Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Roberts to Be Confirmed As Chief Justice

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
DRoseDARs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 02:59 AM
Original message
Roberts to Be Confirmed As Chief Justice
By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
38 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - John Glover Roberts Jr., backed by a united Senate Republican majority and about half of a divided Democratic minority, is taking his place as the nation's 17th chief justice, to lead the Supreme Court into the 21st century and through turbulent social issues that will affect generations to come.

<snip>

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050929/ap_on_go_su_co/roberts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Montauk6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 03:00 AM
Response to Original message
1. Now, who's surprised? (Please don't all raise your hands at once)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DRoseDARs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 03:06 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. What a shitastically united stand the Dems made against this assclown...
Edited on Thu Sep-29-05 03:12 AM by DRoseDARs
Kudos to the few who managed NOT to be swayed by those horrific, blood-shot puppy-dog eyes of his.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Montauk6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 03:14 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. You mean those Quayle Lamps?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DRoseDARs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 03:16 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Did u see the pictures from his "hearings"? He didn't look like that...
Edited on Thu Sep-29-05 03:19 AM by DRoseDARs
...picture you found.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Montauk6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
49. OK, here's something that surprised me
Reid and Schumer voted against confirmation. Hmmm... that's a twist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 03:06 AM
Response to Original message
3. He'll never have to answer for anything he says or does ever again
Lifetime tenure, government run health care, not required to give interviews to explain his decisions, not required to testify before Congress ever again and never has to stand before the voters to be held accountable.

Pretty good job, heh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ingac70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 03:12 AM
Response to Original message
4. He's no different than the shithead he's replacing...
So it's really like nothing has changed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #4
16. He's a lot *YOUNGER* than the shithead he's replacing.
We'll be stuck with him for a long, long time.

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PATRICK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #16
51. He's a lot more a crony
than the sentimental GOPer O'Connor. I am really afraid that will become very apparent when put to the test. Rehnquist was just a stalwart hack crook for the party. This guy I think is part of the BFEE, hip and thigh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fleabert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 05:33 AM
Response to Original message
7. what was that bit I read about a dark horse and death riding in on it?
fucking A.

not surprised, but disappointed for sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ModerateDem05 Donating Member (23 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 06:36 AM
Response to Original message
8. Not the disaster some claim
Look, there is a lot of bitching about this guy but no one really knows anything about him. Sure, he's going to be conservative, but I doubt he will be a Scalia/Thomas clone. Frankly, I don't see why everyones upset the Dems didn't vote against him. Even if they had stood firm they would lose, and I don't think this is the guy we could filibuster without getting a rule change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rose Siding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 06:51 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. "no one really knows anything about him"
We know a good deal about his lack of affinity for women's and minority rights, workers' rights and voters' rights.

We also know that he's ideologically entrenched enough to have participated in Starr's witch hunt, as well as the judicial coup of 2000.

It's folly to overlook what we do know. Whether dems win the vote or not isn't the *only* issue. Sometimes just standing up for what we believe is a win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 06:59 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Puglover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. In fact Gore did not "lose" the election
Edited on Thu Sep-29-05 07:45 AM by Puglover
in 2000. It was stolen. You are parroting RW talking points. And I doubt you will find many people on this website that agree with RW talking points.

on edit add last sentence
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cbear70 Donating Member (654 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Extremely stolen
How anyone can think otherwise is beyond me...there has not been a fair election since Bush first stole it... it just continues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ModerateDem05 Donating Member (23 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. What!
What makes you think the elections haven't been fair? While I voted Dem in the last 2 elections (always have and always will) there is absolutely zero evidence that the last presidential election was stolen. Bush beat Kerry's ass. While I can't stand Bush, and he is absolutely the worst president since at least Nixon, he won. Not only did he win, he won by a fair bit and the Republicans dominated in the Senate races as well. Instead of bitching about stolen elections Dems need to face the reality that they have done something wrong the last few elections and figure out how to win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheVirginian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #20
25. You're not going to fit in well here.
It is of the opinion of some on this board that every election, past present or future, that Republicans are in have been or will be rigged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libnnc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #25
32. not every election, just 2000 and 2004
just the ones GWB was involved in. Nice of you to twist our thoughts on the matter, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheVirginian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #32
34. I can't tell you the number of threads...
Edited on Thu Sep-29-05 11:03 AM by TheVirginian
talking about previous elections or upcoming elections, fraught with statements like "Have you taken into account Diebold?", or "If its close, we'll lose it, because its rigged." People have taken the idea and ran with it to very, very extreme ends. And this is on everything from Presidential to gubernatorial and Congressional elections.

