead of Roberts. I think the Democrats need to keep their options open, in the event that Roberts looks worse on close examination (or if he's unwilling to candidly answer at all). But Bush is the President, and he is going to ultimately get a judge who falls within the spectrum of his own judicial philosophies confirmed. Currently, I don't think that it's a wise battle to fight. Better to ask him tough questions, highlight how we disagree with the answers, vote against him, and stress those differences in elections.
            •  Risky? (none)
              We've already lost all the branches of the government, essentially. What risk is there? That somehow fighting for what is right will make less people vote for us?

              The only real power we have left is that the majority in the Senate is too small to defeat a filibuster (unless they do the Nuclear option, of course, but I consider that to be illegal). If Robert's is filibustered and Bush sends up another bad candidate, than filibuster him/her, too. Maybe filibusters are 'extreme' but it's the only thing we've got. Damn public opinion--polls shouldn't play any part in a Supreme Court nomination fight, it's too important.

              What I'm saying is that the time for playing nice to avoid risk is long, long past gone. Some risks have to be taken--these are ruthless, corrupt, power-hungry people we're dealing with.  If any of the Republicans had any shred of decency or fair play, then I might agree with you. But they've show over and over again that they don't.

              •  "Damn public opinion" (none)
                ...is never good strategy in a democracy. Judges are the consequence of elections, and the only long-term way to get the judges we would like is to win. It's a valid question of strategy whether a filibuster fight helps or hurts the cause of winning elections, but I happen to think it would hurt. And I do not think that stopping Roberts is worth it if it risks the Republicans gaining a filibuster-proof stranglehold on the Senate (not just for judicial nominees, but for everything).
                •  We live in... (none)
                  ...a Representative Democracy, not a direct Democracy. Our elected leaders are supposed to do what's right for the nation. I'm tired of my Democratic senators basing everything they on what they think the Repubs will be able to hold against them. The Iraq War vote, for instance.  It was totally and utterly wrong to vote for that war and Democrats just did it out of cowardice. My point really wasn't that public opinion doesn't matter, but that more people will be willing to consider Democratic candidates if the Democractic candidates would show some spine.
    •  you dont understand the point that is being made (none)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site