A Stunning Concession on Roberts From the Radical Bloggers at Powerline

[nashuaadvocate]

A couple days ago I started a somewhat contentious thread entitled, "In Defense of Roberts..."

Despite the heading, the thread was actually just an attempt to chastise certain 527s for the way they're conducting the anti-Roberts campaign, not the fact of that campaign (which I support).

But I also speculated on my blog that Roberts might not have been the worst candidate Bush could have nominated, all things considered (see: the fact that he can get anyone through that he wants, given the nuclear option which still remains ready and waiting for his signal). Then three things happened:

1) Progressive Yale Law Professor Robert Gordon speculated that Roberts would not vote to overturn Roe.

2) U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), a radical conservative, left his first meeting with Roberts saying something to the effect of, "I like him, I just wish the President had nominated someone who would overturn Roe."

And now this:

3) The most radical trio of do-nothing lawyers in America, the Three Stooges at Powerline, have posted this little chestnut to their website (this specific post was written by fringe wingnut Scott Johnson): "I'm not aware of any one thing (for example, a ten-year judicial track record) that conclusively demonstrates Roberts' conservatism." (Find that comment here).

Now, I'm not saying Roberts isn't ultraconservative; I'm not saying we shouldn't oppose him; but, that said, Democrats in Washington have been curiously silent on his nomination, and I don't think it's because they've got cold feet: in fact, they've been gearing up for this fight for years.

My speculation is this: they're not going to hit Roberts hard because he's the man they want, all things considered--meaning, they think they've dodged a bullet here, could have gotten a much worse nominee out of Bush and, internally, believe that they WILL get a much worse nominee if they scuttle Roberts' bid for the Court.

So, am I dreaming here or what? Oh yeah, I forgot to mention:

4) Uber-facist Ann Coulter says Roberts is not a true-blue conservative.

5) Uber-facist Charles Krauthammer (of Fox News infamy) says Roberts is not a true-blue conservative.

So is that what's going on here?

[Frances]

1. I don't know what's going on

I'm assuming that more info will come out at the Senate hearings.

[iconoclastic cat]

2. I say, get it over with, give him the robe and then let's Chimpeach.

On edit: What are the Dems doing, anyway? Silence and no-shows on Hughes. Smiles and handshakes on Roberts.

Are they implementing a plan? Or do they suck?

[jurassicpork]

10. What're the Dems doing?

I think they're doing the smart thing. They're not making their position known because they're quietly gathering information on this guy before they fight him. Which is what we ought to be doing and have been doing since the night the nomination broke.

JP
http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com

[RevolutionStartsNow]

26. Chimpeach!

LOL! Thanks for the laugh. I've been reading about Abu Ghraib and needed a break.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

3. His wife is one of the leaders of Feminists for Life, a radical

anti-choice organization.

I thought Skinner said it best here:

"Considering the extreme hard-right ideology of this administration, why am I supposed to believe WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE that John Roberts does not share their extreme hard-right ideology?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4148212

[iconoclastic cat]

4. That is interesting.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

6. And it's also relevant.

[merwin]

5. And Bush's wife is pro-choice.

Your spouse does not necessarily determine your politics.

[stanwyck]

50. Your point is well-taken, but

I have to admit that I've become increasingly suspicious of how the Bushies continually do a divide and conquer attack. Cheney makes an outrageous statement that liberals are soft on terrorism -- he gets that heinous attack out there. So Bush can stay aloof and above the fray. Cheney is the hatchet man. Laura says she wants a female Supreme Court nominee...(no specifics, of course, Not a name. No reasons why) But, hey, it's on the record.) Remember, Laura wanted a woman! It's all just empty talk. It's marketing. It's not sincere.
Just like Laura's supposed support of choice. We hardly ever hear about that, do we? How do we really know she's pro-choice?
Maybe I'm not being fair. But to me, this smacks of more Bushian marketing. Have Laura throw something out there. A softball. Nothing specific. Nothing pointed. But it gets the bases covered and creates just enough of a hazy diversion to keep those conservatives getting nervous about the evangelical influence from drifting away. They can say...well, Laura is pro-choice. For what that's worth. Which is...nothing.