But of course, no extremism exists on this board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libnnc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. sounds like you've made up your mind about us already
why bother posting here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheVirginian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #35
37. Why shouldn't I post here? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libnnc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #37
38. I dunno, why are you posting here?
you seem to think we're all looney-tunes for being informed about fraud and corruption in the recent elections. Why the hell do you bother reading this board if you think we're all just "conspiracy theorists"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #35
44. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
shanti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #25
33. so what is YOUR opinion on that?
just asking...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheVirginian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. My opinion:
I think both parties made several transgressions in 2000. If Gore was a better candidate, he could've carried states he should have. Moreso, both sides completely bungled the Florida recount. There are a dozen things Gore could have done to secure a recount, and there are a dozen things Bush could have done to fight against it, both which would result in a more legitimate election result. I've read a half-dozen reports that say Gore was the real winner of Florida, and I've read a half-dozen reports that say Bush was the real winner of Florida. But shit happened, and its not like Gore didn't have more than enough chances to do things correctly. He lost.

As for 2004, while some voting irregularities occured in various states, I do not accept the Diebold conspiracy theory, or the premise that these irregularities switched the election from a Kerry victory to a Bush victory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shanti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #36
39. ok, i've heard enough
cya!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheVirginian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #39
40. "cya"? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AverageJoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #40
54. Wouldn't wanna bya!
Enjoy your stay, brief as it might be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PATRICK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #39
52. This is the second one
in a few postings I've perused where someone went out of their way to stupidly- and I emphasize stupidly- give a mealy mouthed defense of Diebold. And not just low posters.

Hey, is Diebold giving out cash to forum chatters to bolster its sour stocks?

Not that I would be willing to sell out for anything... less than, say, $50,000 and a "Bush is God" t-shirt- large.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #52
56. Bushite corporations gained control of the vote tabulation with state
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 11:43 AM by Peace Patriot
contracts that permit "trade secret," proprietary programming code in electronic voting systems, during the 2001-2004 period. And someone thinks they didn't USE it to re-install Bush Jr. and create a false endorsement for war and torture and looting of the federal treasury (policies that the great majority of Americans have disapproved of--way up in the 60% to 70% range--across the board in many polls, for well over a year)?

Har-har. Stupids.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libnnc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #20
28. oh brother...
nevermind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ModerateDem05 Donating Member (23 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #13
19. No, you are parroting LW talking points
Your argument isn't accepted by most Democrats, much less most Americans. There is no conclusive evidence that Gore would have won had the recount continued. The whole thing was a big clusterf**k. Just becasue a small minority of conspiracy-theorists agree with your argument doesn't make it true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rose Siding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. I wouldn't call President Carter a conspiracy theorist
Carter says Gore won 2000 election
snip>
There is "no doubt in my mind that Gore won the election," the erstwhile President declared, saying the 2000 election process "failed abysmally."

He also snubbed the Supreme Court for getting involved, saying it was "highly partisan."

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Carter_says_Gore_won_2000_el_0922.html

Would you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cbear70 Donating Member (654 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. exactly...
the supreme court should have not gotten involved, it was extremely partisan...Bush did not win that election fairly, nor will I ever believe that the second election was won fairly. I worked through the campaign, things happened that were highly suspicious and in talking to others throughout the country...I do believe that there were illegal actions happening to prevent a fair election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ModerateDem05 Donating Member (23 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #21
42. I see
Since Carter said Gore won he must have. Man! What was I thinking. Sorry about doubting you. Sheesh, I'll never do that again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Puglover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #19
27. LOL "a small conspiracy-theorists"
Edited on Thu Sep-29-05 11:02 AM by Puglover
I think you might find the brand of democrat that agree with you on another board....the name slips my mind however.

