MyDD :: One Partisan Hack for Another

One Partisan Hack for Another

by Chris Bowers, Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 10:54:34 PM EST

The Bush administration has clearly stepped up the nomination of John Roberts in order to deflect attention from Karl Rove. Really, it makes sense. One partisan hack is deflecting attention from another.

Karl Rove is a lifetime Republican operative. John Roberts has been filing briefs and providing legal support for recounts (Roberts worked for Bush-Cheney 2000 in Florida, and he also worked with Ken Star) on behalf of Republicans for two decades. John Roberts is a partisan hack taking the heat for another partisan hack. He has only been a judge for two years. He has been a partisan Republican hack for twenty years.

The Bush administration was elected by the Supreme Court, and now it is now trying to elect a member of its campaign team to the Supreme Court in order to deflect attention away from ethics violations by the head of its campaign team, Karl Rove. This is partisan hackery at its best. The Bush administration has decided to treat the Supreme Court as an ambassadorship.

And so the fight is enjoined--the Bush administration wants to nominate a partisan hack who helped elect Bush via the Supreme Court, which elected Bush, in order to deflect attention from the possible treasonous activates of another partisan hack who led the Bush campaign in 2000 and 2004. And so this is our fight--the Supreme Court is not the Northern Mariana Islands. The Supreme Court is not a way to reward those who helped get you elected. The Supreme Court is not a way to help deflect attention from the ethics violations of those who helped elect you. The Supreme Court is not a place for partisan hacks, but the Bush administration thinks it is. And so this is our fight--country over partisanship. And so it begins.

Tags: Republicans (all tags)

Permalink :: 61 Comments :: Post a Comment

Comment about Roberts wife on MSNBC (none / 0)

For some reason Tucker Carlson is filling in for Tweety on Whiffleball. Rachel Maddow, who I've never heard of but is a very eloquent liberal spokesperson, said Roberts wife is President of some Women for Pro Life group.

I couldn't google the group up because "Roberts" brought up too many false hits and I didn't catch the exact name of the group. With his next appointment Bush will put have a 5-4 court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Abrams made the point, which I agree with, that Roberts is not a wacko conservative and will be confirmed. This will have to be a very sophisticated nomination fight to stop Roberts from getting confirmed. I don't think the Dems have it in them.

If it is true that Lieberman has already spoken fondly of Roberts, I have very reluctantly concluded that Roberts will easily get eight or nine Democratic votes and will not lose a single Republican.

I really hope I am wrong, but I think Bush has carefully chosen a judge that the Dems cannot stop, based on the deal made to stop the filibuster.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 11:17:26 PM EST

"Feminists" For Life (none / 0)

She's the former vice-president, according to his Wikipedia article.

Support Regina Thomas, GA-12

by Drew on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 11:46:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Feminists" For Life (none / 0)

Feminists for life.

A very shallow website.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 11:56:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

rachel maddow (none / 0)

is an air america host. she rocks.

ug. not happy with this at all, nope.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!

by annatopia on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 12:20:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rachel maddow (none / 0)

Thanks annatopia. I checked her out. She's on at 4-5:00 a.m. EST. That would be 1-2:00 a.m. PST. I guess that's why I never hear her show.

I was very impressed though.

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 01:24:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Smart: this senate already appointed him (3.00 / 1)

it's going to be harder to stop this guy since this senate already confirmed him (or is he a recess appointment?)

The choice is intuitive and not complicated at all. Imagine when Boyden Gray and the rest of the White House were looking through the list of names, someone smartly said, "Let's look through the list of judges that the Democrats let sail through (98% of all of Bush's nominees, btw), and pick the one who is the most loyal to us, and who most supports our views." And that was John C Roberts.

by janfrel on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 11:38:52 PM EST

Dems would be remiss not to filibuster (none / 0)

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

Roberts is at least as conservative as Rehnquist, and (without a paper trail) could very easily be a Thomas or Scalia. Roberts may very well be a stealth ideologue.