[woodleydem]

7. Yes his wife is clearly anti-choice, but that doesn't mean he is. All of

the Bush women are pro-choice, yet Georgie isn't. We have no idea how this guy is going to vote on Roe.

[nashuaadvocate]

11. I guess I can only say this...

...I've read his "most controversial" decisions. And as a progressive lawyer, they didn't seem to me to be...well, that controversial.

I'm certain he's an ardent conservative. I don't think there's any doubt there. The multiple-choice question is this, however, for a long-time Supreme Court-watcher like me:

a) Is he an intellectually-dishonest partisan hack like Scalia?
b) Is he an intellectually-challenged partisan hack like Thomas?
c) Is he an ends-justifies-means partisan hack like Rehnquist?
d) Is he a run-of-the-mill conservative, like Kennedy and O'Connor?

The one problem we're having here is all the lies being thrown around about O'Connor: folks, she might have been pro-choice, but she was a strong, unwavering conservative. A handful of half-reasonable decisions does not a moderate make.

So I'm wondering: Is Roberts no different than, say, Kennedy? If so, he can (and will) "mature" on the Court, which is why we saw true-blue conservative Kennedy striking down the juvenile death penalty in a decision he wrote this past term. Scalia could never have written that decision.

Do Democrats think they have a "true" conservative (semi-civil-libertarian) Kennedy here, which would be an AMAZING dodge given the neo-fascist tendencies of this President? Or just another crony who blows with the wind and merely gives a nod to (big "C") traditional Conservatism?

S.

[JDPriestly]

31. O'Connor was conservative on most things.

But she was somewhat middle of the road on more than just the abortion issue. She also found the middle ground on separation of church and state and other issues.

[alfredo]

53. I think the Roberts nomination was a sign that bush

is losing his ability to push his agenda. If he was at 60% he could have nominated Judge Roy Moore and he would have been confirmed. At the mid 40's he had to go for the broadest support he could, and not lose what's left of he theocratic base.

Yeah, it could have been worse, but that doesn't mean I am happy.

http://watchingamerica.com

[Taylor Mason Powell]

56. I agree.

I'm also a lawyer (albeit a fairly new one) and a staunch liberal, and I've read all the Roberts decisions that have been bandied about as evidence of his fascist ultra-conservatism, and I just don't see anything all that controversial either.

I think we DID dodge a bullet here, I think he WILL surprise all of us, and I think the Dems are right not to fight the nomination, especially considering that if they managed to succeed, the next nominee will likely be worse.

When it comes to this administration, I am prone to paranoia and expecting the absolute worst. I have tried and tried and tried to get all upset about the Roberts nomination, but I can't. If anything, I'm a little relieved. It could have been so much worse.
I think the people here hyperventilating about Roberts are misguided, and I'm glad our congressional dems aren't following their lead.

[springhill]

58. Someone explain to me.................

What in his background, beliefs and decisions makes you think he will surprise anyone? Really, I want to know.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

59. Well...

First, there's the fact that people on both sides of the political aisle have described him as not being an ideologue. This indicates that he might be persuaded by a compelling argument towards a view that is not consistent with the ultra-right wing/dominionist/fascist view that people here seem to want desperately to tar him with.

Second, there's the fact that supreme court justices have fairly often surprised people, and have not hewn to the views of those who appointed them. I believe it was Truman who said, "once you put a man on the Supreme Court, he ceases to be your friend." See also, Souter, David.

Finally, there are his decisions, which are not, despite what many on DU would have us believe, crazy. They are conservative, yes, but principled in a way I didn't expect from a Bush nominee.

Look, I'm not saying he's not a conservative, or that his decisions won't be conservative. I'm sure they will, for the most part. (So were O'Connor's, for the most part.) But he's no John Ashcroft or Roy Moore. The people who I think he's going to surprise fall into two general groups: (1) Right wing fundie loonies who think he's their man, and who think he's going to overturn Roe the minute he gets a chance, and (2) DUers who think he's Satan, and who think he's going to overturn Roe the minute he gets a chance.

