IMO here is thesingle best reason to reject Roberts

[Ugnmoose]

He has a long history of active involvement in Republican politics. What we don't want in the judiciary, especially at the SC is a judge whose views may well be biased by political considerations. We already have seen too much of that with Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist. Dems should take a firm stand that they will not approve a nominee with this level of political baggage. I think the American people would readily understand and accept this argument. What say you?

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

1. SpongeDob endorses him

That pretty much says it all to me...he has the blessings of the Rapturist Right.

[electron_blue]

2. Yeah, I don't get it

He is quoted on several occasions as saying that politics has no place in court, that interpreting the law as it's written is the highest priority, blah blah. And yet he obviously participates in active politicking, not just the routine support of a party's nomination for President, but offering legal advice to Jeb on how to make sure his brother wins, no matter what.

[Ugnmoose]

5. Standard b.s.

Yada yada yada...the bottom line is that no matter what he says, he has a strong history of political involvement and activism. We cannot afford to take a chance on someone with this background.

[SammyWinstonJack]

6. Say one thing and do the complete opposite.

Standard MO for repukes.

[acmavm]

3. Anyone even remotely involved with the 2000 election fiasco is NOT

a good choice for the SC.

I'm just surprised bush** didn't nominate Bolton for that.

[SouthernDem2004]

4. Who doesn't have political baggage on either side? That is the

problem. To get nominated to any type of position you have to be involved in politics to some degree.

[Ugnmoose]

7. Yes...but

We all know that most judicial appointments are politically motivated. However when you are dealing with a lifetime appointment I think we need to be especially careful at scrutinizing the nominees politics. Not all nominees are political activists. Roberts is a classic example of someone whose entire career is tied to the apron strings of the Republican Party. This man has some serious political baggage and no matter what he might say otherwise the record is damning on this point.

[theboss]

15. Ginsberg was the most important feminist attorney in the country

Any ERA era case had her fingerprints on it.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

17. Link? I know she was a lawyer for the ACLU

but feminist lawyer? please find a link. Sounds like a RW meme to me...

[theboss]

19. I don't see "feminist lawyer" as an insult

And I don't know how how else to define her legal career.

But she won Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71, 92 S.Ct. 251, 30 L.Ed.2d 225 (1971). This was the first case that used the 14th Amendment to grant women equal treatment under the law. It was a landmark case.

She also argued a number of cases in which she argued that gender should be given the same standard of review as race or religion in equal protection cases.

Basically, in the 70s, if there was a case in which womens' rights were being argued before the Court, Ginsberg was deeply involved.

I don't think it's crazy to say you can draw a type of parallel between her and Thurgood Marshall.

[marions ghost]

8. is there any comparison data

on the current members of the SCOTUS as to their past political activism? How much of a precedent is this?

I think Roberts is obviously violating B*'s own concern with "no activist judges, no legislating from the bench."

[Ugnmoose]

9. This is a good research project

But you hit it on the head. How can this guy claim that he won't be an activist judge when he has such a history of political activism. Here should be our mantra: get politics out of the judiciary!!!

[SouthernDem2004]

10. Justice Ginsburg worked for the ACLU. Certainly an activst but she

was overwhelming elected.

[Ugnmoose]

11. ACLU is not a political party

It may show liberal leanings but it is not a record of working closely with a specific political party.

[SouthernDem2004]

12. I would have to disagree. /nt

[Ugnmoose]

16. ACLU

is a defender of the Constitution and our liberites as defined by the Bill of Rights. I think the Repukes have carefully tainted anyone who belongs to and supports this organization as a liberal. In fact, it should be just the opposite. Anyone who supports an organization that embodies these principles should be called a conservative. I think it is admirable that any judge would want to uphold the constitution and protect our stated liberties.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

18. Exactly. The ACLU protects the KKK and anarchists. It protects the

Constitution. Period. It's funny that the right-wingers always think it's a lefty organization because they hear it on Rush.

[OneBlueSky]

13. actually, the best reason to reject him may be that he . . .

simply doesn't uphold the laws of the United States . . . his recent decision about military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees pretty much gives Bush the power to disregard the Geneva Conventions . . . since the US is a signatory to the Conventions, they are the law of the land, and we don't need a Supreme Court justice who feels free to disregard US law just because the president tells him to . . .

this might also be the best selling point for the American public, who are already pretty much aghast at the reports of detainee abuse at Guantanamo and elsewhere . . . most people are also aware that the Geneva Conventions have been established law for a long time, and that they protect Americans who may be held prisoner as well as those who we detain . . . fighting Roberts on this front will bring the issue to the forefront and tie his nomination directly to a war that most people now hate . . .

[theboss]

14. Marshall and Ginsberg had tons of political baggage

That's par for the course for SC Justices.