Dems fought for the filibuster for a reason -- for the very situation the Senate is now in with Roberts. Democratic Senators would abdicate progressive principles for a generation if they do not use the filibuster now in a circumstance when Bush is CLEARLY trying to move the court as far to the right as the Senate will let him. Now is the time to test the Gang of 14 agreement.

by JT on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 02:53:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Roberts is a young Rhenquist (3.00 / 1)

From SCOTUS Blog John Roberts in a nutshell:

Before shutting down the blog for the night, I thought I'd give my sense of the answer to the question of what I think John Roberts will be like as a Supreme Court Justice. The answer is that he will be like William Rehnquist, his former boss.

Judge Roberts, like the Chief, is an institutionalist - he has worked for essentially his entire professional career before the Supreme Court.

I also have the sense that they have a similar ideology. For example, I get the sense that he (like the Chief) simultaneously believes in strong Executive Powers (see the D.C. Circuit's recent Hamdan decision, which he joined) but also limited federal powers (see his dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc in the Rancho Viejo case).

One difference may be that Judge Roberts's opinions show him to be more of a judicial craftsman than the Chief, who tends to write as concisely and directy as possible. But in analyzing cases, the two are similar, as Judge Roberts explained in his hearings that it may be appropriate to rely on different sources of meaning -- e.g., text and history -- depending on the precise context.

Much more to come, obviously.

There's quite a bit more, including about a dozen links to what different organizations have said about Roberts. I think Dems should just use this to educate the American people about the Supreme Court. They can't stop Roberts.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 11:42:28 PM EST

Dems Damn Sure CAN Stop Roberts (none / 0)

As I explain in my diary, "Bush's Sham Standards Exposed By Roberts Nomination", it's not just Roberts who can be successfully attacked, it's Bush:

By nominating John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court, George W. Bush has made a mockery of the very standards he professes to be guided by in making 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."

Roberts is far outside the mainsteam, but much more importantly right now, he fits into the same pattern that has been established with Iraq and WMDs and Rove and the outing of Plame. It's one more case of Bush's fake integrity, and only 41% of the public is buying it anymore.

by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 01:19:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dems Damn Sure CAN Stop Roberts (none / 0)

From Digby, GOP Creature:

My initial take on reading around the web on Roberts is that he's a purely political choice --- a Republican die-hard to the bone. This means that even if he isn't seen as "ideological" in theory, he's ideological in practice. They all are.

He's spent his entire adult life in Washington. He's been a judge for only two years. Before that he represented corporations and worked for Republican administrations. That's it. He's not a scholar or a prosecutor or someone who has ever worked in the trenches. He's a creature of the radical right GOP establishment.

Good choice for Bush. He'll take care of his friends. And he knows exactly what he's supposed to deliver.

He's a hack for sure. He's probably not qualified to sit on the Appeals Bench that he was already approved for.

I'm not saying he shouldn't be stopped. I'm saying the Dems don't have the tools to stop him. I would far less discouraged if they had been able to make any headway against DeLay or Abramoff.

Unless Roberts has the kind of baggage that Bolton had, I don't see the Dems being able to do more than slow Roberts down.

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 01:31:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Roberts is a young Rhenquist (none / 0)

I've read a little bit more. I think Roberts will be more activist than Rhenquist by a long shot.

Roberts will be another Scalia, probably without the attitude.

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 01:40:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not A Hack (none / 0)

Roberts is one of the most highly regarded appellate lawyers in the country. He's been retained by Democratic Attorney Generals to represent their states before the Supreme Court. He was top of his class at Harvard Law School, law review editor, a law clerk for the highly-regarded Henry Friendly and then at the S. Ct., Deputy Solicitor General, and has argued an almost unheard of 39 cases before the S. Ct. He was rated highly qualified by the ABA for the DC Circuit and it's almost guaranteed that he'll receive a similar rating for the S. Ct.

Roberts is the Republican equivalent of Ginsburg and Breyer, and he's had the support of such notable Democratic attorneys as Lloyd Cutler (WH Counsel to Carter & Clinton), Walter Dellinger & Seth Waxman (Solicitor General under Clinton). Larry Tribe has been all over cable news tonight saying nice things about Roberts.

