Judging Roberts

Let me endorse Markos' post below on evaluating Judge John Roberts' fitness for the Supreme Court, with some qualifications. As I understand his point, Robert's record as an attorney is impressive intellectually. Clearly, the intellectual firepower is not lacking.

The causes and positions he advocated certainly provide for many questions and requests for information. How Roberts answers those questions and what information surfaces regarding his views will go a long way towards giving us a better understanding of what Roberts thinks about the positions he advocated as a lawyer. But this is not enough.

A week ago, I discussed the Right Wing's insistence that the potential nominees, and Roberts in particular, were not a threat to Roe. Their position? He was just doing his job as a lawyer. Well, that may be, but Roberts needs to explain himself on that.

In any event, like Markos, I must say that his short stint on the DC Circuit provides little guidance for what a Justice Roberts would be like.   Hence, if we don't give great weight to his history as a lawyer, and understand that he has virtually no history as a Judge, the Senate MUST be provided with complete and honest answers to important questions about Roberts' judicial philosophy, temperament and specific views on important legal issues.

In that sense, I believe Professor Bruce Ackerman points to some important issues that Roberts must address in a full and frank manner.

I have some additional thoughts in extended.

Update [2005-7-20 0:21:31 by Armando]: Jeralyn Merritt has a similar take.

I would add the following issues that Roberts must address:

Roe. Judge Roberts must provide guidance on his views of Roe v. Wade. This is critical. This is a case of over 30 year vintage, reaffirmed by the SCOTUS in 1992. It is settled law. Roberts must confirm expressly that he accepts that Roe is the settled law of the land.

The Commerce Power. Judge Roberts must expressly reject the radical views of the "Constitution in Exile" school, best exemplified by the views of Janice Rogers Brown. We can not allow the turning back of the clock to 1937.

Partisanship. Judge Roberts has a long history as a partisan Republican lawyer. As recently as the Bush v. Gore case, Roberts was a Republican hired gun. Can he leave that behind? Does he have the temperament to be a Justice for all the country, not just for the GOP?

Documents. Listening to NPR this evening, it was reported that Roberts and the Bush Administration refused to provide all the documents requested by the Senate Judiciary Committee during his Circuit Court nomination hearings. That is simply unacceptable. Roberts and the White House must be fully forthcoming and provide ALL information requested. After that, THEN Democrats will be in a position to determine where they stand on Roberts. There must be no Republican stonewalling. Leave that to Rove.

And speaking of Rove, what did the President know and when did he know it? Day 10 of Rove-gate and the White House continues to stonewall. That story, and the Special Prosecutor, are not going away.

•  Got this on Salon.com

  For those of you who don't have a site pass, get a temporary one and read the article. It's at http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog= (thanks to Mags at http://mags25.blogspot.com/ for the link).

  JP
  http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com

  by jurassicpork on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:10:03 PM PDT

  •  Roberts

    is completely within his rights by not answering questions because it would prejudice him against a future case

    by joshpr on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 04:38:31 AM PDT

  •  if Dems confirm Roberts, court moves way right

    There is nothing about Roberts that suggests that he is more like Souter than like Scalia.

    Legal analysts on PBS last night were unanimously in agreement that Roberts is clearly more conservative than O'Connor.

    The New York Times lead article today makes it clear that Bush is stealthily but clearly attempting to move the court rightward:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/politics/politicsspecial1/20bush.html?oref=login&pagewanted=pr int

    Mr. Bush, and his chief political lieutenant Karl Rove, have made clear that they viewed the Bush presidency as an opportunity to build a lasting conservative legacy that would produce fundamental changes in the government, and what Republicans describe as a long-lasting political realignment. The retirement of Justice O'Connor, a swing vote on the court, presented him with a clear opportunity to do that.

    After the difficult spring Mr. Bush has had in Congress on issues like Social Security, the nomination of Judge Roberts may be an easier route to this end than some of Mr. Bush's legislative initiatives.

    Mr. Bush is also someone who relishes confrontation and political combat, perhaps never more than when he finds himself under attack, as he certainly has during these rough three months in Washington. In this case, though, Mr. Bush may have found a way to accomplish one of the overarching goals of this presidency -moving the court to the right - without a reprise of the kind of polarizing battles that have sometimes marked the Bush presidency.

    The front-page Washington Post analysis of the pick says the exact same thing:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071901946.html?sub=AR

    President Bush moved boldly to shift the Supreme Court to the right last night by selecting federal appellate judge John G. Roberts Jr. to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

    By picking Roberts, Bush displayed his determination to put a more conservative stamp on the court.

    -----------------

    Roberts is at least as conservative as Rehnquist, and could easily be as conservative as Thomas and Scalia. Democrats in the Senate, and on DailyKos, should be very much aware of this fact before they are falsely lured into the conservative frame that Roberts is a fine centrist choice.
    

    by JT2006 on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 08:39:16 AM PDT

•  Some SCOTUS Humor

  Bush Builds a Robo-Justice
  

  by spamon on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:12:54 PM PDT

•  Thanks.

  I take it for granted that a Bush nominee will suck; it's good to know the important axes of suckage to be monitoring, so this is helpful.

  by MissLaura on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:14:59 PM PDT

  •  It's done.

    Well..this is the axis of suckage in my humble opinion.
    I think we all know that there is no way in hell Bush would nominate a moderate.
    I mean come on.
    I read all these posts in Kos's thread that Roe v Wave is safe and didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
    There are other issues, of course.
    But this era is over.
    Ahhh America. You got what you asked for.
    By not voting, and not caring...you're going down a dark dark path and the way back to enlightment probably won't be felt in my lifetime.  
    I shed another tear tonight.
    For real.
    Negative post - I know - I'm just sad, even though I knew this was coming.

    Christine

    http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/nominees/roberts.html
    John G. Roberts

    Nominated to the United States Supreme Court.
    # NOW Vows to Fight Extremist Court Nominee
    # Save the Court ... Save Women's Lives

        * Former Deputy Solicitor for Kenneth Starr.

        * Associate White House counsel for four years under the Reagan Administration.

     

    
    Overturning Roe was such a primary focus of the Reagan Administration's Justice Department that during an oral argument by the nominee to the Supreme Court a Justice asked, "Mr. Roberts, in this case, are you asking that Roe v. Wade be overruled?" His reply was, "No your honor, the issue doesn't even come up." To this the justice replied, "Well that hasn't prevented the Solicitor General from taking that position in prior cases."

    
    As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts argued in a brief before the Supreme Court that "we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. The Court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion...finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."

        * As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts filed an amicus curiae brief in NOW's case against Operation Rescue -- in support of Operation Rescue, of course and in support of named individuals who routinely blocked access to clinics. At the Supreme Court level, that case was called Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic (it was NOW v. Operation Rescue at the trial and appellate levels). The brief argued that the protesters' behavior did not discriminate against women and that blockades and clinic protests were protected speech under the First Amendment. The case helped us push congressional passage of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.

        * Lead counsel for Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Ky, Inc. v. Williams. The case involved a woman who was fired after asking Toyota for accommodations to do her job after being diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome. The court ruled that while this condition impaired her ability to work, it did not impair her ability to perform major life activities. Disability rights groups fear that this decision may erode the Americans with Disabilities Act.