As far as your conspiracy crack...try educating yourself pal before you post this kind of bullshit.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/bugliosi

"This, obviously, was an extremely serious problem for the felonious five to deal with. What to do? Not to worry. Are you ready for this one? By that I mean, are you sitting down, since if you're standing, this is the type of thing that could affect your physical equilibrium. Unbelievably, the Court wrote that its ruling was "limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities." (That's pure, unadulterated moonshine. The ruling sets forth a very simple, noncomplex proposition--that if there are varying standards to count votes, this violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.) In other words, the Court, in effect, was saying its ruling "only applied to those future cases captioned Bush v. Gore. In all other equal protection voting cases, litigants should refer to prior decisions of this court." Of the thousands of potential equal protection voting cases, the Court was only interested in, and eager to grant relief to, one person and one person only, George W. Bush.6 Is there any limit to the effrontery and shamelessness of these five right-wing Justices? Answer: No. This point number six here, all alone and by itself, clearly and unequivocally shows that the Court knew its decision was not based on the merits or the law, and was solely a decision to appoint George Bush President"

If this doesn't sound like a judicial coup to you well, I got a bridge in Brklyn to sell you.




http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/080502a.html


On edit add Bugliosi quote.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libnnc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #19
30. maybe you're a "coincidence-theorist"?
so tell me, what was the make and model of the turnip truck you fell off of? Late model Chevy or Ford duely?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #30
43. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
CJCRANE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #10
23. Bush won in 2000 by one vote -
that is 5 to 4 in the Supreme Court.

If they'd done it the old-fashioned way and counted the actual votes cast by the electorate then Gore would've won.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AverageJoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #10
53. Are you on the wrong board?
Just askin'....

And here's why:

It is only a secret to the republicans that Gore won Florida, perhaps by at least a few hundred and probably by 20-thousand or more votes. The AP reported this, but buried the lead and the story was buried under misleading headlines across the country.

Want documentation? Okay:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html

http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1174115.stm

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1115-02.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0127-01.htm

http://www.americanpolitics.com/2001gore.html

http://www.janrainwater.com/htdocs/GoreWon.htm

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/11/palmbeach.recount/

http://www.hooverdigest.org/014/zelnick.html


Well, I could go on and on and on and on, but maybe the above will open your eyes.

Not trying to start a fight, truly. But are you sure you're on the right board?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shanti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #8
29. did you join du
just to say that? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #29
41. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Puglover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #41
45. I'm going to enjoy watching you
"talk some sense" into those of us at DU who believe the 2000 election was stolen and to roll over for the likes of the taciturn Judge Roberts.

I notice you didn't bother reading or responding to the links I provided you. Oh but that's right, you probably have more "sense" then the authors.

I'm also happy you felt the need to point out to all of us that Bush was popular at one point. Make u feel good does it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Puglover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. Like so many others of your ilk
you don't respond to any of the points that those two articles make. And they were articles not news. You obviously didn't read them You name call and try to denigrate the internet and the people who wrote them. I'm sure you take Fox News as the irrefutable source of your infomation.

I suspect you know there are many more then two sources out there that show Gore won the 2000 election. I just provided two that I thought were concise and clear. I'd be happy to provide more however it would be a wasted effort.

Oh darn it....I forgot to welcome you to DU in my 1st reply. Enjoy your stay!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mbperrin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 07:03 AM
Response to Original message
11. Wouldn't it have been nice to have had real hearings, with
questions and all and without a predetermined outcome?

Uncle Joe Stalin would heartily approve of the whole process as it occurred...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #11
18. What do you mean "without a predetermined outcome"?
This man was going to be approved. Period.

The Republican Party has 55 Senators and only 51 of them are needed to approve a nominee.