The qualilty of some of the criticism here is quite disappointing. Absent some unknown factor, a future Democratic President would have his hands tied by the precedent of a Roberts defeat.

by SLinVA on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 11:52:26 PM EST

Re: Not A Hack (2.00 / 1)

Regardless of what happens here, due to opinions such as you just expoused, a future Democratic President will have his hands tied. The question is whether this guy is going to be a moderate as was OConnor on the court. I don't care who he represented as an attorney. Lawyers will represent anyone. That's their job to be zealous representatives, and focus on making money for their firms. What I want toknow is whether this guy is a moderate conservative- the rest is just speculation by you.

by bruh21 on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 12:00:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Lawyers Don't Represent Anyone (none / 0)

The ones who are really hungry will, of course.

But the fat cat lawyers represent their fat cat country club kin, and all the rancid political ideologues they've allied themselves with to roll back the New Deal, the Enlightment and the Renaissance.

You remind me of a saying from the 60s: "Some people can't read the writing on the wall until their backs are up against it."

by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 01:30:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lawyers Don't Represent Anyone (none / 0)

I have worked for large law firms as an attorney before I gave it up. I am familar with the practices of large law firms.

by bruh21 on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 01:34:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Big Firms, Big Blind Spots (none / 0)

Being an alternative journalist, I'm particularly close to and aware of the myopia of corporate journalists and their inabilities to see their own positions and institutional embeddedness clearly. I'm not as broadly familiar with law firms, but what I do know falls into roughly the same pattern.

There's a good-sized law firm with a local branch here in Long Beach--nowhere near what you'd call "large" though. They reperesnt working people to a very large extent, and have litigated asbestos cases since the 1970s. The simple fact of their existence tell me that an awful lot of large law firms don't do very many asbestos cases. If they did, this firm would have never been able to carve out the considerable niche it has.

I could have cited other examples--labor law lawyers I know, for example. I could have pointed to Johnny Cochrane (RIP). There are all sorts of examples of lawyers who specialize in cases that the big boys are not particularly hungry for. And if the big boys can't see what they're missing.... Well, that's sort of my point, now, isn't it?

by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 02:13:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Big Firms, Big Blind Spots (none / 0)

Law is like any other industry. People specialize, and lawyers for the most part are whores. It's the rare attorney who will rep solely one party. I have worked for so-called liberal firms (translated the partners are dems and progressives) who never the last support Repulbicans in litigation matters. Not everyone is or can be David Bois. I know of folks who rep'ed the S Ct boy scout case (gay) even though they personally disagreed with it. This is why I am willing to cut Roberts slack for his representation (same as with Gonzo), but that being said, one still must delve into what these people actually believe. Saying to me that he rep'ed Democrats doesn't make him moderate in my book. It makes him a lawyer. We have yet to determine if he is going to be moderate or not. Maybe not now, but definitely before the Republicans begin their spin closer to the confirmation process there should be a drive to start to shape the issues to find this out. But, I really have begun to have low expectations- I mean poltics isn't really my life. I do this as someone into the subject, but from what I am seeing there are a lot of talkers, and very few do'ers. OT: this is why I say I am Democratic in beliefs, and Republican in approach.

by bruh21 on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 03:14:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Now You've Started To Add Nuance (none / 0)

which is where this conversation should have started. Because the whole point here is that there's a lot of nuance in the amount of nuance that different lawyers have. And there are some very partisan hacks who fly under the cover of other people's nuance.

Chris and others have amply pointed out the degree to which Roberts has worked as a partisan hack. GOP partisan lawyers in the past 10-15 years are not like they were 30 years ago. You simply cannot be part of that world and have any real integrity or credibility. Ken Starr was once touted as the most fairminded of GOP litigants. But he ended up running an investigation that was all about finding a crime to charge Bill Clinton with--it had to be, since the entire Whitewater affair had nothing remotely criminal about it, and this was demonstrated way back in 1995 by the Pillsbury Report. And then you had the Florida election challenge--with a Supreme Court decision that no one will seriosuly defend, because it is legally and intellectually indefensible.

This the world that Roberts calls home. It's a place where nuance means the difference between arch criminals and their enablers.

by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 03:34:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Roberts is a conservative hack (none / 0)

Unfortunately, Roberts is probably still more qualified and deserving of a Supreme Court appointment than Clarence Thomas. The problem isn't Roberts, it's how low the Dems have allowed the bar to sink in the last twenty years.