Conservative? Yes. What did we expect? But nothing I've seen so far has led me to believe that he's Satan. And remember: I really, really WANTED to believe he's Satan.

[springhill]

64. --Jonathan Turley, on John "women are stupid" Roberts

Quotes

"He's a very nice man, he's a very brilliant attorney, but he is at base a very
consistent and predictable conservative vote. And so we're looking at doctrines
changing in areas from abortion to environmental law to employment discrimination,
prisoner rights. It really covers the entire legal landscape. It's quite breath-taking
how many doctrines could change with this one vote."
--Jonathan Turley, on John "women are stupid" Roberts, Attribution

[Taylor Mason Powell]

66. I don't doubt it.

Did you think Bush was going to appoint a liberal? But the operative word here is "could." Turley, like everyone else, right and left, is making a prediction, based on very scant evidence. Only time will tell whose predictions were accurate. I do not think this sky-is-falling mentality is justified by the facts. (Likewise, I think any right-wing rejoicing at this point is also not justified by the facts.) All anyone can do is speculate.

As for the "women are stupid," that's just baseless ad hominem. I've never seen a shred of evidence that John Roberts thinks women are stupid.

As I see it, Bush simply didn't have the political capital to nominate a hardcore right-wing ideologue extremist in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. In that sense, the Roberts nomination can be seen as a victory for us. He's conservative, but he's not insane. So there's hope. That's my main point.

I could be wrong, he could be the stealth candidate from hell, eager to just rip the constitution to shreds. But I haven't yet seen the evidence of that.

And remember, Bush fucks up everything he does. Why should this be any different? Roberts will probably be the swing vote that legalizes gay marriage. :-)

[Gronk Groks]

14. The trouble is that he is NOT the worst we could of gotten...

...if he was it would of been a no brainer to fight like hell.

He is not what we want. He is just not the Devil we were afraid we were going to get.

He is anti-choice, no question about it. But will he overturn Roe v Wade. We just don't know...

...and THAT is frightening.
:shrug:

[lawladyprof]

46. I've been wondering if her involvement in the "pro-life" movement

had something to do with their (her?) not being able to have children.
If that is so and if she influences her husband as a result, then I find that somewhat troubling.

[bloom]

8. "Ann Coulter says Roberts is not a true-blue conservative"

etc.

I actually think they say stuff like that to reduce the backlash.

What a friend of his had said before the nomination - reportedly - was that Roberts was as conservative as they come.

I think it's possible that the Dems will go along with it. I also think the Dems have been falling for whatever the corporations want anyway - for the most part. So what's new, eh?

[nashuaadvocate]

13. Actually...

...I think Coulter's such a bitch that if Roberts were (in her view) a raging radical conservative, she would gloat.

You're giving her WAY too much credit. The woman doesn't have a subtle bone in her surgically-reconstructed ego.

S.

[bloom]

18. I think she's a tool.

Whether it is to rile people up or whatever. I think it's a plan. And I don't necessarily think it is her plan.

Probably some think tank.

Seems like a clue if several Republicans are coming out with the same message.

[NewJeffCT]

36. agreed - Coulter, Malkin, FR, etc help the RW move debate further right

If Coulter or Malkin say something outrageous, when a still very conservative Republican repudiates them, it makes them look more like a moderate. So, that is how the Coulters & Malkins of the world are tools for the RW.

My point on DU that I've said 100 times or more now on DU - in 1964, Barry Goldwater was so far radically right that he was unelectable and lost in an historic landslide. In 2004, John McCain is now a "moderate" Republican... .to compare them on some issues: McCain is anti-choice, Goldwater is pro-choice; Goldwater was pro-environment, McCain is pro pollution; Goldwater was pro gays in the military, while I think McCain is for continuing don't ask, don't tell...

[kevsand]

9. It's all part of a carefully orchestrated campaign

to make him look moderate to the American people, and thereby make any Dem opposition seem extreme or partisan or kneejerk. Just my hunch.

[newswolf56]

12. I agree. This is precisely the sort of nasty stealth politics...

for which this administration is infamous.