        * Filed an amicus brief in Adarand v. Mineta in Oct. 2001, supporting a challenge to federal affirmative action programs. He also argued against Title IX as applied to the NCAA in NCAA v. Smith.

    by jpschmid on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:50:20 PM PDT

    •  Hopeless

      I agree.  The time to oppose this nomination was during the last election; now is too late. The Dems can huff and puff, but there's no way they're going to keep this guy off the court.  Abortion rights?  When was the last time that was a national issue, except couched in a "nobody likes abortion" way?  (I personally know people who like abortion enough to have had more than one.) Americans have been led to believe that the right to choose is just a nutty feminist issue.
      This man is a right-wing nut, but even if by some miracle the Dems manage to block him, the president will nominate someone as bad or worse.  It's the kind of leader he is.
      

      by crumit on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:44:59 AM PDT

•  Question on power of the president

  In his short judicial career, Judge Roberts ruled in favor of the administration on Hamdan, endorsing of a legal theory that the president has broad powers under the Constitution to decide how military detainees are to be handled during a time of conflict.

  by digital drano on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:15:18 PM PDT

  •  more

    According th the WaPO:Court Rules Military Panels to Try Detainees

    Hamdan's lead civilian counsel, Georgetown University professor Neal Katyal, denounced the decision as "contrary to 200 years of constitutional law." He said it "places absolute trust in the president, unchecked by the Constitution, statutes of Congress and longstanding treaties."

    As a result of this opinion he should be questioned on:
    

    1. Consolidation of presidential power, 22nd amendment.
       
    2. Enemy combatant status and subsequent treatment of said combatants(torture, lawyers, indefinite hold, etc)

    by digital drano on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:27:55 PM PDT

    •  Burning Relevance

      I have made several posts that have addressed the more general issue of where this guy stands on issues relating to war powers and Executive privilege.

      I think most people have still not cottoned to the situation were in right now. We have the possibility that the Vice President and/or the President of the United States have been directly involved in a plot that resulted in the disclosure of the classified identify of a covert operative, possibly resulting in the loss of significant intelligence assetes. The motive underlying this plot was revenge and/or intimidation of someone who was in a position to reveal that the President took the country into a preemptive war, that involved the secret diversion of funds appropriated by Congress for another purpose. The justification for this war was based in part on documents that should have been recognized as forgeries months before the war began. Respected international organizations have suggested that the conduct of the United States during that war has involved violations of international laws regarding due process and human rights.

      Do people not see the burning relevance of the information provided in the comment directly above?

      by homeland observer on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:58:24 PM PDT

      •  I'll go one step further.

        I think the motive underlying the plot was the discrediting and eventual destruction of that part of the structure and leadership of the intelligence community which by virtue of their healthy skepticism in performing their proper role in governance posed opposition to the Vice President's political goals.

        In other words, he really did seek to "impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States."

        Restructuring and redirecting the mission of the intelligence communities through the open political branches is within the prerogatives of the executive. Taking shortcuts by merely undermining the ability of analysts who disagree to do their jobs is not.

        by Kagro X on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 04:19:27 AM PDT

•  Bait 'n Switch

  I agree, all in all, this guy is likely as good as we'll get, save something awful coming out during his confirmation. Let's cross that bridge when we come to it.

  Don't take the bait, the old bait n switch republican framing tricks.

  Let's not loose site of the goal, to get rid of george bush and his thugs or at least weaken them. We have karl rove in our sights, maybe libby, hell, maybe darth vader himself.

  Tomorrow, we should ignore talk of Roberts and go right back to leaking national secrets for political dirty tricks.

  by Zen to Go on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:15:31 PM PDT

  •  added:

    by this I mean, let's quietly get our investigation of this guy underway, but not lose the press lead we have on turdgate, we'll deal with roberts during his confirmation, weeks, months from now.

    by Zen to Go on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:26:22 PM PDT

  •  You are 100% correct

    He seems both highly intelligent and competent.  It's not going to get better than that.  You are not going to get an avowedly pro-choice nominee for Bush, so get real. If you want that, you need to win elections.

    Besides this guy simply looks so nice and so sincere, that anyone who attacks him is going to look like a real p**ck.  Attacking him might be worth it if you stood a snowball's chance of keeping him off the court.  But since you don't; it's just dumb.

    From a practical standpoint, the smartest thing the Dems could do is give him a thorough and fair hearing and then resounding affirm him in the face of what I hope will be continued long and loud opposition from NARAL etc.  I think it would be extremely helpful for the "Western Strategy" to show that the Dems are about much more than just pro-choice and are not solely about or captives of the pro-choice lobby. A little division, especially a false one with no ramifications, might enlarge the tent a little.  Before you flame me, try to decide whether whether you can do more for women's reproductive rights by louding opposing this nomination on pro-choice grounds and having it pass anyway, or by winning the next election.

    As an aside, since this guy has been selected and vetted by The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight I'm hoping that this nominee will prove to be everything BushCo predicts to the same degree Iraq went as BushCo predicted.
    

    by trillian on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 06:27:27 AM PDT

    •  Agree

      I think Dubya's fondest hope is that the Dems will blow their wad blocking this guy and then he can nominate Janice Brown and the RNM can shred 'em as pure obstructionists for whom no nominee would ever be good enough.

      by Alden on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 10:53:58 AM PDT

•  Stop with the "judicious loser" stuff

  Bush has nominated a hard core Federalist society member and an associate of Starr. Those who advocate "scrutiny" are fooling themselves. The correct tactic is to hammer them for extremism, for groveling at the feet of a looney tunes like Dobson, and for insider status.

  Is their a litmus test requiring that every nominee must be a member of the secretive and extremist "Federalist Society" that thinks there is no right to privacy?

  Judge: you are a lifelong member of the far right extremist Federalist society that says that there is no right for married couples to use birth control, that corporations have more rights than people, and that "privacy" is not a favor the government gives people, not a right. Are you willing to denounce this extremist organization or not?

  Judge: Do you think that Albert Gonzales was right and that beating people to death and sticking burning sticks in their ears is not necessarily torture?
  --------

  WWLBJD - he'd hammer the slimeball mother until the public understood just how wacky, extreme, and monstrous the Bush administration really is.

  WWLOSERDCDEMSDO: Wow, very intelligent, intellectually impressive (for what for using big words to disguise government for the insiders, by the insiders, and with the insiders with fairness and justice for the insiders?), let's carefully consider this while the Repugs frame the fucking issue and we can play Perry Mason.
  

  by citizen k on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:18:39 PM PDT

  •  Do you want to read my post again?

    Or stand by your nonsequitor of a comment?

    by Armando on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:20:57 PM PDT

  •  Exactly the wrong approach

    Look, if you want to go all crazy attacking the guy before you even have ammunition to attack him then I hope you go over that hill alone.  I'm waiting till I have a gun in my chamber before charging the enemies position.

    You are literally arguing that we should condemn Bush's pick simply because Bush picked him and he is a conservative Republican.  WELL DUH!

    Bush won in November and the Republicans hold a majority in both houses.  Some people on the left really need to realize that.  Screaming and chanting that this just is not fair or that the very act of Bush nominating a conservative Republican is somehow extraordinary is stupid and counterproductive.  In short, it won't help is in '06... it'll only hurt us.

    by manyoso on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:28:28 PM PDT

    •  Why did Bush win? Not 'cuz of domestic issues

      that's for damn sure.  Terra, terra, terra and then some code speak to placate the Dobsonites.

      Why not attack a guy who said in essence that woman do not have the right to an abortion?  