Roberts is probably as qualified as Thomas and less conservative. Maybe he's even less qualified than Thomas.

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 01:35:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Roberts is a conservative hack (none / 0)

The response has been as I expected. I tried to push a petition tonight that basically said that Senator Specter should seek to determine if Judge Roberts will act as a moderate or a consertative judicial activist. The response I am seeing however is wait and see. I am not exactly certain what we are waiint to see? Shouldn't we start the process for those of us online now to shape how the eventual debate will occur in a month and half from now? Needless to say- the response has been tepid. It could be wording which I will work on and maybe resubmit a few days from now. But otherwise, I think it is a general talk a lot, but do very little approach to these issues by most of the rank and file. Maybe I am wrong- and I hope that I am. that there is a petition by some larger organization seeking to talk directly to the senators, but so far the response has really bothered me.

by bruh21 on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 01:44:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Lowered Standards (none / 0)

The only thing Thomas was qualified for was getting confirmed by weasles like Biden. He was grossly incompetent, and a perjurer to boot, even if he hadn't been a serial sexual harasser, which definitely isn't compatible with a judicial temperament.

by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 02:00:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lowered Standards (none / 0)

I think you are confusing this blog with Free Republic, and what you would do. Lucky for you that I am not in charge.

by bruh21 on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 03:16:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lowered Standards (none / 0)

I think you must be a little unclear on the difference between "wanted" and "unwanted" as in "unwanted sexual advances."

But, then, we already knew that from your handle, didn't we?

by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 03:23:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not A Hack (none / 0)

Whatever. Clinton's nominee's were pre-1994. Had he nominated someone post-'94, it would have been a different ballgame. Woe be unto any Democratic President who attempts to nominate anyone for anything with a Republican Senate.

I don't care what Democrats this guy was retained by. He was retained by the legal campaign that frickin' elected Bush, and now he is being rewarded with a seat on the Court for it. And he was nomianted weeks early to deflect attention from Rove. It is partisan hackery upon partisan hackery. Of the very, very worst kind.

by Chris Bowers on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 12:09:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not A Hack (2.50 / 2)

It seems to me that the most partisan thing here is the ad hominem attack on Roberts. Very few lawyers share those sentiments, and I don't think that many Democratic Senators will side with those who want to take the party over the cliff on the issue. If Roberts isn't qualified for the S. Ct., Democrats will have a tough time arguing that any of their prospective nominees would meet such a similar test. Ginsburg & Breyer got the vast majority of Republican Senate votes, so the fact their confirmations were before the Republicans took over the Senate is immaterial.

by SLinVA on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 12:25:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ginsburg and Breyer (3.00 / 2)

Were suggested by Orrin Hatch.

Was Roberts suggested by Patrick Leahy?

If not, then this is yet another false equivalence.

Support Regina Thomas, GA-12

by Drew on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 12:27:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not A Hack (3.00 / 1)

"Ginsburg & Breyer got the vast majority of Republican Senate votes, so the fact their confirmations were before the Republicans took over the Senate is immaterial."

No its not. Republicans had to cave. They had fewer Senators than we had now, and hadn't been the natural ruling party of the country for seventy years, and they actually suggested the damn candidates they were voting for. As a commenter says below, I didn't see Dems reccomending Roberts.

by Chris Bowers on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 12:32:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not A Hack (none / 0)

What if he is another Souter?

Would it be better if Bush nomintated someone more pallatable, but less qualified. Like Gonzales? There is only so much ammo the Democrats in the Senate have and they can't spend it all on someone who, although you might have a different philosophy, has a judicial temperment and is a great lawyer.

And what if he is Rhenquist Jr.? Play it smooth this time to show the people that Democrats are fair minded, and then hammer them when he puts up a conservative activist judge like Scalia.

by Christopher Hitchens on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 12:47:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

He ain't Souter (3.00 / 2)

How can you even compare the two. Souter didn't spend his entire legal career defending Republicans and big business. He also wasn't a member of the Federalist Society or the White House lawyer in two Republican Administrations.