[nashuaadvocate]

15. That a pretty big conspiracy...

...and while I believe Bush is capable of pretty big conspiracies, there's simply no way to keep whackjobs like Powerline and Coulter and Krauthammer on-board for one as big as the one you're talking about. FWIW, I think they're genuinely conflicted, though (yes) they secretly suspect he's a hard-core conservative.

S.

[kevsand]

21. I didn't say conspiracy,

I said campaign. The choice was designed to elicit the responses we're seeing. I don't think it's a conspiracy, just a very shrewd choice by Rove, having exactly the effect he wants, and maybe nudged every now and then here and there just to be sure. That requires the active cooperation of only a handful of people.

[Solo_in_MD]

35. They all fear another Souter

Whom they consider an apostate.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

17. Exactly. The naïveté on this thread is truly astounding.

After 5 years they still trust the administration.

[nashuaadvocate]

19. Yep. You have me pegged.

Why don't you read my blog and see just how much I trust this Administration.

God dammit--some people.

S.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

22. No need to resort to patronizing behavior bec. I don't agree with you

I have seen your comments on threads earlier this week, I disagree, end of story. Plus it's past 1 AM and I'm off to bed. Good night! :hi:

[nashuaadvocate]

23. Fair enough--

--I sort of thought, what with your use of the word "naive," that you were calling me, um, you know...

...naive.

Apparently I speak Chinese, not English, and in fact no offense was intended, and to respond with consternation to that insult would be patronizing.

G'night,

S.

[kestrel91316]

30. Any indications he is a stealth dominionist???

[Nite Owl]

16. I think maybe what they are saying

is he isn't a fundie evangelical like they pretend to be. Actually neither is *. His corporate buddies are the ones that he aims to please with this nomination. Their goal isn't to make us all like their right wing base, it's to make us slaves to the corporation. What needs to asked of him is how he feels about workers rights, civil rights, privacy rights. They need to keep Roe vs Wade as a scare tactic for their base.

[niallmac]

20. Well, I know next to nothing but I feel like you are right.

Just call me a guy using his womens intuition. At least that what the womens in this house are telling me. So far, can it not be unhesitatiingly said that this choice could have been much much worse? Honestly, the court nomination has not taken my eye off the Rove affair, the Rove/Abhu Grahib Photos/White House Treasonous Bastards affair has me so lathered up I can hardly pay attention to "Here comes the judge!" What a whirl wind of evil in such a short period of time.

[NAO]

24. The Religious Reich is NOT Screaming...that is all you need to know

Remember how furious they were when Gonzales (aka "Torture Man") was floated?

They are NOT known for keeping their opinions to themselves nor are they known for withholding (ha-ha) judgment. The fact that they are NOT screaming is VERY CHILLING. That information is all you need to know that Roberts is a horrific nightmare, no matter what other conservatives are saying.

****
****

The Swift Advance of a Planned Coup:
Conquering by Stealth and Deception
How the Dominionists Are Succeeding in Their Quest for National Control and World Power
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheSwiftAdvanceOfaPlannedCoup.htm

The Despoiling of America:
How George W. Bush became the head of the new American Dominionist Church/State
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm

[Generator]

44. Bingo

You would have to look for it-I didn't see it so it's second hand from me but a Du'er posted on Thurs/Friday night on Hannity/Colmes Friday that Senator Lindsay Graham stated, "I know he's pro-life." Guess you can look for transcripts.

[crispini]

45. A HA! Now THAT'S a good point.

Viz: I refer you to the mysterious incident of the dog in the night-time?

But the dog didn't do anything in the night time, Holmes?

Exactly, my dear Watson.

Good point. Those dogs aren't barking.

[bunny planet]

25. Maybe his purpose on the court is not to overturn Roe v. Wade but to

aid and abet corporate slime like Ken Lay who is coming up to trial next year. Maybe Roberts purpose is to be the get out of jail free card for *'s corporate cronies, and for potential administration higher ups that may come to trial some day soon for the Plame outing/conspiracy. After all Roberts did have something untrustworthy to contribute to the Florida 2000 debacle, that sure didn't seem like honorable advice he was giving Jebbie. Just saying, they do have another opening coming up when Rehquist finally retires or expires (whichever comes first) and maybe that's the wingnut they've got waiting in the wings to overturn Roe. Some people don't think they are serious about overturning Roe at all, they just get too many donations with that as their cause celebre, that might otherwise dry up if Roe v. Wade was no longer in play.