      And please, for all the attorneys out there, LAY OFF .  I have a Phd in Accounting and deal with non-attorneys all day.  They have not heard of, nor are they interested in Griswold.  Many of my students are the classic swing voters:

      Women (60% of accounting majors are women); working mothers (now THAT'S a swing voter demographic) and leery of the Religious Right.

      We can win points by screaming that this guy's an extremist.  Screaming, pissing, moaning and behaving like kindgergartners did not exactly hurt the Republicans.

      Show some spine on domestic issues.  

      When you have a 2-to-1 advantage on Roe, why not?

      by yankeeinmemphis on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 05:12:39 PM PDT

  •  What about ultra-privileged

    purveyor of elitist rights for corporations (and the imperial state) don't you understand, Armando?

    Hit him now, as being a caviar and foie de gras servant of money, power and privilege.

    His opposition to Roe (and no doubt, to Griswold) follows from that.

    His disregard of prisoners' rights - in a situation where torture is obviously condoned - follows from that.

    The Dems need to get this plain truth out now before  the hearings, which will just be an elaborate fencing match featuring carefully calibrated answers written by Excellency Rove.

    by baked potato on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 05:20:32 PM PDT

  •  Backfire possibility

    The problem is, at this point we have no idea how wacky, extreme or monstrous this nominee actually is.  We could hammer him as being extreme and right-wing like crazy right now, but what would happen if the Senate starting questioning him and he came across as a rather moderate and thoughtful person?  The public hates long fights over this stuff, and if it looks like we caused and were continuing such a fight without reason, we'd be dead.

    Not only would we end up losing the vote, we'd be giving Bush an even bigger bump in the polls, make ourselves look stupid and provide ready made talking points about how Democrats are just willing to oppose anything that moves.

    Let's face it, Bush could have nominated a known wingnut, but didn't.  He nominated someone who could be a decent Justice if given the chance.  So lets question him and find out if he's acceptable.  If we find out he's crazy, then we'll oppose him with good reason.  But opposing him now will either backfire or make us look like we would have pissed at any nominee that Bush put up.

    Think about the larger picture.  Going all out in opposition to this nominee and having it backfire will mess us up in so many possible ways.  Rove, Bolton, Social Security, who knows what other issues could come back in our faces if the public actually starts believing the obstructionist line that the Republicans are throwing out.  We weren't going to get someone desirable, but at least we got someone possibly palatable, so let's go with that.

    by jlowery on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 09:37:55 PM PDT

    •  How to start a backfire, or, We Could Get ....

      Something Good Here, for the price of no fillabuster. Propose some constitutional amendments out to the states. All we want is an up or down vote.

      If we want to try to get some guarantees of civil rights in exchange for not fillabustering Roberts. Introduce two (or maybe three) constitutional amendments. (The six month part is arbitrary. If you don't like it, you fill in the blank.) They could read like this:

      Amendment XXVIII:
      Congress shall make no law infringing the ability of a victim of incest to terminate an unwanted pregnancy within the first six months.

      Amendment XXIX:
      Congress shall make no law infringing the ability of a victim of rape to terminate an unwanted pregnancy within the first six months.

      Amendment XXX:
      Congress shall make no law infringing the ability of a victim of unlawful intercourse to terminate an unwanted pregnancy within the first six months.

      Push 'em and pass 'em in that order. Let the Republicans defend incest and rape, as they push the police state nominee and defend treason in cases where they do it.

      For the time being, all you ladies in sector QT can report to the impregnation center. All your uterii are belong to us.

      by kazoo of the north on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:38:32 AM PDT

  •  I read your post: it's loserville

    You wrote In that sense, I believe Professor Bruce Ackerman points to some important issues that Roberts must address in a full and frank manner. Do you think there is any possibility that Roberts testimony will not be expertly coached, dishonest, and assisted by Republican Senators?  The confirmation hearings are political theatre, not judicious "full and frank" examinations of anything at all. You're going to the gun fight with your scrabble game face on.

    The only legit strategy is to expose Roberts as a member of an extremist organization, but there seems to be a unstoppable temptation to babble on about "Your views on Griswold ..." as if the goal were to impress the high school debate coach.

    Q: Do you want to comment on the fact that you are a member of an extremist and secretive group called the Federalist Society ?

    Q: You and the Federalist Society say that US laws against domestic violence are wrong. The next time a battered woman gets protection by police, can we expect you to rule that her abusive husband has a right to hit her?

    Q: You and the Fed. society think that environmental protection is unconstitutional. What will make us believe that you won't vote to turn our national parks over to oil companies?

    ....

    But no, we get "full and frank" and idiotic tributes to the intellectual qualities of some moron. How can you be smart and be a member of the Federalist society? Only by being grossly dishonest. Either you are stupid enough to believe that the enlightenment thinkers of 18th century and 200 years of progressive amendments produce a document that enshrines despotism or you are a slimeball eager to disguise your evil ideology in fake constitutional babble. Either way, your agenda is greatly helped by the eagerness of the supposed opposition party to laud your imaginary intellectual acumen.
    

    by citizen k on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 05:47:37 AM PDT

    •  There is really nothing

      extremist or secretive about The Federalist Society.  Every law school has a chapter just like an ACLU chapter.

      Frankly, if Roe is ever overturned the only thing that will keep a federal statute prohibited abortion in any state from being legal will be the priciple of federalism, often strongly espoused by members of The Federalist Society.  

      Be careful what you wish for.

      Religious zealots, no.  Federalists, maybe not so bad.

      by trillian on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 06:32:16 AM PDT

      •  and himmler is just misundertsood too

        The Federalist society has ZERO problem with Federal authority when it comes to their authoritarian agenda. They don't believe that there is Federal authority to protect the environment or to ban rape, but imprisonment without trial, imposition of the bizzare doctrine of the "corporate person", use of the equal rights amendment to prevent state courts from enforcing state election law, are all just great with them. Their ideology is fascism and anyone naive enough to believe that they would have scruples about a Federal "right to life" law is probably waiting for that money  from the account in Nigeria that just needed a small fee paid in order to be released.
        

        by citizen k on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:06:50 AM PDT

      •  Federalism is not the only thing. There still is

        JUSTICE. Push constitutional amendments. See grandchild of parent.

        by kazoo of the north on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:41:49 AM PDT

•  Extraordinary Circumstances

  As this diary by Kagor X points out, we have extraordinary circumstances here -- not in terms of the views of the nominees but in terms of the circumstances in which the nomination has been put forward.

  We have a special prosecutor investigating what he has claimed to be a serious crims which may result in the indictments of people who may have played a role in the selection of the current SCOTUS nominee. We do not know how high this goes. We do not know what the President knew and when he knew it. These are extraordinary circumstances.

  We have a nominee who may have been involved in the past in invoking Executive priviledge with respect to documents needed for a Congressional investigation. In the current circumstances, where both Congress and the Federal Court may require documents to investigate possible wrong-doing at the WH, are indeed extraordinary and require a special set of questions be raised with respect to this SCOTUS nominee. This could take some time.

  by homeland observer on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:18:47 PM PDT

  •  Moral Authority

    I would assume that most of us here believe that Bush does not have the moral authority to appoint a SC Justice because of the possibility that he may have aided and abetted obstruction of justice in the Plame case (among dozens of other things, of course).  So the issue is not the nominee, but the appointer.  (Though I guess most here would mute our moral concerns if he appointed, e.g., Lawrence Tribe.)

