the Roberts nomination should be fiercely opposed

Will Democrats even now, even in this opportunity born of criminal tragedy, continue with their loser strategy?  Will those Democrats least representative of the heart of the Democratic Party and the conscious spirit of America -- the Bidens, the Clintons, the Liebermans -- continue to represent us?  

What would Republican strategists do in a situation like this?  Would they say "Oh,, the President's nominee is the best we could hope for in these times"???  Would they continue to think of themselves as the minority party?

The Republicans would press every advantage they have.  Democrats like Biden don't, because of the cozy deals they have made that make them wealthy impotent liberals with the illusion of power.

The whole of America has seen where the Norquist/Reaganite/Gingrich etc. false principle of "less government" leads.  It is a false principle because actually the government is more busy than ever sucking wealth from the general population -- for graft, corruption, anything but serving the people.  Roberts's whole story is fighting to protect the powers of these crooks.  Of course Republicans will say that Roberts is a distinguished lawyers blah blah -- meaning that he has devoted his life to, and has developed expertise in, serving this gang of murderous thieves.

Given the resources that naturally flow to the Democratic Party as the so-called opposition to the Republicans, there is a possibility of consciousness raising and even defeating Roberts. The country right now is somewhat awakened, somewhat conscious, and the truth will resonate.  Failing to oppose Roberts vigorously is choosing a path toward wasting the opportunities for the midterm elections.

Which will it be, Senator from MBNA, and other party leaders?  Will Howard Dean show here that his position makes a difference?

•  I believe in

  Picking our battles wisely.

  What I feel strong about is that the next nominee should be female; after all the SCOTUS represents all Americans and having some more justices who view things from a female point of view is, in my opinion, essential.

  (yes, I am a guy)

  As far as Roberts:  face it, we will be getting conservatives nominees so I say, have the up or down vote, let him get approved by a less than stellar margin of say, 60-40, 75-25 or whatever.

  by onanyes on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:22:29 AM PDT

  •  Roberts NO !!

    IF Roberts becomes the Chief Justice .
     IF we should get so far as trying to impeach Bush .
     The Chief Justice is the only one that can stop it !
      Look it up..it's the law !!

    by ajr2005 on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:39:21 AM PDT

    •  err . . . no.

      The Chief Justice presides over impeachment trials; he cannot stop them.

      by Adam B on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:44:45 AM PDT

      •  On the bright side...

        if Roberts did preside, we would definitely have Roberts rules of order.

        Bad jokes aside (and providing the subject for the bad jokes as much as Bush has done should be grounds for impeachment) I would rather have Roberts administering that trial than serving as Bush's lawyer in it.

        by murrayewv on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:48:45 AM PDT

        •  he wouldn't

          Roberts has never taken a deposition, cross-examined a witness or spoken to a jury.

          by Adam B on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 04:57:36 AM PDT

          •  Scary- I didn't know.

            by murrayewv on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 08:58:35 AM PDT

            •  not really

              Different attorneys do different things.  I've practiced since 1997, and even though I'm a litigator, I've never argued a case in front of a jury.

              by Adam B on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 09:08:19 AM PDT

•  Yes we must opposed Roberts

  Roberts' resume is light, very light, on judicial experience. Why is the world should he be confirmed to run the highest court in this country? Look what happened when another Bush appointee with a very light resume was confirmed to run FEMA. Enough with the neophytes.

  by Grassroots Mom on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:06:15 AM PDT

•  Even if we can't keep Roberts

  from being confirmed, we should disseminate as widely as possible his disgraceful views on both race and women's rights. He's a racist and misogynist. Is this who we want running the Supreme Court? And his wife is obsessed with making more white babies available for adoption--that's the eugenic agenda of her deceptively named organization, Feminists for Life.

  by marysz on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:38:46 AM PDT

  •  he's a what?

    Surely you have backing for the claims of racism and misogyny.

    by Adam B on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 07:02:34 AM PDT

•  Roberts is likely to be a corporate rubber stamp

  if Bush has nominated him.

  Don't be distracted by the talk about his constitutional philosophy, views on abortion, womens' role in society, and his judicial temperament. Blue smoke and mirrors.

  Most likely He has been selected first and foremost because of his pro-corporation temperament.

  Will the Dems on the Judicial Committee go there during their questioning of Roberts? That is very doubtful.

     

  by shumard on Sun Sep 11, 2005 at 05:48:55 AM PDT