Then again, I'm very tired, so if this makes no sense, just tell me. My mind is exhausted just from the sheer permutations of evil and nefarious intent these people are capable of, they could have nominated Roberts for any number of reasons. I'm sure though, because it's Jr. pick, that none of those reasons can ever be good and honest ones.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

27. Folks think they're just having a stunning sip of ice water

& realize after they swallowed that it's kool-aid.
Of course I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt
that they don't know what they do.

[punpirate]

28. What's going on here is a media blitz to...

... sanitize Roberts by making it appear as if the selection of Roberts is a disappointment to the right.

This guy was Raygun's assistant White House counsel and he clerked for William Rehnquist. Of course, they want him; they love him like they love chasing down minorities with dogs....

This is subterfuge to lull Democrats into thinking it might be a good thing to let this pick pass.

If they do, they will have been outsmarted by the right wing yet again....

Cheers.

[springhill]

29. Oh please............

He has stated in the past he thinks Roe vs. Wade should be overturned. He helped in the Gore vs. Bush 2000 election. He was given the judgeship two years ago just so Bush could nominate him to the Supreme Court now. Nothing this administration does is done without knowing that they will get what they want. Why on earth after five years of this shit would anyone thnk he would nominate anyone who won't follow his masters wishes. He came from the Reagan and first Bush administrations, just like every other freakin person they have in positions of power. He is part of the "Group."

[nashuaadvocate]

32. No, he hasn't. Ever. Said that.

Read the news, not just NARAL newsletters.

S.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

33. That's not just in the NARAL newsletter, but all over the internet

You have something against NARAL and abortion rights?

[nashuaadvocate]

38. Kathy, you read the other thread...

...according to you, so I know you know better. Both regarding me, and regarding Roberts' position on abortion.

S.

[springhill]

41. Oh yes, knower of all.........

In 1990, as the principal deputy solicitor general in President George H.W. Bush's administration, Roberts wrote a legal brief for the Supreme Court in a case regarding federal funding for abortion providers. "We continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled," Roberts wrote.

http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines05/0721-06.htm

This is just one of the issues. Thom Hartmann articulated very clearly many of his EXTREME positions on a multitude of issues the other day. He is EXTREME and will work for what this administration wants, which is the only reason they would consider him in the first place.

[nashuaadvocate]

47. (Sigh).

You must have missed the thread where everyone agreed that it's wrong to say "he said he believes" with regard to briefs he wrote on behalf of a client.

Sorry, not wrong, just ignorant.

S.

[springhill]

48. Boy, evidence doesn't seem too compelling to you.....

You would rather just "hope" that his views are different from those that he has espoused over the years. As I have said from the beginning, Bush is not going to take a chance of putting someone on the Supreme Court who is not his waterboy. Why on earth would you believe he would?

You might review this article from Jonathan Turley. Its title is "The Nomination of John Roberts" - It's time to be afraid, very afraid.

In 1948, a young Abner Mikva (future Illinois congressman and federal judge) reportedly walked into an Illinois Democratic committeeman's office to volunteer as an enthusiastic young Democrat. The cigar-chomping committeeman looked suspiciously at Mikva and asked, "Who sent you?" Mikva answered "Nobody." The committeeman then barked, "We don't want nobody nobody sent."

It is a Chicago lesson that comes to mind with last week's Supreme Court nomination. For conservative groups, nominee John Roberts was not sent by nobody but by President Bush--and that appears to be enough. While his views are not well-known publicly, Roberts is well-known in the Beltway and in the White House.

With little public record, the White House was able to focus on personality rather than ideology. Indeed, the comments of the White House and others made it sound like we're adopting a golden retriever: He is "kind," "loyal," "family-oriented," "faithful" and "friendly." The only thing missing is an American Kennel Club certificate that he was free of hip dysplasia.