    But its not likely that this view can gain enough support to affect the nomination.  

    by Upper West on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:46:17 PM PDT

    •  Conflict of Interest!

      I would submit that the investigation underway creates a conflict of interest both for President Bush and his nominee.

      I am particularly disturbed to learn from a post upthread that Roberts has already been involved in a case involving Presidential powers and the rights (or lack thereof) of detainees held in conjunction with the "war on terror."

      by homeland observer on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 05:03:08 PM PDT

•  how unusual is it for somebody with

  only 2 years experience ss a judge to be nominated to the Supreme Court?

  Have others with so little experience been nominated? have they been confirmed?

  by jennifer poole on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:20:32 PM PDT

  •  Earl Warren

    had none.

    John Marshall had none.

    The two greatest Chief Justices of all time.

    by Armando on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:21:55 PM PDT

    •  Now that is actually reassuring

      and something I didn't know -- thanks! -- as I also thought Roberts' experience seemed really minimal.

      Would this would be another Warren surprise, but I don't think I get to see that sort of turnaround twice in a lifetime.

      by Cream City on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:41:00 PM PDT

    •  that's quite interesting, isn't it.

      but of course both Warren and Marshall were well known nationally, with significant achievements under their belts, before either become a justice.

      Warren, the popular longtime governor of California, and Marshall's various "founding father" contributions, which I don't know as much about as I should.

      so your point re: needing "complete and honest answers to important questions" is underlined.

      by jennifer poole on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:59:38 PM PDT

      •  Roberts is well known

        in the legal community.

        It is not the same as being a governor of California, like Earl Warren, in terms of being a known quantity.

        But Roberts was highly respected, as a lawyer and particularly an advocate before the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, by lawyers and judges of all political viewpoints.

        He is very conservative. He is very likely to be much like Rehnquist as a Supreme Court justice. Roberts is not, however, a whackjob like Bork, and we will do ourselves and our credibility a lot of good if we stick to the facts rather than overreaching with hyperbole.

        by socal on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 05:06:57 PM PDT

        •  thanks, I can respect somebody

          reported to be "highly respected" by his colleagues.

          but, what do you say re: the question raised above by digital drano re: Roberts' views on the powers of the executive branch?

          by jennifer poole on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 05:54:27 PM PDT

          •  Roberts will defer to the government

            as Rehnquist consistently has. I mentioned in another comment that Bush apparently focused on that view specifically; some rightwing bloggers are saying that it might have been what gave Roberts an edge over the other judges Bush was considering.

            Am I happy about that? Absolutely not. I'm a libertarian liberal.

            On the other hand, O'Connor also deferred to the government and the executive branch repeatedly, in fact probably as much as any justice other than Rehnquist. We should not overfocus on abortion rights or ten commandments cases, we should not forget that O'Connor voted with Rehnquist much more often than not.

            So this is not so much of a change from O'Connor, a consistent conservative who departed from the rightwing orthodoxy on a few issues.

            by socal on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 06:12:00 PM PDT

            •  brilliant, conservative, well respected

              that's what the just-posted SF Chronicle story by staff writer Chuck Squatriglia calls John Roberts in its headline.

              the story says 126 members of the District of Columbia Bar, "including former members of the Clinton administration," signed a letter calling on the Senate to confirm him back in 2003.

              The letter called Roberts "one of the very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation," said his reputation as "a brilliant writer and oral advocate" was well deserved and praised his "unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness." .

              well, that's interesting, too.

              by jennifer poole on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 06:45:02 PM PDT

      •  He's no John Marshall

        JM was Secretary of State when picked for CJ. He actually served as both for a brief time. While Sec. of State, he helped form the Navy and USMC that laid the smack down at the "shores of Tripoli."

        JM was one of the Culpeper Minutemen (pre-Dec of Ind), fought in the Revolution, shot a bunch of Redcoats, and was elected to both state legislature and Congress. He was one of the envoys in the XYZ Affair who, when insulted by the grasping, rude, and powerful French, gave them the finger.

        One of the most prominent and esteemed men of his day.

        Roberts is a Reagan-Bush stooge at best, a stealth Federalist neanderthal at worst, and has been a judge for only two years more than me.

        by hotspur on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 05:38:14 PM PDT

        •  and thanks to you for that good summary

          "one of the most prominent and esteemed men of his day."

          And sure, no matter what one's views of Roberts, he certainly could not be described as "one of the most prominent and esteemed men" of our day.
          

          by jennifer poole on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 06:01:06 PM PDT

  •  How unusual?

    In spite of a few Judges having none, and a few more having only a few years. Today's court has around 9 years on average of experience as a judge previous to getting in the big chair.

    Personally I think anything less than 10 is a risk. Less than 5 should is a serious risk and should need  some sort of extra credit, such as: worked in one of the other branches as well (O'Connor was in all three branches of Arizona Government, and had 6 years as a judge).

    Here is what I found, strangly it was over at redstate.org... some fucking trouble maker named gando posted:

    Thomas: In 1990 he was appointed a judge on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In July, 1991, President George H. W. Bush nominated Thomas to the Supreme Court, to replace Thurgood Marshall. 1 year.

    Stevens: From November 2, 1970 to 1975, he served as a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, nominated by President Nixon. President Ford then nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat December 19, 1975. Looks like around 5 years...

    Scalia: He was appointed Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1982. Then, in 1986 President Reagan nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Looks like 4 years.

    Ginsburg: She was appointed a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by President Carter in 1980. President Clinton nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, the U.S. Senate confirmed her by a 97 to 3 vote and she took her seat August 10, 1993. 13 years!

    Souter: In 1978, he was named an Associate Justice of the Superior Court of New Hampshire, and was appointed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court as an Associate Justice in 1983. He became a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on May 25, 1990. His old friend Warren Rudman, had since been elected a Senator. Rudman was instrumental in both this appointment, and his appointment to the Supreme Court. President George H. W. Bush nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat October 9, 1990... Uh, math hard... let's see is that 22 years? Wow!

    Breyer: From 1980 to 1994, he served as a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and as its Chief Judge from 1990 to 1994. President Bill Clinton nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy left after the retirement of Harry Blackmun in 1994. 14 years.

    Kennedy: He was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by President Gerald Ford in 1975. Reagan nominated Kennedy as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat February 18, 1988.  I'm not sure on this one, but it looks like 13 years.

    O'Connor: In 1975, she was elected judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court and served until 1979, when she was appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals by Democratic governor Bruce Babbitt. On August 19, 1981, President Reagan, who had pledged during the 1980 presidential campaign to appoint the first woman to the Supreme Court, nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, replacing the retiring Potter Stewart. She was confirmed by the Senate unanimously on September 21 and took her seat September 25. There might be some gaps in there... but it could be 6 years.

    Rehnquist: When President Richard Nixon was elected in 1968, Rehnquist returned to work in Washington. He served as Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Legal Counsel, from 1969 to 1971. In this role, he served as the chief lawyer to Attorney General John Mitchell. President Nixon mistakenly referred to him as "Renchburg" in several of the tapes of Oval Office conversations revealed during the Watergate investigations. Nixon nominated Rehnquist and Rehnquist took his seat as an Associate Justice on January 7, 1972. Interesting history, but it looks like 0 years as a judge, previously.

