Skip to main content

View Diary: Picking their judge (317 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I may get oned but I agree (4.00)
    Agreeing with Kos is so unpopular these days....

    I think we need to look as deep as we can with each nominee. Bring up everything that concerns us. But we aren't going to be able to change the fact that our side doesn't get to pick, Bush does.  No amount of filibustering is going to change that.

    Let's face it, they've reacted cleverly to our fillibuster threats by appointing enigmas.  Touche. Enigmas are rarely ever extreme radicals though, most people don't spend their lives knowing they are going to be a supreme court nominee and they don't hide their views. (I probably couldn't hide mine if you paid me)

    In some ways Frist losing the repeal of the fillibuster was our best victory in this.  Republicans knew it was on the table and reacted to it.  

    In some ways our fears in this are those that are always the case with the Supreme Court, by anyone on either side of the aisle.  By design they are not accountable, therefore we don't know how they will rule on cases until they actually do. There's always the potential for surprise, unfortunately some bad ones get on the court, (Scalia and Thomas).  And with Thomas there was tremendous scrutiny and still he was confirmed.  

    Just because we can't appoint to the Supreme Court right now doesn't mean we give up on fighting for abortion rights.  We've got to get more favorable laws passed, by electing more Dems, we've got to get more medical abortion options to avoid the clinic issues.  We've got to move beyond the ruling of Roe v Wade, because it's not enough to protect us anymore.  

    •  I agree with Kos's conclusion, but I am not (none)
      sure you reflect that conclusion. It's not about not taking risks to me. I don't at this point understand why people here are so against this particular nominee- and that's why I am a bit confused by all the rhectoric
      •  I'm not sure his post was about risks (none)
        I don't think the public (or myself frankly) knows a lot about this particular nominee, other than she seems intentionaly chosen for her oblique record and personal loyalty to Bush.  They are intentionally giving us as poor a target as they can for a fillibuster. Check.

        Some here may know a lot more about here, there are some good postings further down.  But I think there is nothing particular to easily know about this nominee so there is some speculation that she in secret has said she will overturn Roe V. Wade.

        The truth is we'll never know that.  But we do have the advantage of knowing that she was chosen because she doesn't have an overtly radical conservative record.  Whether that ends up being a net positive for us we won't know, but they've been clever in this battle and we don't get to choose.

        They aren't going to make the mistake of picking another Bork

      •  She a corporatist (none)
        that alone is reason enough for progressives to oppose her.

        In a democratic society some are guilty, but all are responsible. -Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel

        by a gilas girl on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:06:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  True (none)
          We can oppose her, I would oppose any Supreme Court pick by Bush.  But to paraphrase Kos, what does that bring us?  Another nominee by Bush.  Whom I'm sure we won't like, nonetheless we've got 3 years left in his term.  We can't block the process that whole time and leave the court vacant.  That's not going to be the way to win elections that will allow our side to do the picking.

          The rules say he gets to pick, we don't get to pick.  Presidents generally pick judges who agree with them.  This sucks in the case of Bush.  But we don't have a majority in the Senate, our minority can only filibuster.  

          The stakes wouldn't be as high if our only real abortion rights weren't based on a Supreme Court case.  So let's try and change that, lets be sneaky.  Let's get around their get arounds.  We've been on the brink of that ruling for over 25 years now.  

          Let's change the battleground somewhat, fight on more fronts, make pharmalogical abortion more available.  Get legislation passed allowing abortion where we can, Roe v Wade is a ruling striking down a law that forbade abortions, on the grounds of privacy in the constitution.  We need to try to pass more laws favorable to abortion, even in this climate.  There is no constitutional definition of when life begins or what "murder" is that can overturn them.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site