Based on what we already know, he's more likely to be another Scalia than Souter.

by DWCG on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 12:55:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He ain't Souter (none / 0)

He's probably a Rehnquist type of conservative judge, considering he clerked for him.

by Christopher Hitchens on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 01:03:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Earl Warren was a Republican (none / 0)

Two days ago you didn't even know who this guy is, now you can see into his soul? Gimmie a break!

by Paul Goodman on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 08:59:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hack (none / 0)

Gonzales is far more qualified than Roberts.

His biggest drawback may be that he is more activist than Scalia.

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 01:38:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Lawyers (3.00 / 1)

Your instance upon lawyers focues on whethor or not Roberts has the legal qualifications to become a Supreme. That has fuck all to do with what I am talking about.

I don't give a rat's ass if Rboerts was retained by every attorny general int he country, and argued every case every brought before the Supreme Court. The fact is that he worked for Ken Star and for Bush-Cheney in Florida in 2000, and he is subseuqently being nominated early to cover up for Bush's top political advisor. this is fucking partisan political hackery, even if involves someone who is smart and who has a long resume. Partisan hacks can be smart and have a long resume. That doesn't mean they aren't partisan hacks and that they aren't rewarded for being such.

by Chris Bowers on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 12:44:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lawyers (none / 0)

He might be a partisan hack, but look at the list of potential nominees. A lot of them were completely unqualified and completely lacking in judicial temperment. The Republicans aren't happy with Ginsburg the Dems might not be happy with Roberts but at least they are good judges, and that is what America wants in a divided court.

by Christopher Hitchens on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 12:50:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lawyers (none / 0)

The Republicans aren't happy with George Washington, and the Democrats might not be happy with Attila the Hun, but at least they are good leaders, and that is what America wants in a divided government.

by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 02:21:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lawyers (none / 0)

The bottom line is that the Republicans control the Presidency and the Senate, and they can nominate and pass throuhg anyone they want. This isn't a small time appeals court nominee. This is a supreme court justice, and the people are going to expect that he will be given a fair hearing.

We don't know what he is going to decide on any given case, and the history of the court has shown the some of the most liberal judges have come from Republicans. I'm not going to engage in Republican-lite smear tactics, and I never will, over this nomination.

If you don't like it, then the right thing to do is concentrate on winning elections. Whoever wins gets to pick the judges.

by Christopher Hitchens on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 10:08:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lawyers (none / 0)

I don't believe that a majority of the Senate, or even the Democrats in the Senate will share that position, since it's certainly at variance with any prior standard for S. Ct. nominees. Even articulating it in public will turn off more voters than it will gain. Bush isn't the only one with some risk here. Litmus tests and over-the-top rhetoric won't defeat Roberts and won't leave the party looking to the rather large audience that will be taking stock of the process.

by SLinVA on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 12:57:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lawyers (none / 0)

How exactly do you know what will turn off the voters? This ploy is always used to by people to not act in a situation. For that matter, I am seeing a lumping together of ideas. I mentioned one involving trying to begin now to shape the standards they, the Judical Select, committe uses in its selection process, and the response back was similar to yours. It seems y'all are using a one size fit all approach to this: accept the nomination, and don't question it. When exactly do you feel it is necessary to actually start being proactive? When do you think something in your estimation will not piss off the voters? These are all questions that vague statements like putting off the voters doesn't really answer.

by bruh21 on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 01:48:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lawyers (none / 0)

Have you been retained as a character witness to the media gushing over this guy?

by Chris Bowers on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 01:58:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lawyers (3.00 / 0)

I don't have the power, but I would ban you. You don't have anything to add that we can't already hear on Fox. For the record, I know a lot of independent leaning conversatives (some of them Evangelicals). I disagree with them a lot, but we are friends and respect each other. Someone like you though, you're not even worthy of respect much less tolerating because there is nothing approaching the independent thought that comes out of my friends.

by bruh21 on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 03:22:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lawyers (3.00 / 0)

Actually you are very wrong, and I am tired of seeing ingnorance filled posts. Mydd allows for a wide variety of opinions. You'll find that many people on this thread disagree with Bowers. Most of the time Bowers gets a dissenting viewpoint that is right on. The common theme is that we would like to see the Democrats win again. We just have very different reasons why and how that should happen.