    Disclaimers: no animals were abused to make this report. All information was obtained from one source and may not be accurate. Some handling may occur during shipping.
    

    by gando on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 06:38:46 PM PDT

    •  Recent trend

      It is only since Nixon's administration that previous judicial experience became normal for Supreme Court nominees. Before that many justices were appointed because of political rather than judicial experience.

      by Gary J on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 06:01:54 AM PDT

•  Many concerns

  He seems to be such a stealth candidate. What I've seen in terms of the Democratic response thus far has heartened me. Probably because it's basically what you and kos have said--we need a lot more information, and for the White House and Roberts to be very forthcoming.

  I'm majorily concerned about Roe and about a variety of civil rights issues associated. One of most egregious policies of Bush I was the gag rule--preventing physicians in clinics that received any federal funding from even discussing abortion with patients. Roberts' slim record has this at its heart. When he was Deputy Solicitor General he argued for the government in the case, Rust v. Sullivan, that this domestic gag rule did not violate constitutional protections.

  Seems to me when you get into the habit of picking and choosing which First Amendment Rights apply to whom, you're skating on thin ice.

  by mcjoan on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:22:33 PM PDT

  •  And believe me

    if they thought they could get away with it, they'd figure out a way to extend it to any physician who gets reimbursement from Medicare for office care (since that is "federal funds"). And that is just about all of us.

    by mirrim on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:31:59 PM PDT

    •  Yup

      After making Title X as underfunded and meaningless as possible, they'll very soon turn on the rest of you.

      by mcjoan on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:38:58 PM PDT

•  Rovegate....!

  Those of you in the know ...please do not let Rovegate go away!

  by janew2 on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:23:29 PM PDT

  •  I really don't think it will

    as I watched Watergate very, very closely for the more than two years it took.  Amid those stories, there were many other major stories -- a Mideast alert with reserves on callup across the country (my husband then, a Viet vet, was one . . . so I will never forget that) among them.  But Watergate kept coming back up like a bad dinner.

    And the Nixon WH tried, really tried, to steer the media to other stories.  But it didn't work.  And watching the media go after McClellan the other day, I think I saw long years of frustration with this WH unleashed.  They don't go back in the kennel quietly.:-)

    by Cream City on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:44:49 PM PDT

•  'Documents' in Bold

  On one side of the coin:
  This would appear to be the most important one. This game of hide the damaging information has to stop. And it's always the same. I believe in this context it is especially winnable. It's about confirming a judge, the information is needed to determine the qualifications. The judgement analogies will be rich.

  On the other:
  This may just be a red herring - pretend you are hiding something important, and turn the battle for it into a game that sucks oxygen from other damaging stories. I try not to delve into conspiracies, but it seems more likely here, with the demand for political cover at a premium.

  by KingJames on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:23:51 PM PDT

•  Consequences

  Bush will nominate no one to the bench who is satisfactory to us.  No one.  And make no mistake, it's only Bush who gets to nominate.  

  As long as this guy Roberts isn't particularly odious, he should be confirmed.  It's not like we could stop him.  You can't get two congressional Democrats to agree on what time it is.

  There are consequences to losing an election against the worst sitting president in modern history (how could we?), and this is one of them.  

  When Roe protections disappear, we can all comfort ourselves with how "electable" Kerry was, can't we?

  If you want to call this an "I told you so" post, you'd be correct. All the rest is simply the screaming of lambs in the slaughterhouse.
  

  by HarveyMilk on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:26:08 PM PDT

  •  Not that simple

    There is a bigger stratgey here... getting back power.  Democrats have to consider how to use the fact that bush has nominated an idologically extreme conservative to help us move toward that.  I'm not saying that they must filibuster, but we always have to consider the big picture.  If we don't get back power soon, there won't be anything left of "the Great Society".  

    by dianem on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:28:50 PM PDT

    •  Timing

      The time for Democrats to regain power was the 2004 election.  We have no power.  We've even neutered the filibuster (under Reid's "masterful" direction).  

      We're fucked.

      by HarveyMilk on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:32:24 PM PDT

  •  Worst sitting president in modern history?

    Why qualify it with modern?

    by jzso on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 05:39:05 PM PDT

•  Is he an idealogue?

  The right keeps talking about how they hate "activist judges" who "interpret" the constitution.  Of course, this is nonsense.  A judges job (as defined in the constitution) is to interpret the law.  But is there some way of communicating to the public if the right has nominated a future justice who actually slants his interpretation of the Constitution toward the right?  

  They've been playing the same game with the courts that they play with the media.  The right wing media jumps all over the center or left, accusing them of being slanted, then proceeds to slant at will.  Actually, it's not just the media - they did the same thing with the election.  Within weeks of accusing Kerry of "using" 9/11, the bush campaign came out with an ad that blatantly called up memories of 9/11.  They also spent a disgusting amount of time criticizing MoveOn for having a contest that included a commercial entry that compared bush to hitler, then the bush campaign itself put an ad on it's website that... compared democrats to hitler.  

  This is more than just hypocrisy. This is a technique they use to deflect criticism from their own actions.  They accuse their opponent of doing something bad, and after the dust settles over that and everybody is sick of the issue, they do it themselves. If anybody notices, they excuse their action by pointing out that the  bad guys did it first (whether they did or not) and they are just equalizing things.  

  So, is there some way of using Roberts background to neutralize this technique?  They have been criticizing the left for appointing judges who are idealogues.  Is there some way of pointing out that they themselves have submitted the name of a true idealogue?

  by dianem on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:26:39 PM PDT

  •  Not Just An Ideologue, But A Sham-Buster

    Bush's whole schtick of appointing justices who will interpret the law, not legislate from the bench is blown to pieces by Roberts' own record, as documented by the Alliance for Justice.  As I note in my diary, "Bush's Sham Standards Exposed By Roberts Nomination":

    By nominating John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court, George W. Bush has made a mockery of the very standards he professes to embrace in his judicial appointments. Roberts has a clear record of rejecting strict construction (as well as original intent and following established precedent) when it gets in the way of reaching the results he is after, according to a 2003 report that cites his own words to contradict the image of what Bush says he is giving the American people.  
     -
    Just one day after completely reversing his position on firing anyone involved in exposing a covert CIA Agent, Bush has once again revealed that his so-called "principles" are a mere sham intended to sound good on the evening news, with no relationship at all to reality.
     -
    A report on Roberts by the Alliance For Justice, prepared in response to his 2003 nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit contains clear examples showing that, in the Alliance's words, "Roberts' non-literal interpretation of the [takings] clause seems to fly in the face of President Bush's pledge to nominate judges who would strictly interpret the law, not make it."

    The Democrats made a big mistake in letting judges like Roberts get by in the first place. They thought they should only object to a few "extremists." But now they've defined someone like Roberts as a non-extremist who may well be to the right of anyone on the court.   IMHO, there needs to be a radical shakeup in how the Dems treat these battles, and the best time for that shakeup is right now.  

    It's not about Roberts, it's about Bush. Bush is the one who stand exposed as a liar by appointig someone like Roberts. And if the Dems go after Bush for his sham posture, that will be the best way to attack Roberts as well.

    by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:38:52 PM PDT

•  Fight fire with fire

  Bush is fighting fire with fire with this nomination. For one bloody second I wish this shaky dimwit we have for president do something because it was best for the country, and not because it is convenient to his political causes. This bozo doesn't give flying shit about America! It is all about his fashioning America in his bizzarre image. I swear to God, Bush is absolutely insane.

  by Bailey Savings and Loan on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:27:34 PM PDT

•  Question from an idiot

  During the hearings and the questioning, what recourse is there against a SC nominee once he is confirmed and sits on the court -- it his rulings later prove he was not honest and forthcoming during the confirmation hearings?  