The suggestion that Roberts is not as hard-right as other people on the shortlist confuses style with substance. As someone who believes that Bush is entitled to such a nominee, I am less bothered by the fact that he is extremely conservative as I am the odd suggestion that he might be a swing vote on the Supreme Court. If Roberts is a swing vote on the court, it would be between the far right and the farther right.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0507240283jul24,0,3478941.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed

[nashuaadvocate]

49. I didn't say he would be a "swing vote"...

...what I said, elsewhere on this board, was that he's "ultraconservative."

Having said that, he's better than Estrada and Owens and Rogers-Brown and Pryor and Pickering and, frankly, as a liberal criminal attorney, I read his most "controversial" criminal law decision, Hedgepath (the french fry case) and came away...well...impressed.

It's a virtually unassailable decision which, frankly, isn't particularly radical at all. So, it's tough being lectured to by folks who haven't even read his decisions.

Would I prefer a different nominee? Yes. Is Roberts, to my mind, a potential "Kennedy," much more than a potential "Thomas"? Yes. Which is amazing, from this President, and much more than I'd hoped for.

S.

[springhill]

52. Okay........

Give me five of his decision on issues of importance that make you feel comfortable that he will be a Kennedy. Really, I would like to be comforted.

Also, why do you think Bush, Rove or whomever would be behind another Kennedy?

[nashuaadvocate]

54. Hedgepath and Rancho Viejo are two.

We can start there.

S.

[springhill]

55. Can you at least give me some background on these?

What are they concerning? Do they have anything to do with the issures liberals are concerned about?

[nashuaadvocate]

57. You can find them easily online:

Rancho Viejo: Commerce Clause; Endangered Species Act
Hedgepath: Equal Protection Clause (Fourteenth Amendment); Fourth Amendment

Also, see Post #56.

S.

[springhill]

60. Post #56........

didn't tell me anything. It basically just reiterated what you said in your posts. I have read many of his views and they are very alarming. So I base my opinions on what he has done, not a feeling.


For example, on July 15, a panel of federal appellate court judges upheld Bush's sovereign right to dispose of "enemy combatants" any way he pleases, the Washington Post reports. In a chilling decision, the judges ruled that the Commander's arbitrarily designated "enemies" are non-persons: neither the Geneva Conventions nor American military and domestic law apply to such garbage. Bush is now free to subject anyone he likes to the "military tribunal" system he has concocted - a brutal sham that some top retired military officials have denounced as a "kangaroo court" that will be used by tyrants around the world to "hide their oppression under U.S. precedent."

One of the kowtowing jurists on the appeals panel was none other than John G. Roberts. Four days after he affirmed Bush's autocratic powers, Roberts was duly awarded with a nomination to the Supreme Court. Now he will be sitting in final judgment on this case - and any other challenges to Bush's peremptory commands. This is what is known, in the tyrant trade, as "a safe pair of hands."

http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd07202005.html

[noiretextatique]

61. wasn't that your thread too?

as i recall, everyone did not agree with you. one has to wonder why he would take the job in the first place, fully knowing who and what he was working for. i considered law school myself at one point, and i may actually do it one day. i already know where i would go to school, and what type of law i would practice.
i find it hard to believe roberts was just "doing his job."

[msongs]

34. could it be the B'rer Rabbit defense?? ->

you know the one, don't throw me in the briar patch whatever else you do?

the fascists have gottent together to coordinate a calculated defense of roberts' nomination using "opposite" thinking to scam us?

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[Toots]

37. Do you wish to die by slow acting poison or shot in the head

Is that the question you are raising? :shrug:

[nashuaadvocate]

39. Give me a viable third option...

...and I'll take it.

You have no viable third option, though...what do you think, Bush is going to nominate a staunch pro-choicer?

Give me a break!

S.

[Lexingtonian]

40. ya know...

This is such a fun parlor game.

It's like looking at an impressionist painting for a long time. It seems so intricate at first. And then it kind of melds and blends and finally you see something really simple and clear and impressive.

I think there's extremely simply truth here too. Roberts strikes me as a quintessential Establishment sort. He's an epitome of the better kind of Harvard educated corporate lawyer. I grew up around people like that. His record is utterly of the sort- fit in, don't leave a paper trail or pontificate unless they really make you, stay on the edges of the fray on unimportant issues- making the best of life is important, almost everything people fight about is not as important as they imagine at the time.