This is one of the few sites without a herd mentality out there, and I think if you actually read the threads you would see that.

by Christopher Hitchens on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 10:23:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Veil of Ignorance (none / 0)

So should Walter Dellinger not be appointed the next time the Dems get the White House back? He worked on our side in Florida in the 2000 recount (as did more-junior lawyers I know at his firm who I hope will become judges some day). Or is it only Republican "hacks" who are "unqualified"?

I don't know enough about Judge Roberts to say whether I'd vote for him if I were in the Senate. Not to get too Rawlsian, but it seems we are setting up standards for rejection that will lead to the rejection of some of our best people when we have our chance to appoint Justices. If there's a real problem with the Judge, we'll find out about it in the weeks to come, but attacking him because he is a conservative seems silly at this point. Did you expect Bush to appoint Kathleen Sullivan or Laurence Tribe?

by Flatiron Dante on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 02:41:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Veil of Ignorance (none / 0)

So, at least you are saying something different from the other posters- you do agree there should be a standard for rejection or endorsement other than the present commentary which reads "rubberstamp"?

by bruh21 on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 03:23:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Veil of Ignorance (none / 0)

Yes. I need to hear from him what is his view of the Constitution and what he believes the role of the Supreme Court to be.

by Flatiron Dante on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 12:03:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That is so bogus (none / 0)

Rove has nothing to do with this. The supreme court is far, far bigger than a piddly advisor. Have you any documentary evidence that Bush et. al. picked this guy for extremely short term purposes?

by Paul Goodman on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 09:02:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is so bogus (none / 0)

Considering this man is 50 years old, I doubt he picked him for short term purposes.

by Christopher Hitchens on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 10:00:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So he's a good hack. (3.00 / 3)

I don't doubt it. Heck, if I wanted to pollute the environment or slaughter endangered species or fire disabled workers, I'd want him on my side, too.

Support Regina Thomas, GA-12

by Drew on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 12:09:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not A Hack (none / 0)

Absent some unknown factor, a future Democratic President would have his hands tied by the precedent of a Roberts defeat.

Yeah, because the Republicans have always taken the high road with judicial nominations when there was a Democrat in the White House. Come on. Let us be perfectly clear, now and forever more:

Any argument which proceeds from the basis of "if we do X, then the Republicans will do X later" is fatally flawed: there is no causation or correllation to which it applies.

The Republicans will always do X. The Republicans will also do Y, Z, and with apologies to Theodore Geisel, the Republicans will also do all of the awful things represented by all of the letters beyond the end of the alphabet, regardless of whether or not the Democrats do X. Because that's what Republicans do. Maybe once upon a time that wasn't what Republicans did, and maybe some time in the far far future in a galaxy far far away when there has been a complete reversal of course by the Republican Party and every current Republican leader and College Republican and Young Republican has passed on to their just deserts, the Republicans won't do X.

But that possibility is just a Big Rock Candy Mountain for the foreseeable future.

by paperwight on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 12:18:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not A Hack (none / 0)

Whoa, hold the phone...

While I think we all need to do much more homework on Roberts, it's really silly to say that criticism of Roberts is off-base just because Lawrence Tribe has said nice things about him.

I honestly don't know what to make of Roberts on Roe. But we should definitely be very concerned about Roberts, particularly about his record on laws that relate to both the environment and criminal justice. Also a matter of concern is the fact that he's a member of the far-right Federalist Society. And let's not forget the fact that this guy's been a judge for only two years -- don't think that's not intentional. Short tenure as judge means little evidence of his possible, if not probable, extremism.

While all of the talking heads are parroting the point that he's hugely qualified, I'm not so sure about that.

by Scott Shields on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 12:23:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

GOP counting on a knee-jerk Left (3.00 / 1)

There whole-strategy is based upon it. Take that away and their calculations go awry. Sadly for me, the juvenile Left is at it again. Knee-jerk, reflexive attacks on this guy. Hey, why don't you care about this type of thing during election years? Nobody forced left-wingers to be for Gay Marriage. They put that millstone around their own neck. Now we all are paying for their naivete.

Gay Marriage = Dems Lose = Repubs control the courts = No Gay Marriage anyway.