  Anything?  Or is it simply, buyer beware?

  by neonplaq on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:28:09 PM PDT

  •  Impeached

    they can be impeached, same as any judge, don't think it's ever happened tho..

    by Zen to Go on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:35:32 PM PDT

    •  Too bad

      nobody tried to impeach Uncle Thomas.

      by mirrim on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:39:59 PM PDT

    •  Impeachment

      There was only one impeachment procedure against a Justice: Samuel Chase in 1805, an he was acquitted by the Senate when they didn't get the necessary 2/3 majority.

      However, 11 other federal judges have faced impeachment procedures with varying results...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

      by Frederik on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 05:25:54 AM PDT

•  Action Item - email your Senators

  Armando, I hope it's okay if I pop this into your thread. Maybe will catch a few people who will write.

  From People for the American Way - PFAW

  The next 24 hours are crucial. Tell your Senators to withold their support for Robert's nomination until they have all the facts about his troubling record. Unless you and thousands of other activists speak out right away, the Bush administration may lock up the support of dozens of members before the confirmation process truly gets underway and the American people have a chance to learn where Roberts stands.

  PFAW's Save the Court Campaign

  Has a Web form email and letter you can edit.
  Sends email to your Senators and Reid, Specter, Frist, and Leahy.
  

  by OLinda on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:31:58 PM PDT

  •  Yeah

    I should really email Richard Burr and Elizabeth Dole.

    Sorry, but I won't waste my time.

    by independentchristian on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:52:32 PM PDT

•  forget this one...pick your fights

  Bush has carried this day. Time to get back on to Rove and 06'. Roberts is too charming to scare ordinary Americans.

  Headed to Syracuse this weekend for DFA training. Can't wait.

  by Albee090 on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:32:11 PM PDT

  •  I agree. Personalization of our quarrel is

    the wrong tack to take here. Look for my earlier post regarding constitutional amendments we should push as the price of complicity on Roberts. Our problem with all of them is all of them.

    by kazoo of the north on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:53:34 AM PDT

•  John Roberts

  As the saying goes(bad news travels fast) so I think we will get an early look  at what kind of judge roberts will be once he is confirmed.

  by Dem Always on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:35:00 PM PDT

•  "Justice " Roberts

  Have you all notice that the wingers are already referring to Judge Roberts as "JUSTICE"?! I have heard it on 3 shows tonight.

  Hey fellas he ain't confirmed yet!

  by digital drano on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:35:26 PM PDT

  •  Well, don't they refer to 'Justice'

    For federal circuit courts too?  If so, then they are correct to refer to him as such.

    by manyoso on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:37:59 PM PDT

    •  Nope

      only SCOTUS.

      by Armando on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:52:41 PM PDT

      •  Part of the confusion is

        that in many state courts, including California, all appellate judges, both at the Court of Appeal level and the state Supreme Court, have the title "Justice".

        At the federal level, though, the judges on the Court of Appeals are "Judge", and only on the Supreme Court is the title "Justice".

        by socal on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 05:11:04 PM PDT

•  Question - what if

  This will sound incredibly naive to some here - I'm really pretty clueless in matters of law. So let's say Roberts gets grilled on Roe and he voices doubts about the decision. Or even says he wouldn't have supported it. Or even says he would support moves to revise or reverse it. Then what? Would that generate a strong enough case for a filibuster?

  I understand that a majority of the public supports Roe, so that's not the problem. I want to know what exactly the justification for a filibuster would be. Would it be acceptable to simply make Roe a litmus test (a term, btw., that goes apparently back to Reagan and was originally meant to denote opposition to Roe as a criterion for being acceptable to the Federal bench)? Or would the repubs then argue - and would they be justified in arguing - that nobody but SCOTUS can question SCOTUS, so to speak, and a SCOTUS judge must be allowed to revise or reverse a SCOTUS decision as long as his/her reasoning is valid and in line with the Constitution? In other words, my question is, would opposition to Roe be reason enough to filibuster Roberts, or would it come down to how Roberts justifies that opposition?

  (If you don't see the relevance of the question, assume that the public, even if it supports Roe, would not back a Dem filibuster of Roberts if they thought the filibuster was motivated purely by partisan politics, and that that just wasn't good enough a reason for filibustering a SCOTUS nominee.)

  by brainwave on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:38:14 PM PDT

  •  I believe it would

    by Armando on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:39:54 PM PDT

    •  Thank goodness!

      In that case, things don't look quite so bad to me. Roberts will be pressed on Roe. If he unambiguously vows to uphold the law of the land, fine - that's as much as the Senate can do. If he doesn't, we can mount a filibuster, and let the chips falls where they may, since the public is behind us. (But would the Dems filibuster? It would be one hell of  a tough decision for Reid. We'll see...)

      by brainwave on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:54:28 PM PDT

      •  Historically

        People tend to duck the Roe question, though, and while it sounds good to say "then we can vote against him for ducking the question!" in reality it hasn't quite played out that way.  Historically, weaseling has been enough to get through.

        by Steve M on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 05:25:40 PM PDT

  •  It's all political

    so in a sense, it all comes down to what you feel you can get away with.  There's no objective authority who is going to rule on what tactics are right and wrong; the only authority is the voters and whether they feel that someone played dirty pool.

    My personal instinct is that if a nominee outright declared that he would overrule Roe v. Wade, or that he would consider overruling it, the Dems could get away with a filibuster (remember, there are some pro-choice R's too), and it would be a winning issue in the end.  If all we've got is an evasive refusal to answer questions about Roe, I doubt a filibuster gets anywhere.  Just my own judgment.

    by Steve M on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:45:13 PM PDT

  •  Beyond Roe

    It needs to go beyond Roe to a right to privacy. This extends to birth control, to gay rights, pulling the plug on life support, and a score of other things as well. Does Roberts believe that there is a right to privacy implied in the constitution?

    I'm a fighter for Roe, but it has to be broader than that. Would he have taken up Terri Schiavo?

    by RevDeb on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 06:08:16 AM PDT

•  Here's the answer...

  to Kos' very interesting question: why now?

  1. Bush is running scared and knows he is in trouble.  He is only 6 mos. into his 2nd term, and he has already faced the Schiavo disaster, the total demise of his Social Security takeover plan and the reversal of his Iraq invasion boondoggle.  Indeed, the architects of the Iraq war have either departed (Wolfowitz) or are walking wounded -- at least 2 face criminal exposure.  It is increasingly apparent that he relied on the advice of deviants, who themselves were taken in by Iranian intelligence.

  2. This is not an uncommon situation for W to find himself in.  Throughout his life, he has been through a number of these scenarios.  Total spinout is W's M.O.  He fucks up and Daddy bails him out.

  3. Roberts is Daddy's friend.  A consummate Washington insider.  He will give W a success in Washington when he desperately needs it.

  This is a lay-up.

  He can thank his Daddy that Jimmy B. thought ahead on this one and insured that Roberts was put on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals back when W. was having delusions of Caesar.

  by maxschell on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:39:34 PM PDT

  •  oh no

    we really are only 1/8 of the way through this term, aren't we?  it seems like it's been so much longer...

    by gkn on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 05:29:20 PM PDT

    •  ugh...

      your tellin' me.........

      by maxschell on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 06:54:01 PM PDT

•  The End Result; a difficult, lasting lesson.

