Democratic Filibuster of Roberts Unlikely

[Freddie Stubbs]

By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
9 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Key Senate Democrats say John Roberts won't get a "free pass" to a seat on the Supreme Court, while acknowledging that there is little chance they will filibuster the nomination.

As Roberts paid courtesy calls on senators Wednesday, a conservative group purchased TV ad time in support of his nomination. Abortion rights groups, meanwhile, staged protests against the nominee at the Supreme Court and the Capitol.

Majority Republican senators have been unfailingly admiring of the candidate since President Bush announced the nomination Tuesday night. And even though Democrats are uncertain about Roberts' judicial philosophy, not a single Democratic senator so far has called for the conservative jurist's outright rejection. Also, there has been no public talk of trying to block a yes or no vote

Democrats, however, said they weren't about to rubber stamp Bush's selection of Roberts to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

more: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050721/ap_on_go_su_co/roberts

[ixion]

1. get off your a**es and FIGHT

:grr:

Some opposition. :eyes:

[Teaser]

3. Out of curiousity

What kind of conservative nominee should we support, given that we are going to get a conservative nominee no matter what.

[K-W]

6. They are planning to fight, but probably not a filibuster.

The republican president picked a republican judge who will be confirmed by the republican senate. Democrats will grill him and oppose him as they should.

But they will not take the step of filibustering unless some fact is revealed about Roberts that makes him worse than anyone else Bush would nominate.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. The key is his past and his testimony at the confirmation hearings

Unless he has some skeletons in his closet, or he really says something outrageous at his hearing, he will probably get enough Democratic support to make a filibuster impossible even if the leadership wants it.

[K-W]

17. Yep, and I think the filibuster would be counter productive,

assuming he doesnt say anything outrageous.

If he does, the filibuster can be used to buy time to rally public support against him, but if he just lays out his wrong but standardly conservative ideas, a filibuster would serve only to distract attention away from his standardly conservative ideas and how wrong they are.

The democrats should use this as a time, when the nation is watching, and with someone who cant afford to lie or obfuscate too much without appearing shifty to make a solid case that conservatism is wrong. They should show through thier questions the ideological bankruptcy in conservative ideology and the real motives behind the ideas.

Let the republicans confirm thier guy, but before that show why both the republicans and thier guy suck.

[dhinojosa]

2. Maybe it's just me but I feel no threat from Roberts.....

Sure he has dissenting opinions and I would rather not have him. His abortion opinions worries me, but all republican judges on the bench feel the same way. He just doesn't seem like a nut-case neocon like Bolton or Wolfowitz.

[IndianaGreen]

7. It depends as to whether one has ovaries or testicles, doesn't it?

I call your attention to the following article about Judge Roberts:

Just last Friday, Roberts joined a unanimous decision by a three-judge panel of the DC Court of Appeals overturning a lower court ruling in order to uphold the Bush administration’s use of military commissions to try alleged terrorists being held at the Guantánamo Bay prison camp. In this ruling, Roberts and his cohorts implied that the president has a right to declare any individual, including a US citizen, an “enemy combatant” and thereby deprive him of the due-process rights provided by the US Constitution as well as the protections stipulated in international treaties such as the Geneva Conventions.

This is only the most ominous and overtly anti-democratic of a number of decisions handed down by Roberts in the course of his brief tenure on the DC Court of Appeals. Roberts upheld a lower court decision that the arrest, search, handcuffing and detention of a 12-year-old girl for eating a single French fry in a Washington subway station did not violate her Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.

In another case, Roberts joined in a ruling upholding police car trunk searches even when officers did not assert evidence of a crime. Roberts also issued a dissenting opinion in an Endangered Species Act case in a manner that showed he was inclined to hold an array of environmental laws and other federal protections to be unconstitutional.

This ruling is indicative of an ideological posture that has the most far-reaching implications. According to Forbes.com, “Roberts has also written in favor of a more aggressive reading of the Constitution’s Contract Clause that would prevent government from imposing new obligations on businesses in their dealings with employees. The last time the Supreme Court took such a stand was in the early 1930s when it struck down elements of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jul2005/robe-j21.shtml

[dhinojosa]

8. Is the World Socialist Website reputable?

Those are shocking stories, I just want a second opinion.

[IndianaGreen]

9. It is a reputable website, and it also has excellent analysis

although I do disagree with their position in support of Judith Miller.

[soup]

10. Even if someone doubted the website,

there are plenty of other 'mainstream/corporate' news outlets that are reporting the same 'shocking stories'.

on edit: oops, meant to reply to dhinojosa's post above questioning your source.

[Generator]

19. Here's a washington post one, mainstream enough for everyone?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/15/AR2005071501734_pf.html

snip~
One of the judges on the deciding panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, John G. Roberts, is said to be on the administration's list of possible Supreme Court nominees.

Sinp~
The panel said courts should defer to President Bush's decision in 2002 that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to detainees Bush declares as enemy combatants and that, in any event, the conventions are not enforceable by U.S. courts in lawsuits brought by foreigners.

"This decision is a major win for the Administration," a Justice Department news release said. The Defense Department itself declined to comment.

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." He added that it undermines the protections of the Geneva Conventions in ways that could harm U.S. interests in the future.


~
This bothers me as much as his Roe V. Wade stuff if not more...we are fucked and the Dem leaders don't give a shit.

[soup]

20. I wasn't the one questioning the site

and usually take the responsibility of doing my own homework.

Appreciate your posting the 'mainstream' second opinion link, though, for those who expressed doubts. You have much more patience than I do today. :hi:

[On the Road]

14. Yes, the WSWS is a Great Site

I don't agree with a lot of their positions (they're Trotskyists), but they're smart, they do their homework, and they often come up with things you don't see anywhere else.

[central scrutinizer]

4. NO votes on anything until Turdgate is resolved

How can they even consider any legislation or nominees coming from a president who is under the cloud of being a TRAITOR? I don't care who Bushco nominated - no cooperation until this is cleared up.

[Kolesar]

5. Turdgate

lol

[geomon666]

11. So what did we get out of 'The Deal' again?

I'm still scratching my head on that one.

[K-W]

12. They didnt destroy the fillibuster and pass 100% of thier judges

whilest removing any democratic leverage in future appointments.

And the deal has little to do with this situation. The reason the dems arent planning a filibuster is because as of right now there is nothing about him that makes him any more objectionable than anyone else Bush is going to nominate for the position.

[geomon666]

21. So which Judges didn't get appointed? n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. Bush didn't get ALL of his judges

The alternative would have been the GOP Senators breaking the fillibuster, and Bush getting of all of his judges. It wasn't a pretty win, but it was better than nothing.

[cureautismnow]

16. None of his selections should be approved...

Until the little twit wins an election fair and square. Period. Filibuster EVERYTHING and EVERYONE from these corrupt s.o.b.'s until they can prove their victory. Verifiable paper trails first, confirmations later.

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. Yet some of his nominees have been approved almost unamamously

And I have yet to hear one single Senator say that they were voting against the nominee because they didn't think that Bush won. In fact, I have yet to hear one Senator say that they didn't think that Bush won in 2004.