Thanks.

by Paul Goodman on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 09:09:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You FUCKING IDIOT!!!! (1.00 / 1)

So, all the Democratic lawyers who stood around helplessly and cluelessly while Bush & Co stole the 2000 election say nice things about him. Well, they sure have a lot of credibility, now don't they?</SUPER-SARCASM>

by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 01:22:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Please sign my petition regarding (none / 0)

moderation being the litmus test during Judge Roberts'nomination. This petition is going to Sen. Arlen Specter, and requesting that he look for whether Judge Roberts will truly represent moderation.

http://www.petitiononline.com/ft12rc24/petition.html

by bruh21 on Tue Jul 19, 2005 at 11:58:07 PM EST

What we know; what they know (none / 0)

Roberts as pointed out has very little paper record with just two years as a judge. He has worked for 20 years near the top of Republican administrations.

We know that the man is smart. We know that he is political as all get out. You don't start c;erking for Rehnquiat without connections. Attacking him may be like attacking jello because, unlike Bork, he's basixally been a Republican trial lawyerwithout a long body of written work. And, most important of all, he's 50. He will be there longere than Ginsberg or Breyer, all things being equal, because he is younger. Yhis inknown will ne there for 30 years.

FWIW, having worked for Republican administrations all those years rather than in the private sector or as a judge or even as a state attorney general, they would seem to know exactly what he thinks and where he stands. There is a long private record for Roberts but not much of a public record.

by David Kowalski on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 01:15:09 AM EST

career political operative (none / 0)

This is absolutely the line we need to take; its whats objectionable about this nomination. Choosing a career political operative shows that Bush does not see anyting in our country, even the Supreme Court, as being above politics, and he's willing to use any occastion to advance a partisan agenda over the national good.

by desmoulins on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 01:45:48 AM EST

Re: career political operative (none / 0)

Oooohhh.... how a bout only spending two years on the Bench... that ought to make most Repubs think... or at least ... tryfor the first time.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 10:15:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Roberts Extremism Unveiled (none / 0)

From the Alliance for Justice report (pdf), which I cite in my diary, "Bush's Sham Standards Exposed By Roberts Nomination":

Recent statements by Roberts prior to his nomination also serve to belie assertions by the Bush Administration and other supporters that he is not an extremist and would not act as an ideologue if confirmed to the federal bench. When asked in 2000 for his opinion of the Rehnquist Supreme Court, which has been characterized by many legal scholars as the most right-wing and activist in decades,45 Roberts stated, "I don't know how you can call [the Rehnquist] court conservative . . . ."46 And when asked specifically about the 1999-2000 Supreme Court term, a term in which the Court rendered numerous highly controversial decisions,47 Roberts said that "[t]aking this term as a whole, the most important thing it did was make a compelling case that we do not have a very conservative Supreme Court . . . ."48

Had Roberts been asserting that the Court was not "conservative" in the traditional sense of the word - i.e. granting due deference to Congress and prior caselaw and maintaining the status quo to the extent possible - then his assertion would seem quite credible, given the striking number of laws the Court has overturned and precedents it has reversed. However, it seems clear that Roberts meant that, in his view, the Supreme Court was not particularly right-wing, an astonishing assertion in light of the Court's recent activism. Roberts' assertion that the current Rehnquist Court is not very conservative raises serious concerns about the extreme positions he might take if confirmed to the bench.

In short, it is quite possible, given these comments, that Roberts is to the right of Scalia and Thomas, as well as Rehnquist. He certainly doesn't regard Kennedy and O'Connor as conservatives, which they most certainly are. More than that, after all, they elected George Bush. When the chips were down, they were every bit as lawless as Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist, but they're still too liberal for Roberts.

He may be to the left of Atilla the Hun, however. We should see about ressurecting Atilla and see if he'll attack Roberts from the right.

by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 01:56:06 AM EST

Conservatives won the election (again) (3.00 / 1)

So it should be of no surprise that they nominate a conservative. This demand of yours that they nominate someone you like, has it any teeth? I didn't think so.

by Paul Goodman on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 09:11:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Bowers thesis is correct (3.00 / 1)

Bowers is right on this. The focus should be kept
on Rove for now, while the senate judiciary
and Harry Reid, et. al. draft position on it.