  The evidence on the guy is perfectly clear - in the context of the last half century's jurisprudence, John Roberts is an extremist.  He is so extreme, the religious right - yes, those extreme religious right fanatics we inversely gauge ourselves against - are celebrating tonight.  They are celebrating the fact that Mr. Roberts will move this country back to the "traditional values" that existed prior to the FDR court.

  Frankly, I think Roberts along with Rehnquist's successor will do just that. We are about to witness a gradual, but definite regression of jurisprudence.  Our children will learn first-hand many of the injustices and inequities that existed under Constitutional interpretation that was in force prior to the 1940's.  This, I feel is inevitable.

  You see, I believe this last Presidential election was the moment which will define American jurisprudence for the next 30 years.  We lost that election, but should not have.  We could have been and should have been the ones celebrating tonight as the concept of a living Constitution was secured for generations to come.  We could have been the ones resting more easily tonight knowing that our children would grow up in a country where the progressive values we hold so dear would endure.

  This should be a lesson for all Democrats.  Republicans have already learned the lesson.  Winning elections is what matters. Winning elections at nearly any cost and with any coalition is what matters.  The Democratic Party has failed spectacularly in this respect the last 20 years and we pay the price tonight and for the next 30 years.  

  The only question now is - how much longer will it take for Democrats to learn this lesson?
  

  by JCPOK on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:39:57 PM PDT

  •  This is what I tried to explain

    to some of my friends who couldn't stand Kerry and were considering not voting (not that it would have made any difference here in Rhode Island).

    "It's the Supreme Court, stupid."

    by mirrim on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:43:02 PM PDT

  •  Why are they celebrating???

    Because "my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge."

    They don't know anything, they are being led to the slaughterhouse, and they don't even realize it.

    Merging religion and state has never, ever, been a good thing.  When the government turns on them, and it will, they won't even realize what hit them.

    by independentchristian on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:50:40 PM PDT

    •  But they'll blame liberals.

      by David in Burbank on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 08:30:10 AM PDT

  •  Correct

    This should be a lesson for all Democrats.  Republicans have already learned the lesson.  Winning elections is what matters. Winning elections at nearly any cost and with any coalition is what matters.  The Democratic Party has failed spectacularly in this respect the last 20 years and we pay the price tonight and for the next 30 years.

    Democrats and Democratic-leaning interest groups have utterly failed to learn this lesson. John Kerry was electable. Reminder to pro-choice groups: 34% of voters who described themselves as "moderately" or "strongly" pro-choice voted for Bush in 2004. You should have persuaded at least some of them to vote for Kerry. If only a small percentage of those voters had done so -- less than 70,000 votes in Ohio would have put Kerry in the White House -- then we would not be staring into the abyss right now.

    Still, I think there will be other opportunities for the Supreme Court. Rehnquist will surely retire during this presidential term, but he may be the only one, and if so the winner of the 2008 election may appoint as many as four justices in four years. Are you listening, everyone? Do you now understand the freaking message?

    by socal on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 05:19:11 PM PDT

    •  Well, No

      The Democrats cannot and should not expect people to vote for them because they are not as bad as true Republicans. They have to earn our votes.

      The reason they failed is because they let go their liberal values. They did not defend them. They moved to the right. When they abandoned their principles and moved to the right they gave the victory to their opponents and now oppressors.

      You have it exactly backwards. The people who didn't vote for Kerry because he was not liberal or progressive enough for them are not to blame because they didn't vote for him; Kerry and the Democrats are remiss because they did not reach out to their base.

      The consequence of this is exactly what we are seeing. This should be a lesson for every Democratic candidate going forward--never, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER abandon liberal principles in the false hope of winning elections. It is an illusion that will bite you, BITE YOU, BITE YOU, BITE YOU, BITE YOU!

      Think, liberally.

      by Liberal Thinking on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 05:56:09 PM PDT

      •  Feel better?

        The Democrats cannot and should not expect people to vote for them because they are not as bad as true Republicans. They have to earn our votes.

        I'm sure it feels better for a lot of Nader voters to say stuff like that.

        But they have to live with the fact that Al Gore could have and should have been filling Supreme Court vacancies. Just another example of how foolish it was to say that there is no difference between Gore and Bush.

        by socal on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 06:15:30 PM PDT

        •  Feelings Have Nothing to Do With It

          The responsibility squarely resides with the politicians who did not stand up for their principles. There is no reason for anyone who voted for others to feel anything about this, other than disappointment that the Democrats weren't up to the task.

          I'm only involved with the Democratic Party now because I think they've made strides in the right direction (going left, that is) in the last few years. But they deserved to lose the last presidential election because they did not move far enough toward defending core liberal (and American) values such as individual liberty and fair economic rules. They voted for things like drug prohibition, the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act. They voted for NAFTA and globalization (without protecting our jobs and our economy).

          Democrats are fighting an ideology. They can't be wishy-washy on what they believe.

          The blame resides squarely with the politicians. They did not vote their beliefs (or if they did, they didn't vote for the beliefs of the majority of Americans). So, don't blame the voters. They are not to blame for this debacle. Democratic politicians are.
          

          Think, liberally.

          by Liberal Thinking on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 07:18:14 PM PDT

          •  Wow

            This is our problem.

            Bush pushed through one of the largest entitlement increases ever in the form of a Medicare Rx benefit, but nearly all fiscal hawks in the Republican Party remained loyal to the cause and Bush was elected.  The fiscal hawks believed, despite Bush's "indiscretion" on Medicare and the budget, that their pro-business and anti-regulation desires were better fulfilled with Bush in office.  They were right... they got Roberts.

            A similar case can be made for the libertarian Republicans with respect to separation of Church/state and intervention in personal matters.   Also, "nationalist" Republicans (e.g., Buchanan and his ilk) had a good reason to abandon Bush, but realized they were better off in whole keeping the guy in office. The list could go on and on.  

            Republicans stick together.  Democrats do not.  I think this is less indicative of a failure on the part of Democratic politicians (although, I think we need to have more inspiring candidates in the future) and more of a function of Democratic voters themselves.  We have to learn to let go of our differences and function as a united party.  Winning should always be the ultimate goal.      
            

            by JCPOK on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:24:23 AM PDT

            •  This Is Our Problem, This Is Our Strength

              The reason conservatives can do this is because Nordquist gets them together every week to hammer out their differences and reach a united front. Democrats don't have this mechanism.

              Conservatives can afford to hang together because giving in one week on a specific issue doesn't result in a leftward drift. But with Democrats, caving in on any of these things creates a rightward drift. We cannot afford to drift further to the right. That would be the end of our party and the end of the liberal movement in this country.

              The fact that Democrats don't have a mechanism for getting consensus is a problem. But until that problem is fixed, no one should consider giving up their vote because it is the only mechanism for keeping Democratic candidates in line.

              And, while it would be great to have a consensus mechanism for our side, the diversity of Democrats is also a strength. Dean is right. Republicans look alike and act alike. If you want to see a prototypical Republican, look at Roberts. He looks like a Republican. His family looks Republican. He acts Republican. It's no wonder we think he'll fry Roe v. Wade if he ever gets on the Court.

              Because Democrats have diversity, they are more resilient to challenges and encompass a lot more voters. It remains only for the politicians to figure out how to energize that entire base of voters. When they do that, they will wipe out the Republicans in government.
              

