See? Its all right to vote for Roberts. Really.

[cornermouse]

He's a closet librul... Really.
:headbang:

Roberts Devoted Free Time to Liberal Cases
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050806/ap_on_go_su_co/roberts_pro_bono

"WASHINGTON - Despite his view that death penalty appeals are clogging the courts, Supreme Court nominee John Roberts provided free legal help to an inmate languishing on Florida's death row for two decades...

...Roberts personally handled two pro bono cases. In one, he was appointed by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to represent a man convicted of Medicare fraud and also ordered to pay a $13,000 civil fine.

Roberts successfully argued in 1989 that Irwin Halper shouldn't be forced to pay a civil fine in addition to receiving a prison sentence, although the court reversed that decision eight years later.

In the other case, he devoted more than 200 hours representing about 1,000 welfare recipients in Washington, D.C., who lost their benefits during a city budget crisis. Roberts lost that 1995 case, in which he argued that the recipients were not properly informed of the benefit change."

See what I mean? A librul at heart. Two whole pro bono cases over how many years of legal practice?

[jmm]

1. Oh and Ann Coulter says he's too liberal for her

So I guess I should just be thrilled with him :eyes:.

[cornermouse]

3. The repubs gotta provide cover for him somehow.

:banghead:

[jmowreader]

8. Dude, HITLER is too liberal for Ann Coulter!

[djg21]

9. If his confirmation is defeated . . .

Who do you think that the replacement nominee would be?

At least Roberts is a known commodity, and he scares me far less than the possible alternatives.

This need to attack any nominee proposed by Shrub is silly IMO, and this battle is not the one to take up. Rehnquist is sick again, and is not going to be on the Court for long. Then we will have one or two more confirmation battles -- a new justice, and the chief justice (perhaps Scalia or Thomas!). Save the vitriol for later.

[jmm]

10. vitriol?

If you want vitriol ask me what I think about people who feel the need to tell me what "battle is not the one to take up." Better yet don't because if I gave you an honest answer I'd probably get myself banned from DU.

I'm not going to pretend to be happy with Roberts just because I have low expectation for any Bush appointee.

[Ian David]

12. Roberts will get appointed NO MATTER WHAT. The purpose of attacking...

him is NOT to keep him from getting appointed.

The purpose of attacking his alleged liberal/gay-rights "bias" is to discredit those who vote for him in the eyes of the right-wing.

The far-reich is already pissed at Bush over Roberts.

Let them be.

And let the reich-wing fume and spew over anyone who votes for Roberts' nomination.

[djg21]

13. I don't disagree

but the dems needn't be the ones attacking him. I think Roberts can actually make a very good Supreme Court Justice. He certainly has the academic and legal background, and despite his politics, he seems to be fair-minded, and intellectually honest, which is more than I can say for many of the more result-oriented right-wing idealogues currently on the Court

Moreover, I think it really inappropriate for anyone -- on the right or the left -- to castigate an attorney for positions he/she takes while advocating on behalf of a client. God knows I've made many arguments in the context of litigation that, while legally sound, I have not personally agreed with. As an attorney, Roberts was obligated to zealously represent his clients and their interests, and that means raising, or at least preserving, all strategically sound, non-frivolous arguments.

What more alarms me is the people on this board, and some elements in our Democratic Party seem to be just itching for a fight for the sake of a fight, and for no other reason. The reality is that the Bush Administration would love nothing more than a confirmation battle at this point. Shrub then would have an excuse to withdraw Robert's nomination and appoint someone far worse from the Democratic perspective, and at the same time, he can point to "Democratic obstructionism" and the charge will stick.

Regarding the NYT's investigation of the kids, I think that it is really bad form, and should be disavowed by the Dems.

[Ian David]

14. Precisely. The Dems should welcome Roberts with open arms...

We should heap praise upon him and call him a gawdsend and the best supreme court judge ever.

That alone would cause the fundies and reich-wingers to explode in a shower of burning flesh.

We should ask him all the "tough" questions and heap praise upon him for his answers.

Imagine if Barbara Boxer got up out of her seat and gave Judge Roberts a hug in the middle of his confirmation hearing?

We should hail Roberts as our judicial savior and encourage the right-wing to tear him (and those that vote to confirm him) to pieces.

That's why I am making sure that reich-wing are well aware of the "issues," whether their concern is justified or not.

[Swamp Rat]

2. Yeah, right!

:eyes:

[cornermouse]

4. I think your picture is probably

a highly accurate depiction of the real Roberts, unfortunately. :banghead:

[Swamp Rat]

5. Got cheese?

:9 :D

[JDPriestly]

6. Who do you think Bush will nominate

if Roberts is rejected? How liberal/enlightened will that person be? And if Democrats filibuster Roberts, how long will it take Republicans to use the nuclear option? Life is a matter of weighing costs and benefits. Yes, Roberts is a miserable candidate. ideologically challenged, a water boy for big money, big corporate interests and religious intolerance. But, whether Bush cheated or not, whether the election was fair and square or not, we officially lost. We have to unite and get such a large majority next time that no one can cheat us in the future. We can do that if we focus on our values and the facgt that we represent 95% of the electorate.

Should Democrats in Congress question Roberts vigorously about his pro bono work including how much or little of it there has been? Yes. Should they push him into admitting his extremist views? Yes. Should they point out Roberts' personal failings? Yes. Should they ask about his adoption and his income tax statement? Yes. But, in the end, we don't have the senators or the Senate votes to defeat him. And, don't say that the Senate races were unfair. They may have been, but we have no evidence to prove it.

Unite behind Democratic candidates and remind Democratic leaders to stay true to the values of our Party. There is nothing wrong with pointing out Roberts' failings, but keep your eye on the ball. The point is to get Democrats elected at all levels, but especially to the House and Senate in 2006. To the extent that criticizing Robert helps that effort, great. But to the extent that you are criticizing other Democrats or dividing the Party, please stop. You are just hurting your own cause.

[cornermouse]

7. What are you talking about?

"But to the extent that you are criticizing other Democrats or dividing the Party, please stop."

Because I have no idea where you got that from.

[Ian David]

15. If we lose Roberts, we'll end up with Judge Roy Moore (shudder) n/t

[Ian David]

11. See related thread: Just how gay IS Judge Roberts?

Just how gay IS Judge Roberts?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x14638