If the democratic party wants to play this right,
they need to strike gold with the treason charges
and really clean house - its a first line
of defence against al qaeda in our own government -

I think Reid, is probably the best person to figure out who this guy roberts is, but right now, even if he is another Rehnquist (the get-things-done school of conservatism which I have no problem with at all..) IMHO it
is totally secondary to the grimer wormtongue
problem we have in the white house.

Is bush acting alone, when he picks such men?
Think about it. If grimer wormtongue
were in power.. WWGWTD

by turnerbroadcasting on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 01:59:54 AM EST

Back to the Point (none / 0)

Is Roberts the REAL conservative nominee or as others have said a Straw Man or a throw away offering to the Democratic party? Is he expected to draw fire because of his youth and Rep ties so the REAL nominee can be brought out after the fight over him gets nasty.
Then the Reps take the high ground and say "We're not going to be mean we'll just bring out Mr. or Mrs. X for the court." At that point the Dems have to start over and take a chance of turning off the public or not fighting as hard as is needed.
If Roberts wins I think it'll surprise the Reps more than the Dems. irsouth2

by irsouth2 on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 10:54:10 AM EST

Re: Back to the Point (none / 0)

I think if he was the trojan horse he would have a significant record to attack. Let's face it, he is not Bourk or Thomas (that we can tell anyway). He's an intriguing choice anyway.

by artvandelay on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 03:09:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Partisan Hack for Another (none / 0)

SEXE
interracial
japanese
jerking
jizz
juicy
kinky
kissing
latex
latina
leg
lesbian
lick
lingerie
lust
maid
male
mardi gras
masturbating
masturbation
mature
mature
melon
midget
milf
mistress
mmf
aged
amateur
amateur
amateur
amazing
anal
anal
anime
asian
ass
asshole
babe
backseat
bang gang
bang
bathing
bbw
bdsm
beach
beauty
beaver
bed
bigtit
bimbo
bisexual
bizarre
black
black
blonde
blowjob
bondage
booty
boy
bukkake
busty
butt
cartoon
celebrite
cheerleader
chick
chinese
chubby
classy
clit
clitoris
close up
cock
coed
corset
couple
couple
creampie
cum
cumshot
cunt
curly
deep throat
dick
dildo
dirty
doll
dorm
double penetration
dress
drilled
drinking
drunk
ebony
ethnic
exotic
face
facial
fat
femdom
fetish
ffm
film gratuit
film gratuit
fingering
first time
fisting
flashing
foot
footjob
fucking
gay
gay
girlfriend
glasses
glory hole
gorgeous
goth
granny
hairy
handjob
hardcore
hentai
hidden
hirsute
hooter
horny
housewife
huge
indian
model
mom
movie
movie
naked
natural
nature
naughty
nipples
nude
nude
nudist
nympho
oiled
older
oral
orgasm
orgy
oriental
outdoor
outside
pantie
panty
penetrate
petite
pink
pissing
plump
plumper
porn
porn
porno gratuit
porno gratuit
porno
porno
porno
porno
pornstar
pregnant
pretty
private
puffy
pussy
redhead
rimjob
schoolgirl
sex
sex
sex
sexe
sexe
sex gratuit
sexe gratuit
sexe gratuit
sexe
sexe
shaving
shemale
shower bath
skinny
slut
smoke
smoking
softcore
spank
spanking
sperm
spread
squirting
stocking
stories
strapon
strip
stripper
stud
student
sucking
swinger
sybian
tall
tease
teen
teen
telechargement film
telechargement movie
telechargement porn
telechargement porno
telechargement sex
telechargement sexe
telechargement x
telechargement xxx
telecharger film
telecharger movie
telecharger porn
telecharger porno
telecharger sex
telecharger sexe
telecharger x
telecharger xxx
thong
threesome
tits
toes
toon
topless
toy
tranny
tub
twink
ugly
undressing
vagina
vibrator
virgin
vixen
voyeur
webcam
webcam
weird
wet shirt
whore
wives
x gratuit
xxx gratuit

by bombi on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 06:39:51 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.