              Think, liberally.

              by Liberal Thinking on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:20:07 PM PDT

  •  The focus has to be on the things we can

    The focus has to be on the things we can  
    win, and if the Democrats can not get their act
    together and start working as one we will never
    get there.

    I do keep hoping that they can soon realize how
    their not standing together and showing a little
    backbone has cost this country dearly.

    As far as defining this country and the judicial
    branch for the next half century, you can bet that
    if we mess it up this time and can't win back any
    seats in both houses in 2006 and the white house
    in 2008, the repugs will be defining everything
    for a long time.

    If Roberts is confirmed it is not the end of the
    world and it is not the end of any possibility of
    getting a balanced court. Hoever if he is
    confirmed and and then another real ultra
    conservative is nominated in place of the next
    opening and believe it there will be one before  
    2008, then the court will be far right for years
    to come by more than a one vote majority.
    
    Again I remind all that sometimes it is wiser to
    pick your battles. But above all start preparing
    now to build a base for regaining seats and the
    White house. If we can not build some kind of
    perception that we are for the whole country and
    not completely partisian in everything we do,
    then our hopes are very dim.

    It would help by demanding that your elected
    Democratic official to start acting and voting
    like a Democrate instead of spilting votes with
    several always voting with the Repugs.

    Sometimes a vote with the opposition can be a
    good thing depending on the particular bill, but
    we have Dems who have a habit of voting as much
    with them as against.

    Another huge problem we also have is the lack of
    ability to get our Democratic officials to
    even show up for the vote. What kind of party
    support is that.

    Then we have the stupidity to wonder why we are
    on the losing end and some have left the
    Democratic party and gone independent. It
    is because of our track record over the past 30
    years except for part of the Clinton years.
    
    Folks knee jerk reactions is not what we need.
    
    we need to seriously get reform inside the
    Democratic party also. If we lose all much longer
    there will be no opposition, it will only be them.
    
    Focus on the weakness that they give us which
    right now are the scandals and focus on being
    sure we pick up wins in the coming elections.
    

    Ppeye

    by eaglecries on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 05:35:31 PM PDT

    •  Yes. Their weakness is that

      most people really don't want to live under their rule, now that they get a better idea of what it means.

      How about this for reform: Ask people to help do something that they want to have done. It's not the Democratic Party that needs reform half as much as the country.

      (See my earlier post on Constitutional Amendments XXVIII - XXX that I just wrote for ya)

      by kazoo of the north on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:58:08 AM PDT

•  But Armando...

  If we turn the clock back to 1937 we can stop HITLER!!!

  More seriously -- though the above point is quite serious and deserves consideration -- I think this is exactly the right strategy. Ad hominem attacks right now will get us nowhere. Blustery outrage will get us nowhere. Even a desparate search for a way to spin his past actions will be seen as weak and will, likely, get us nowhere.

  What can get us somewhere is a process via which we determine what's important to us, what's been important to Roberts, and then demand that Democratic Senators ask the questions that we all deserve to know with a zero tolerance for wishy-washy evasions. Roberts' testimony before the Senate judiciary committee is the make or break moment (or series of moments) here, and the more we go personal or go psychotic the less we'll be able to influence that hearing or hold Roberts' accountable for what he says (or doesn't say) there.

  So, hats off to you and Kos for setting the right goals and right priorities...

  by Addison on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:41:02 PM PDT

  •  Suck up.

    Heh.

    Kidding, kidding. I happen to agree with you, too.

    by mcjoan on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:53:37 PM PDT

    •  Heh

      Luckily I made my views about psychotic ad hominem attacks pretty well known BEFORE Kos and Armando posted theirs, so I'm insulated against most charges of sucking up.

      Or so I thought.

      However, anyone who fails to factor the anti-fascist benefits of going back to 1937 into their SCOTUS analysis will have my unreserved scorn.

      by Addison on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:57:54 PM PDT

      •  Yes, I saw your diary

        and nearly posted all of my angst about Roe there, but for whatever reason, didn't. Part of it was befuddlement over not seeing any comments. I'm definitely not warming up to that "feature."

        1937? I'll think about it.

        by mcjoan on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 05:02:25 PM PDT

•  Roe should be easy

  At his 2003 confirmation hearings, Roberts gave the standard answer: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land."  Simply ask him if he stands by that statement.

  Roberts was particularly evasive during that hearing and we can expect more of the same.  Now, there's no question that evasive answers or non-answers are a legitimate ground to oppose a nominee; the question is whether mere evasiveness will be sufficient to engender broad-based opposition.

  I think it's a tall order to get every Dem in the Senate to oppose a nominee based solely on his evasiveness.  Fact is, lots of nominees have been evasive (remember Clarence Thomas, who claimed he had never thought about Roe v. Wade?) and it's never been sufficient as a standalone issue in the past.  And even if there was a filibuster, and it came down to a nuclear option fight, would the public find the evasiveness so distasteful that it would end up as a winning issue for Dems?

  I don't really see it playing out this way; but Armando has quite correctly focused on the questions that need to be asked, and there is no question that the Dems need to fight for answers.

  by Steve M on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:41:43 PM PDT

  •  So, you think Bush nominated a 50 year old guy

    to overturn Roe v. Wade?  What?  Do they think doing that would take 35 years (as long as this guy could last)?  If he was nominating someone just to overturn Roe v. Wade, he could have nominated plenty of 75-85 year olds in South Carolina.

    Not saying this guy won't try and do it, but he was put on this court for much more destructive purposes, and put up there this young so that he could maintain the foolishness that the business community is depending on him to do for them.

    by independentchristian on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:47:20 PM PDT

    •  I was just saying

      the Roe question is easy to pose.  Delving into his beliefs on the Constitution in Exile, etc. will be considerably trickier.  I'm not sure where I ever said Roe was the only issue.

      by Steve M on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 05:01:02 PM PDT

  •  That was a very evasive answer in context

    because as a federal judge, of course he had to uphold the law of the land as upheld by the Supreme Court!

    We have to keep the focus on how clever that answer was -- as it says nothing about how he would see it as a Supreme Court justice, perhaps unsettling the law of the land. . . .

    by Cream City on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:49:04 PM PDT

    •  Yes

      I don't claim it means anything for a lower federal judge to say it, but if he reaffirms it as settled law now, that means something completely different.

      by Steve M on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:59:53 PM PDT

      •  Agreed

        And I'm just making the point that I've heard that what he said then is to be taken as supporting Roe v. Wade -- and we can't let that misstatement stand.

        Especially as I just heard that he has said something otherwise since . . . tracking it down now.

        However, it well may be that the African-American organizations will prove more of a problem for him -- interesting, with the recent attempt by the Repugs for rapprochement at the NAACP convention last week.

        by Cream City on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 05:20:15 PM PDT

    •  personal beliefs

      The answer wasn't as evasive as it sounds. He said his "personal beliefs" don't lead him to do anything but enforce Roe.  He could be asked what those "personal beliefs" are, because they presumably don't just involve a commitment to stare decisis at the appellate level.

      by Elrod on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 05:23:47 PM PDT

  •  Actually, what Thomas said was

    he had "never considered" Roe v. Wade. Whether or not you find that evasive depends on whether you assume he was using "considered" in a colloquial sense ("I never thought about it")...or in a legal sense, in which case I believe it means "I have never been asked to rule on it from the bench." The second is evasive, but the first is probably an out-and-out lie..

    I frankly didn't consider him qualified for a lot of reasons. That was only one.

    by mirrim on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 04:49:16 PM PDT