Remember Bush's favorite Who song, "Won't Get Fooled Again"? The line "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" describes Roberts. He's pretty much a direct drop-in replacement for William Rehnquist. We're going to be looking at Robertsquist for the next 45 years, true, and he's going to be very conservative for the next 45 years...but Rehnquist was also very conservative. In other words, there won't be an ideological shift on the court.

O'Connor is another story. We're not going to get another drop-in replacement. O'Connor sided with the liberals when the liberal position was best for the country. If Bush has his way, we're going to get another Scalia. This person is who we need to filibuster and, if necessary, shut down the Senate over.

Let me ask you something, and I really want you to think about this. Granted, Roberts is a fucking toad, and we'd be better off without him. But you know that Frist is just looking for an excuse to get rid of the filibuster and turn the Senate into a large rubber stamp for Bush's every whim--and he can't do it unless we start a filibuster. Now! Given that Bush has to replace one conservative and one moderate, would you rather he change out the conservative then get sent back to pick a more rational person when he sends up the second conservative, or would you like to see the Democrats try filibustering the first conservative, have Frist kill the filibuster for the remainder of this term, then give Bush free rein to put Priscilla Owen, the worst judge in America, on the Supreme Court for the rest of her life? Or worse, to put Roy Moore, who is a certifiable nightmare, on the Supreme Court?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #18
55. Good argument, jmowreader! I like this kind of strategizing--too often
left out of leftist ideological squabbles. But did Democrats have to vote for him? I think they betray themselves as Republicrats, and corporate shills, and have also betrayed themselves on other votes as warmongers and supporters of torture.

The most important rulings that Roberts will make will be in further extending Corporate Rule--on media, on corporate controlled electronic voting with no auditing, on corporate immunity from environmental damage, on curtailing the rights of ordinary citizens vs. corporations and war profiteers, on all regulatory matters, and related issues. And perhaps also on issues related to presidential pardons and the powers of grand juries, prosecutors and lower courts in this regard.

We will have to do as FDR and the New Dealers did, and try to get around them. I believe that Congress still has the power to add to the number of justices on the Supreme Court (as FDR tried to do). Maybe that will be the way to go--if we can get Diebold and ES&S election theft machines the hell out of our election system and start electing real representatives to Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greekspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 07:25 AM
Response to Original message
12. This. Is. UNCONSCIONABLE.
23 democrats acting like dems. 21 plus Jeffords acting like pukes. Goodbye Roe. Goodbye privacy rights. Goodbye human rights. Hello fascism. Thanks DINOS. Thanks SO fucking much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
realFedUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #12
24. gee, this AP writer couldn't have waited til after the vote?
Would love to have this be a Truman-Dewey headline...

Not that this isn't one of the most important
votes these Senators will make in their lifetime...
it's treated more like a vote for a Cabinet job.

this really is the line in the sand folks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueIris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 07:52 AM
Response to Original message
14. Vile.
I mean, yeah, there's such a thing as impeachment, but--fuck it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FloridaPat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
17. * wants late term abortion revisited by the supreme court as soon as
Roberts is in. You would think that would be a flag to the Democrats about what is coming down the line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
26. ROFL--- Guess what? We'll have 20+ Dems running for prez!!!
Just heard it on MSNBC! "Those Democrats voting no will be running for President." :rofl:


This sucks!!! And the next one's going to be even worse.
:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
recycledindi Donating Member (48 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
31. good
then we'll have our first gay man on the SCOTUS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
47. I think this is very, very, very, very, very, very bad. However, the one
thing that we can console ourselves with is that there was absolutely nothing we, the people, could do about it. We have no say about anything that goes on in our name in Washington DC. Our job must be to restore the power of our vote. Without it, we are helpless. There is no reason for the President or Congress to listen to us.