People of the kind literally have no strong opinions about The Big Issues. They don't want to. You might call it pragmatism, or small c conservativism in a way, for them it's really all about the status quo and not about ideals. Unless the case made is strong that something is truly unsustainable or unbearable, they'll stick with the status quo. It looks more conservative from the outside than it really is on social issues, and is conservative on economic issues. It very strongly reflects the real ideas of the Bush family and their social circle, just lacking their vice of indulgence in crude vanities and stupidities.

My view is that Roberts, like O'Connor, would take a long time to make up his mind but he would uphold Roe almost exactly as she did. That is, on very narrow grounds on the merits and ultimately using the same technical fashion of saying 'the status quo is the best outcome' used in Casey v PP, stare decisis.

It's always easy for Democrats to forget that the Bush people's game is always primarily about deceiving/manipulating their own 'base'. Their fight against Democrats is always secondary, about Democrats obstructing and undermining this deception. I believe it's not a bad idea for Democrats to play Brer Rabbit with them on Roberts.

[Pepperbelly]

42. Is he or is he not a member of Federalist Society?

I have heard conflicting information. On here, I have seen posted that he was but on the pundit shows this a.m., they claimed that he was not.

Does anyone have anything that shows one way or the other?

[Panda1]

51. Listed in '97-98 Directory

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/24/AR2005072401201.html
Roberts Listed in Federalist Society '97-98 Directory
Court Nominee Said He Had No Memory of Membership

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 25, 2005; Page A01

Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. has repeatedly said that he has no memory of belonging to the Federalist Society, but his name appears in the influential, conservative legal organization's 1997-1998 leadership directory.

Having served only two years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit following a long career as a government and private-sector lawyer, Roberts has not amassed much of a public paper record that would show his judicial philosophy. Working with the Federalist Society provides some clue of his sympathies -- the organization keeps its membership rolls secret but many key policymakers in the Bush administration are acknowledged current or former members.

Roberts has burnished his legal image carefully. When news organizations have reported his membership in the society, he or others speaking on his behalf have sought corrections. Last week, the White House told news organizations that had reported his membership in the group that he had no memory of belonging. The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, USA Today and the Associated Press printed corrections.

Over the weekend, The Post obtained a copy of The Federalist Society Lawyers' Division Leadership Directory, 1997-1998. It lists Roberts, then a partner at the law firm Hogan & Hartson, as a member of the steering committee of the organization's Washington chapter and includes his firm's address and telephone number.

...

[Generator]

43. I think you are deluding yourself/trying to convince yourself?

You are a lawyer, highly educated. I am not. However, a little of the old "common sense" can figure this out without listening to the opinions of the right as confirmation that "he's not that bad."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050724/ap_on_go_su_co/roberts_records_2;_ylt=AvtNEFc2yFMCfMERo_TPlphuCM0A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration does not intend to release all memos and others documents written by Supreme Court nominee John Roberts during his tenure with two Republican administrations, a White House representative said Sunday.


If he is the great guy, why hide his record? Oh yeah..attorney- client..even if that's the US..government for the few by the few...the new America is here.

And as some have pointed out here it's not just ROE: He's in the admins pocket up to his eyeballs..from election 2000 to approving of the new anti-Geneva covention status quo of treatment of prisoners.

[noiretextatique]

62. he's a BFEE company man

bought and paid for...just like the despicable clarence thomas.

[SoCalDem]

63. Won't matter in the end. The repubes have the votes

and there will be enough dems who will cross over.. They'll "talk tough" and string him along, and then vote for him anyway..
Remember Bolton? They called him everything but an ax-murderer, and yet voted him out of committee..:shrug:

[deadparrot]

65. The night of Roberts' nomination,

and I don't know if it was discussed at all on DU, because my Internet was down, but I flipped past MSNBC and the one of the headings ocncerning Roberts caught my eye. It was something like ANTI-ABORTION GROUP: ROBERTS "UNREASONABLE CHOICE"

Something to the effect of anti-choicers being angry.