Feinstein and Schumer may vote against Roberts!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

WJXX Key Democrats May Vote Against Roberts
Los Angeles Times, CA - 4 hours ago
... Key Democrats May Not Vote Against Roberts

WASHINGTON -- Two key Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee suggested today they may not vote against the nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. to be chief justice of the United States.

Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Charles E. Schumer of New York, among those considered most likely to vote against confirming Roberts, said they had not made up their minds.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-091505roberts_lat,0,5101866.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Contact the senators - Calls are better
Toll free -- 877-762-8762

Email Senator Feinstein --
http://feinstein.senate.gov/email.html

Email Senator Schumer --
http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/contact/webform.cfm

Judge Roberts has a race problem -- r/e Voting Rights Act --
"To be fair, Roberts apparently did not oppose renewal of the VRA itself. But he did oppose an amendment intended to address some of the open and obvious practices that Southern governments were using to evade the spirit of the statute. And he didn’t just write a memo about it, he was passionately involved in the political opposition as well. You should note that the amendment was ultimately approved overwhelmingly and opposed by only eight Senators, including noted racists Jesse Helms, John East, and Harry Byrd. My go-to for VRA/Roberts information has been Prof. Hasen. Here’s his op-ed in the LA Times:

http://lawandpolitics.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_lawandpolitics_archive.html#112465818845645075

Roberts has problem with equal pay for women
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/08/16/roberts-women/

Roberts bad news for the disabled --
The Americans with Disabilities Act was signed 15 years ago last month, but Supreme Court nominee Judge John G. Roberts is a scary birthday present
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050813/OPINION04/508130346

Roberts has ethical problem --
ethics violation will violate the sensibilities of our elected representatives.

Judd Legum writes:

"In April, Judge John Roberts 'heard arguments about the Bush administration’s policy as he was discussing a Supreme Court appointment in private conversations with the White House.' On July 15, 'when Judge Roberts met with President Bush for the job-clinching interview, he joined a ruling in favor of the defendants, who included Mr. Bush.' The White House claims Roberts didn’t do anything wrong. Bush spokesman Steve Schmitt said ‘there was no conflict whatsoever.'"
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/24619/

[jasmeel]

1. They should. Would it matter?

[Der Blaue Engel]

2. The actual headline says may NOT vote against

:(

[stevedeshazer]

3. Yay. All two of them.

:nuke:

So, 98-2 is your call?

I'll go with 95-3.

Way to stand up, guys. :eyes:

[tritsofme]

4. They might as well vote to confirm

It leaves us in a better position to oppose a real extremist like Brown, Luttig, Owens, ect..

It makes their argument for the nuclear option much easier.

Their argument would be:

"If those Democrats even opposed the shining light of legal thought in his generation, John Roberts, they'll oppose anybody."

[MisterP]

6. of course, once Brown/Owens/Tortureboy is nominated, you'll say the same

Roberts has his hands in the '00 burglary of the nation and Iran-Contra: I think standing up once in a while can't hurt

[tritsofme]

8. As far as Republicans go, Roberts seems acceptable.

We're not going to get another Souter, and Roberts seems to be ressembling Kennedy more than Republicans would like.

And even if he is as conservative as Rehnquist it doesn't change the balance of the Court.

As far as 2000, every prominent lawyer in the country had some input to give.

And I haven't heard about any involvement with Iran-Contra.

I don't think a nominee being a Republican is reason enough to reject him.

[depakid]

11. It's the same argument that comes up every time

It's why the Dems lose- because they (or some portion of sell outs) refuse to make a stand on principles- anywhere!

Why should anyone vote for a party like that!

(fact is- many of them won't- which is why the Dems have become irrelevant).

Hell, any respectible party with a lick of integrity wouldn't have allowed Gonzales or Owens to be confirmed to the present positions.

So long as they keep this up, you can pretty much expect that they'll remain the minority party. The way things look- with nothing but weakness on that side of the aisle, the Dems may even lose seats again 2006, despite the Republican implosion.

And they'd pretty much deserve it.

[tritsofme]

15. Breyer and Ginsberg got 95+ votes in 1993

and the GOP as the opposition party did pretty well in 1994...

[FreedomAngel82]

17. Exactly

So much for the Constiution. *sigh* I loved it. :cry:

[pushycat]

13. Political strategy worthless - start pushing back hard

Just me, but who is looking out for the country with all this talk about the next chess move. People are killed every day now because no one is checking the admin's radical agenda.

[adigal]

20. I respectfully disagree

They should not vote "Yes" on any wingnut this wingnut president puts up. Roberts may be very, very dangerous for American rights that we take for granted. He may help change the world as we know it. This is not just me - one of the witnesses tonight (I think his name was Preuss, from the U of Chicago??) said we may be witnessing a historic moment, a shift in the Supreme Court to keep Congress from enacting laws that protect the rights of Americans.

I don't trust him one iota. And I don't want the Dems giving Bush any political victory because you know damn well he will be crowing away about it, as will all of this sycophants, Hannity, et al.

[texpatriot2004]

5. Thanks I am writing and calling. n/t

[Disturbed]

7. It would be a nice gesture if...

100% of Dems voted "NO" but some will vote "YEA". Roberts will be confirmed. Even if 100% of Dems voted against him he would be confirmed. Why would it matter if 100% Dems voted against? The next nominee will be the crucial one. Will that one be blatantly RW extreme, like Janice Brown or another stealth one like Roberts?

[rosesaylavee]

9. Have often wondered why Biden voted for

Thomas all those years ago... If Clarence hadn't been voted in - how many people would still be alive? Sorry Anita Hill - no one took you seriously enough - or not enough of us.

[orpupilofnature57]

18. Sorry ,I hated everything about Clarence Thomas, But Anita Hills story was

Flawed and flimsy at best, It was one of the first truly MSM carnival event,which Ronnie Ray-Guns bunch gave us plenty.

[Beaverhausen]

19. Flawed and flimsy? please explain yourself more fully

I'd like to hear it. thanks.

[orpupilofnature57]

22. Sorry I took so long getting back to you

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=outside&m=287988

[Dr Fate]

10. Gosh! A Democrat or two will oppose Bush?- we must all celebrate.

I hope they are not being too radical. Hannity might say bad things about them.

[hopein08]

12. Subject line and the 1st line of the article don't match, VERY confusing!

[WI_DEM]

14. I wonder how Lieberman will come down?

He is strongly pro-choice, so it is possible he might vote against Roberts, but he has this thing about being "bi-partisan".

[Timefortruth]

21. Lieberman will vote for Roberts

I'll donate $150 more to katrina if I'm wrong, but I'm not.

I'll donate anyway, but Leiberman isn't a Democrat when it matters.

[Beaverhausen]

16. I just wrote to Feinstein letting her know I want her to vote NO

Thanks for the link.