The whole magilla.

Voters have a chance every four years to affect the ideology of Supreme Court nominees.  In 2004 they knew Bush wasn't going to nominate Ted Kennedy to the SC, he would nominate conservatives.  And they still ended up reelecting Bush by a larger margin than last time, as well as sending larger Republican majorities to both houses of Congress.

What has really bothered me in the whole discussion by the Democratic professionals is any sense of just doing what is right.  If they really believe that the judicial confirmation process is a joke in that no real information needs to be provided by the potential nominee, then just say so.  I disagree, but at least that would be taking some position on principle.  On the other hand, if you believe as I do, that the Senate shoukd take its "advise and consent" role seiously, then you must oppose any nominee that refuses to provide information to permit a Senator to make an informed choice.

Moreover, if you believe that someone who opposes the use of the Commerce Clause as justification for governmental action, the very foundation of modern government, is within the mainstream of judicial thought, then by all means vote in favor of someone whose postion on this vital issue is unclear.  On the other hand, if you believe as I do, that anyone who rejects the use of the Commerce Clause in this manner is a judicial extremist who should not serve on any federal court, let alone our Highest Court, then a nominee must prove that he or she will uphold the Commerce Clause (and modern government) before such individual's nomination is approved.

All this "tooing and froing" over every issue trying to determine every political nuance before deciding how to vote is just killing the Democratic Party.  If we had half the political fortitude that the Republicans do, we would be in control of the White House and both branches of Congress.  

If they keep on keeping their powder dry, the stuff is going to decompose from disuse.

When Roberts votes to overturn environment, health, and safety laws, or Roe, they won't be able to say a thing about it. After all, they "kept their powder dry" and voted for him. Just like Kerry and voting for the Iraq War.

Hey guys, take a few risks on occasion. Sometimes you lose, but you know, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Democrats should make them fight like hell for every inch of ground. Inflame their base and point out their wrongdoing at every opportunity. Do not think that this is politics as usual. You be wrong.

Democrats must shore up their base and claim the title of an effective and vigorous opposition party. Accordingly, the best course at the moment is to begin making principled stances on high profile issues that can further a narrative describing what Dems believe in and stand for (ex., a) broadening the rights of Americans that have been historically marginalized; b) guarding domestic programs and the social well being; c) represented the little guy that cannot hire big time lawyers, like Roberts, to represent him before the Court). That narrative, at the moment, is set against the backdrop of a drowned New Orleans; which, as Dems in the Judiciary Committee have already cited, clearly illustrates the failures of Republican policies and of their administration of our government’s readiness and response.

With Roberts Dems have been given a perfect opportunity to describe the judge’s frequent refusal to answer forthrightly on so many issues, as unsatisfactory to the American people and that they -- the American people -- at a time of such political polarization, where the Court has, of recent, very narrowly decided many contentious cases dealing with national elections to eminent domain, deserve a judicial nominee that’s more forthcoming and ready to share with the country what the nominee’s views are on the many issues that Americans care about.

To my mind, Senator Biden did a good job of laying the ground work for such a tact when the Senator said, the American people would be rolling the dice with Judge Roberts, given that he’s refused to let the American people begin to understand his political philosophy. Now the Dems need to run with that, and device a message along the lines of: after being promised by President Bush that he would unite us, not divide us, and at a time when our country cannot afford any further polarization, the American people deserve a judicial nominee whose philosophy is clear and whose motives are transparent. Further, because judge Roberts has refused to answer so many vital questions, and because President Bush has not released the documents that would help the Senate better understand judge Roberts’ philosophy and his motives, we cannot in good conscious -- on behalf of the American people -- endorse him to sit on the Supreme Court.

Now, because the filibuster is off the table, Roberts is likely to win confirmation; however, the point here is to rally the base and to send a message to the administration. Moreover, this is the only way that Dems can begin to chip away at the Republican strangle hold on the national discourse. The fact is that Republican talking points and their surrogates dominate the public forum; accordingly, it is only through bold moves that Dems can hope to inject their narrative into the national discourse.

And, yes, don’t be surprised if Republicans and their media surrogates begin an all out assault against such an “obstructionist, partisan and bitterly divisive” move by the “obstructionist, partisan and bitterly divisive” Democrats. I mean, come on, would you expect anything else from Republicans? No matter what, Republicans and their allies do one thing, if nothing else, exceedingly well, and that’s attack, attack, attack. So, please, save your breath if you think that the ammo must be saved for the next big fight, rather than “wasting” it against Roberts. Again, understand this, this is one continuous big fight, and all enemies respect is one thing: a strong show of force. A strong Nay vote on Roberts, say 42 Nay votes, would bolsters the Dems credibility as an opposition party that’s ready to go to the matt over the issues that are important to the American people.

If you’ve not done it, contact your Senators and encourage them to demand more from Roberts and to vote no on him, we deserve serious answers. Also, as Howard Dean has suggested, use the DNC letter writing tool to send a letter to your local papers. We gotta turn up the heat on Roberts and let our Dem Representatives know that we expect results from them not just rhetoric.