Our votes currently are meaningless, due to Bushite corporations--Diebold and ES&S--having gained control over the vote tabulation, during the 2001-2004 period, with SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code in the new electronic voting systems. This SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code--code so secret that not even our secretaries of state are permitted to review it--rendered the 2004 election invalid (and also several of the 2002 Congressional elections). These elections were completely non-transparent and unverifiable. They should not even be dignified with the word "election." No one among the public, and no one in government, can establish, by recount or audit, that those who were supposedly elected by means of SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code were legitimately chosen by the voters.

And compounding the utter violation of democratic principles in "trade secret," proprietary vote tabulation software is the complete lack of any kind of "paper trail" in one third of the country in 2004, added to the existing wholly inadequate auditing and recount procedures even where a "paper trail" of some kind exists.

The so-called "official results" of this SECRET, PROPRIETARY vote tabulation that occurred in 2004 is the ONLY evidence that George Bush holds office legitimately. All other evidence points strongly to a Bush loss in 2004, including--but by no means limited to--the independent national and state exit polls, which Kerry won handily, and whose results were ALTERED, by the TV networks on election night, to "fit" the "official results" of Diebold's and ES&S's secret formulae (Bush won).

In addition to this lack of legitimacy, the Bush regime has engaged in egregious violations of national and international law--including laws against torture and unjust war--massive looting of the federal treasury, and corruption on a scale that we have not seen (and that far exceeds) the Harding administration, harbinger of the Great Depression.

George Bush--or, rather, George Bush's handlers--appointing the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in addition to a second justice replacing O'Connor, and the Bush Cartel's numerous other federal court appointments--are the most wrongful, illegitimate, disgusting and disastrous acts that we have seen during this junta, aside from the wrongful, illegitimate, disgusting, and disastrous invasion of Iraq and slaughter of tens of thousands of people.

These Bush Cartel court appointments will hamper or completely prevent the essential reforms that will soon be desperately needed to save our country from massive starvation, homelessness and unemployment, and will also hamper or prevent any efforts to restore our democracy and our civil rights, including our right to vote.

Clearly the banning of unverifiable electronic voting will be one of those efforts to restore democracy--and it will be facing a Supreme Court that will most certainly rule in favor of secret, corporate-controlled vote tabulation. This will retard the fight for transparent elections possibly for decades.

Another needed reform is stripping corporations of personhood--a bizarre fascist doctrine that is responsible for much of our current enslavement to our Corporate Rulers and war profiteers.

The list of potential catastrophic impacts of these Bush Cartel court appointments is very long--both as to preventing vital future reform, and as to undoing a half a century of progress in economic justice, civil rights and environmental regulation.

Our situation will be very similar to that faced by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the early 1930s. With a third of our country unemployed, massive breadlines, people starving and homeless, complete economic collapse, and worldwide Depression, the Robber Baron-era appointments to the Supreme Court struck down reform after reform, proposed by FDR and passed by Congress, including the National Industrial Recovery Act, and many progressive labor laws, and was poised to declare even the Social Security Act as "unconstitutional."

The matter was resolved when FDR took the extraordinary measure of threatening to "pack" the Supreme Court (add to the number of justices, so that new, younger, more liberal appointments could be made--a power that Congress DOES HAVE, by the way), which prompted one of the "moderate" justices to switch sides on New Deal programs (and both Social Security and the National Labor Relations Acts were saved!).

The U.S. had been inflicted with some of the worst presidents we've ever seen, during the Robber Baron era--people who pushed "laissez faire" policies (no regulation of the "free market") much akin to the global corporate predation and "free piracy" we see today. These corrupt (McKinley, Harding), oblivious (Coolidge), stupid (Coolidge) or ineffective (Hoover) leaders permitted the country to be RUINED by the super-rich--who were idiotically holding "Beggars' Balls" in the Waldorf-Astoria on the eve of the Great Depression. Hoover (who was not without good instincts, but was sadly ineffective) in 1928 campaigned on the slogan, "A chicken in every pot, a car in every garage"! He, too, blindly believed in the "free market," AND in VOLUNTEERISM as the answer to massive poverty. (Where have we heard that before?)

