Should we be contacting Arlen Specter through his constituency. He's a valuable part of  this.

All Bush did was guarantee more months of his 2nd term agenda stuck in the mud. That to me is a good thing and a sore miscalculation on the part of the administration.

Let's face it, short of an indictment Bush will never fire Rove. Therefore the longer he cannot pursue anything of substance in his 2nd term the better, imo.

I just heard on CNN that Lieberman is already praising Roberts. I think the Dems need to go after him hard on issues besides Roe v. Wade. I'd pick the environment and a couple of other issues and try to emphasize his radical conservatism for the record, but from what Aaron Brown had on him, he will do very well at his confirmation hearings.

I think Roberts is getting confirmed. The Dems have let the GOPers push the debate too far to the right for too many decades. Instead of trying to stop Roberts, Dems need to focus on redefining the Constitutional center for the next four or five nominees. Hopefully Bush will get one and a Democrat will get the next four.

it's not that i want him on the court.  it's that there is no way we can win by fighting him.  he doesn't say loony things like janice brown so there is no good way to paint him as a radical.  most importantly, let's just imagine we did beat him, then what?  bush just nominates another super conservative.  what do we try to run out the clock until 2009?  the nation will not abide by that, and the public is right.  that is simply unacceptible.

i also think it is exceedingly brainless to cite the brief he signed (as the sixth signer by the way) while working for the reagan administration as evidence that he personally opposes roe v. wade.  it's called representing a client people, it says nothing about the lawyer's personal views.  we don't know his opinion on roe.  and once again, even if we defeated his nomination, bush can nominate anti-roe nominee after nominee, what will we do?  oppose them all?  

finally i think roberts' generally judicious (though very conservative) temperament gives hope that he won't go doing wacko things like, for example, read the commerce clause to restrict federal power so much that things like social security become illegal.  the states rights stuff is important at the margins, the regulatory state is here to stay.

But, I should note, it's not okay for the government to stop radical anti-abortion protestors from blocking clinic entrances.  That's just wrong.

Then I'd gut him on monopoly issues.

And I think it's we start talking about digital rights.  That includes DRM, fair use, file sharing, responsibility of entities for copying, and the political space of bloggers.  And I damn well want to hear something on the completely idiotic concept of software patents.

Roe v Wade is going to be a rehearsed answer, and he's going to say he doesn't want to promise rulings beforehand.

It's time that we skip that old bullshit, and find new and interesting and RELEVANT issues to ask these guys about.

The most important business rulings since the laissez faire era are about to be coming along.

I want to know if this guy is relevant and informed enough to even joke about them.

I want to know what he aims to do in the digital age.  And I damn well want to know where he stands on individual rights.

That means we should find a way to sneek in the buttfucking question (if Scalia can face, Roberts can, right?).

Let's pull this puppy's ears and see if he bites.

To:  Honorable Senator Arlen Specter

We, the undersigned, will take a serious hard look at the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court of the United States and are asking for you to do the same. Some of his positions as both an advocate and parts of his judicial philosophy have been antithetical to our values. If Judge Roberts is planning to bring these beliefs to the Sumpreme Court, he will be acting as a radical judicial activist on a multitude of issues. We oppose such radical activism, whether it is from liberal or conservative philosophies.

We understand that you have been attacked by some of the most extreme elements of your party for your commitment to moderation. It is your commitment to moderation that has brought us to making this request of you. Indeed, one of the undersigned had the opportunity to work in Pennsylvania during the 2004 election in a predominantly low income African-American neighborhood. He observed voters wearing Kerry and Specter buttons because the voters believed that you are a fair man who would represent all of them, and not just the special interests of a few. This nomination is an excellent opportunity for moderation to win out over extremism and decrease the divisions in this country.

Please understand that this is not an attack on Judge Roberts, the person. By all accounts, we understand that he is a nice person to know personally. Our concern is that his believes maybe at odds with mainstream values such as fairness and privacy. It was our hope that President Bush would choose a moderate conservative nominee similar to Justice O'Connor that would reflect the hopes and aspirations of all Americans as embodied in the U.S. Constitution. These ideas go beyond affirmative action and abortion into the heart of being Americans. These are beliefs that no conservative or liberal should abridge. It is clear from Judge Robert's own prior actions that he may intend to act as a judicial activist. Therefore, we are requesting that you oppose his entrance as a justice to the Supreme Court if it becomes clear that he will act in such a manner.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

I have to speak of my blood and tell you
of a scottish field

The british charged with heavy horse
a rag-tag bunch of scots pulled stakes
into their momentum.

And that day scotland won their freedom,
there were defeats to follow, and
beheadings of my ancestors..

But there were also farmers who
became soldiers and unity amongst
them,

they played a trick on the enemy.
those who would be wanting to hide
Karl Rove behind all of this will
be charging at you with heavy horse.

just check opensecrets.org if you don't
believe me. Millions of bucks will be burned
on this. Just has the earmark of rove
all over it, bloated, fat, expensive,
and pointless.

Official position: Don't care about Roberts,
upset about Rove still right now.

And hey, you know, maybe turd blossom
is a nice guy but he's al qaeda to me
right now and if the patriot act
doesn't apply to people helll bent on
destroying secret soldiers of the USA
then what does?

He just picked a white guy with a very short resume. Ideology aside, this is the wrong message to send. It's not that we need quotas for our SCotUS justices. O'Connor need not followed by a woman or a minority. But I would guess that women and minorities probably would want any white male nominee to be surpremely qualified. Better than any women or minority candidate out there...(not because white male candidates are inherently so, but because of the obvious head start they've had.)

Roberts does smell like a hack. He is a Federalist Society member who clerked for Sauron himself, William Rehnquist, before joining a DC firm specializing in cases about federal issues. He knows little but the affluence of being a rich man's son and attending Harvard College and Harvard Law. And he reappears in the Florida 2000 debacle.

So if the Dems go against him, the key is not to fall into the trap of citing his comments on abortion. More important is (much like John Bolton who also worked on the recount) to ask about his opinion on the role of state and federal governments. This won't be prime-time stuff until the Senators ask about terrorism and other applications of federalism.

Rove sure hopes that a conflagration over abortion makes his troubles disappear. But that's wishful thinking. Judicial nominations take up lots of ink, but never enough for an Administration in trouble.