Our Progressive ideological ancestors bled too much, fought too hard, died too frequently and surpassed too much for a bunch of soft bellied 21st century wankers to let them down now. The least we can do is make a call, write a letter, encourage a friend and let our representatives know that we expect results and some backbone.

We lost this in 2004, not now. We knew this was coming and we'll have to fight harder next time to elect a Democratic president. There's no need to get bitter now - we need to look forward.

I agree that the Dems could use a little more spine, though.

I presume you have the ear of the other name brand bloggers, any way to organize a final push?

I don't know whether this is true, but my impression is that because some of the name brand bloggers from the left are lawyers, that they've been dazzled with Roberts' credentials and facility before the committee.  Accordingly, these lefty bloggers have decided to give Roberts a pass, forgetting that -- ultimately, for our purpose, I belive -- it shouldn't be about his credentials; instead, it should be about one thing: OUR politics.  Clearly I should elaborate on this point, but that's for another diary -- when am not at work.

I have a plan to stop the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court.

Of course it will only succeed if you do this and get every person that you can find to do this.

Call, email Curves for Women health Clubs corporate Headquarters. The CEO gives quite a bit of money to the Republican Party and the antiabortion movement.

When you call them and or email them, tell them you or your girlfriend or wife will not patronize their health clubs until the CEO gets George W Bush to hold a press conference announcing the withdrawal the nomination of John Roberts and replace the nominee with a moderate or liberal for the Supreme Court.

Curves for Women health clubs at 800-848-1096

gheavin@curvesinternational.com

http://www.curvesinternational.com

You can also boycott Dominoes Pizza and call their corporate headquarters make the demands above.

gyselk@dominos.com

http://www.dominos.com

(734) 930-3030

CEO David Brandon, a hardcore Republican had planned to run for Senate in Michigan against Senator Debbie Stabenow. What better way to make Brandon pay more attention to his company and not run for Senate if thousands of people call his company telling him to get the President to withdraw the nomination of Roberts or face a withering boycott.

Spread the word.

Hold Republican contributors accountable for the poor functioning of this Republican administration and Republican controlled congress.

If you have come to the point where complaining about the Republican party does not do much for you then browse this web page and take action. If you don't like the content of a television program, you call their sponsors and demand a change or you will boycott the sponsor. If you don't like the content of the Republican Party program, you call their contributors and demand the CEO call the Republican Party and get the  Republican Party to accede to your progressive agenda demands or you will boycott the contributor.

http://tinyurl.com/8ghl8

However, reading the threads and comments posted in both places makes me feel like a Dem Establishment Guy.

The Dems should not vote against Roberts.  That's my take.  It is unfortunate that, to date, the Dems have gone along with Republicans far too often both before Bush II and since.  However, on this issue they should not oppose Roberts' confirmation (on a tangential note, I haven't heard a lot of discussion of the Dems abstaining from a vote on Roberts, which I think would be interesting).

The evidence that Roberts is an ideologue just isn't there.  The case that the Dems have been wrongly denied access to critical information is ALSO just not there (at least that I've run across, but I'll freely admit I may be wrong).  Without either of those, the case for opposing Roberts is also just not there.

Opposing Roberts will be interpreted (in the media and elsewhere) as partisan pouting with no regard to the merits of the issue.  It will further solidify the non-Dem public's view of Dems as beholden to discrete special interests because those voters don't care about esoteric issues of disclosure of certain notes and records.  They don't care if the guy took a definitive position on the Commerce Clause or not.  In fact, I'd bet they don't care about 90% of what has gone on in the confirmation process thus far.  All they know is everyone concedes the guy is bright as hell (which even the Dem Senators did), but he's been opposed for partisan reasons.

In any event, the major difference to me is that the real-world consequences of going along with Roberts are unknown.  Scream all you want about what seem like smoking gun comments into his mind, but they don't add up to a persuasive prediction of what will happen with Roberts.  And, not that I expect it, we have been pleasantly surprised by Republican-appointees in the past (Warren, Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens, Souter).  So we just don't know what will happen.

That's in sharp contrast to all the other Dem capitulations where we had a much more accurate view of what would happen.  The Iraq Occupation would eventually devolve into a quagmire.  The Bankruptcy Bill would devastate middle to low-income Americans doing their best to start over.  The tax cuts would cripple social spending and expand the deficit.  Free trade would gut the American manufacturing class, decimate communities, and drive jobs out of this country.  We knew all these things would come to pass if Dems supported them.  Yet many of them did anyway.

For me, that should be the test whether to lambast Dems for being capitulators with the Republican agenda:  did we reasonably know what the cost/outcome of supporting such an endeavor would be?

With Roberts we just don't.  Apologies for the length.

If Senators of both parties really thought that advise and consent was their responsibility then reasonable Senators could vote NO on Roberts regardless of ideology. The documentation is incomplete and it's only by faith alone can you accept that the unreleased solicitor general documents (and others) are not important.

Senators like Schumer and Specter have a standard of candor and disclosure in mind for SCOTUS candidates before the hearings begin. If ANY candidate fails to meet this standard then a "NO" vote is justified.

Let's make no mistake about it.  Most of these guys are unwilling to fire a shot in anger.