(Coolidge: "We do not need more intellectual power, we need more moral power. We do not need more knowledge, we need more character. We do not need more government, we need more culture. We do not need more law, we need more religion." --while the immoral glitterati danced the night away at the Waldorf-Astoria dressed up as BEGGARS!)

Well, we're right back where we were THEN, in many ways. And the scariest part of it all is that even FDR's reforms--involving massive government employment programs--while they were saving peoples' lives and giving people hope, were slow in generating economic recovery (not helped by the obstructions of the pro-rich, pro-big business Supreme Court), and only WW II (a huge retooling of industry, and huge government subsidies of industry) prevented a final collapse of the U.S. and all western economies.

Our economy has been on a war footing ever since, with continued huge taxpayer subsidization of the military industries, and, now, with the Bush Cartel, vast subsidies of every kind for all U.S.-based global corporate predators, and zero accountability in the military (or any) sector. (At least FDR and the New Dealers rode herd on industry and punished war profiteering.)

Another scary fact is that an FDR--someone genuinely devoted to serving the majority of people, especially the poor and downtrodden--could not be elected today. They counted votes by hand in those days, and although there was plenty of election fraud and vote stealing committed by both sides, they pretty much canceled each other out, and--critically important--it could not occur on the scale that it now occurs with non-transparent electronic voting, at the speed of light, unseeable by the human eye--one hacker, a couple of minutes, switching thousands of votes, and leaving no trace.

Now we have ONE PARTY--or rather, the far rightwing of one party--in total control of vote tabulation. We shouldn't be surprised at the result.

If we want our democracy back--and if we are to have any hope of combating the fascist rulings of a Bush Cartel-appointed Supreme Court and federal judiciary which we are going to be facing for decades to come--we MUST recover our right to vote, however we can.

The BIPARTISAN corruption of our election system, wrought by the $4 billion electronic voting boondoggle (provided by Bush's "pod people" in Congress), is a formidable obstacle to election reform. It is at least half the story of why the Democrats have gone along with this INSANE takeover of our elections by Bushite corporations. (I think the other part of the story is war profiteering corruption by pro-war Democrats.)

Our best chance at reform is at the state/local level, where the power over election systems still resides, and where ordinary people still have some influence.

My advice: Throw Diebold and ES&S election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor' NOW!

----------

An excellent account of the FDR and the Supreme Court:
http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria10_4.html

A quick rundown on "the Constitution in Exile"--Herbert Hoover's Constitution (pre-FDR Constitution) that fascists have been trying to re-install, beginning in the Reagan era, through judicial appointments:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sunstein.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PATRICK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #47
57. Might I add
that they used every other dirty trick in the book in 2004, most handled with more outrage than effectiveness by the Democratic campaign. SO they wouldn't violate the sanctity of tempting invisible tabulators all preset with backdoors and gimmicks to lure the desperate evildoers fading in the polls?

The ONLY reason that the vote stands in Bush's favor is because no one gathered what proof there was, no one was prepared despite prior experience, certainty and specific warnings, and there was not enough evidence left after the "decision" to verify anyone's actual winning count. The last fact was the WHOLE idea. So intent was the Bush team on rendering legitimacy invisible that the process being rigged in their favor in the counting seems a natural corollary of a fix and no other logical explanation seems available.

Worse, people blame Kerry but a LOT of left institutions fell for this in such a way as to make the DLC guys throwing in the towel for the winner Al Gore in 2000 almost look better. The WHOLE idea in 2000 that everyone did the devil's dance around until the last bit of open theft was revealed to a dazed, misguided population, was that Gore won and Bush dishonorably pressed every advantage, some blatantly crooked to reverse that on a rushed and conflicted "decision" otherwise.

Well, "maybe the GOP just wanted it more" was even a rationale in the dumb anti-American press. There is no-none-zero-zilch democracy from the top down and it will be best restored from the bottom up.

As to the myth that Bush won it can only be a myth because that is the digital murk the GOP decided we shall have along the murky lies and cowardice of the MSM. They settle for this sorry joke why? Could it be because they don't have the majority of the American electorate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire Walk With Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
50. And so it begins.
-Kosh
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC