Why are Dems silent or complicit in Robert's Nomination

[NAO]

Why are'nt they outraged and making lots of public statements about his "Roe was a mistake" comment and his "french-fry" ruling and his pro-torture / anti-Geneva Conventions / anti-International Law stance?

How can our Democratic leaders remain silent when there is a dangerous right-wing ideologue activist judge being considered for SCOTUS?

Why are'nt they all on TV making a huge stink like the Religious Reich did when Gonzales was floated? If we end up in a Dominionist Theocracy, I'm going to say "I told you so..."

****
****

Dominionism's Theocratic Designs and Radical Clerics

Fundamentalist Radical Clerics such as Falwell, Dobson, and Robertson are not merely medieval throwbacks or misguided religious hacks. They are part of a well organized subversionary movement known as "Dominionism". Dominionism constitutes a serious threat to American Democracy. These Radical Clerics have developed and are executing a detailed plan to gradually replace the free, secular democratic society of the United States with a Theocracy.

It is critical that people become aware of the extreme agenda these people have for the United States and ultimately for the world. The results of the 2004 Presidential Election were not a fluke or something that was drummed up over a period of months. It has been in planning for over 20 years, and what we are seeing take place now is, in the words of Katherine Yurica, "the swift advance of a planned coup".

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

Video on the Christian Reconstructionist Dominionist Theocratic Agenda
http://www.theocracywatch.org/av/video_dominion.ram

The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party
a public information project from TheocracyWatch.org
http://www.theocracywatch.org

The Religious Right - An Anti-American Terrorist Movement
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8816.htm

****
****

Unless something breaks the stranglehold of religious fundamentalism in the US - and in the world - we are going to continue the slide into Theocracy and destruction.

The Freethought Zone
Science and Reason Over Religion and Superstition
http://freethought.freeservers.com /

Freedom from Religion Foundation
http://www.ffrf.org /

Secular Humanism
http://www.secularhumanism.org /

Secular Web
http://www.infidels.org/index.shtml

Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason - Online
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/index.shtml

Complete Works of Robert Ingersoll - Online
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/index.shtml

[wli]

1. I'm not silent, just nobody's listening

It's not as if people like me matter. That's what Diebold's there for: to erase my vote.

[Erika]

2. It's coming

My biggest complaint is that W did away with a pro-choice woman and substituted a white male against women's rights. Give us time.

[meppie-meppie not]

22. "it's coming"...damn I'd be a millionaire for every time I heard one

of us or our esteemed leaders say that.

[NAO]

4. I'm talking about elected reps, not just activist voters

Why aren't Harry Reid and Howard Dean and John Kerry and John Conyers on every TV news show discussing and presenting evidence why Roberts is a right-wing fanatic and would be a disaster?

If Bush nominates a moderate, or even a hard-core, ultra-conservative, pro-business anti-environment extremest who is NOT committed to overturning Roe, the Christians will SCREAM BLOODY MURDER.

Our reps need to help us fight off the Rabid Religious Reich. They are far more dangerous than any other group in the US right now.

[libertypirate]

3. It's the quite before the storm...

Check out the front page of the washington post

About midway it starts talking about the state departments views about Niger.

[rumpel]

6. I noticed that, too. And they still went along.

[NAO]

5. Well, John Kerry is NOT silent - ad to run in papers across the country

http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html

from johnkerry.com...

Let's make our principles crystal clear right out of the box.

We will never support a Supreme Court nominee intent on reversing Roe v. Wade and undoing critical civil rights protections. And we will never accept a double standard that says, on a decision vital to America's future, President Bush's most extreme supporters can campaign all-out while you and I are urged to be silent.

From the range of choices the White House is currently considering, America and the Constitution would be best served if President Bush chooses a nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor, who was named to the Court by no less of a conservative than Ronald Reagan and approved unanimously by the United States Senate.

But President Bush's most extreme supporters are demanding a nominee who doesn't think or act anything like Justice O'Connor. They want a rigid ideologue who will reverse what President Bush has called the "settled law" of Roe v. Wade, one who will support their efforts to use the Supreme Court as a battering ram to undo decades of progress on civil rights, Roe v. Wade, and privacy.

They want something else as well.

They want you and me to participate in this momentous debate about fundamental freedoms with one hand tied behind our back. They actually expect us to step aside while they roll over our rights. Let's prove that we will never let that happen.

[blm]

18. That ad is probably why Bush moved up his announcement from July 30

as it was originally intended. Plus the Karl mess.

Kerry will need a new ad now.

[NAO]

20. Why is a new ad needed? What changed?

How does Bush moving up his announcement create the need for a new ad? The ad as it is seems very appropriate and direct to me.

What would you change? Am I missing something?

[blm]

21. Reread the ad. It's not Roberts specific. It's challenging Bush to NAME a

prochoice nominee.

In the text of Kerry's letter it says the choices Bush is "currently considering" which means this came out before the nomination.

>>>
From the range of choices the White House is currently considering, America and the Constitution would be best served if President Bush chooses a nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor, who was named to the Court by no less of a conservative than Ronald Reagan and approved unanimously by the United States Senate.
>>>

[lynne]

23. I don't get it -

- What is the point of the ad? I visited johnkerry.com and it didn't tell me anything new, just more of the same.

I could see this ad being of use if it was published BEFORE the nomination but it sure seems too late now. Roberts was confirmed for DC Court 2 years ago by these very same senators - if he had any skeletons they would have been found in that confirmation process.

The ad is a waste of money. Unless the intent of it is to get people to donate to johnkerry.com. It won't change a thing about Roberts being confirmed to the SCOTUS.

Once again, too little and too late.

[President Jesus]

7. umm...'cause we lost the election?

This is the consequence for those fucking assholes who voted for Ralph in 2000.

Tell me, what are Dems supposed to do (realistically)?

[inthebrain]

9. I was one of those assholes

Don't blame me.

It's not my fault that the party got filled with a bunch of weenie moderates that don't have the spine to take a stand. If Gore really wanted my vote he should've attempted to set himself apat from Bush. The fact that he agreed with that idiot 42 times in one debate was his own damn fault!! Not mine.

I didn't recall a NAFTA discussion by either candidate in that race either.

As far as the party is concerned today; The only reason why it's still standing is because of a few Nader democrats who are taking a stand. That would be Kucinich, Boxer, Conyers and Dean.

The are two things that are keeping me around right now.

1) The fact that this party is finally starting to fight for my vote.

2) That gives me a reason to go where I'm needed.

The second they go back to behaving like Republicans again I'm leaving. Quite frankly, If it goes back in the direction of Liberal Republican CLinton again, I'M OUT!!!

Clinton was as "compassionate a Democrat" as Bush is a compassionate Conservitive in many respects. I have him to thank for "welfare reform" and signing NAFTA. I don't see anything remotely Liberal about offering tax cuts to corporations to hire single moms at minimum wage.

Do you?

[Robeson]

13. Nicely said....

...I share your thoughts.

[jonnyblitz]

14. great post! . these people who blame Nader for everything,

including crop failure, refuse to look within and see what is wrong with their damn party. They need to ask themselves WHY people felt the need to have to vote for Ralph, but they wont. scapegoats are much easier. and, by the way, MANY MANY more DEMS voted for Bush in 2000 in Florida than they did for Ralph but nobody is blaming those "assholes".

[President Jesus]

16. "WHY people felt the need to have to vote for Ralph..."

yeah, all 1% of you.

Elections are about winning, not about hearing what you want to hear. The reason winning is so important goes precisely to the heart of this thread. The last thing you want is your political opponents to be the ones making decisions that affect us for the next 3 decades. Wake up, child.

Face it, your throw-away vote is why we'll have the likes of Roberts ruling the most important cases in our lifetime...at least for the next 30 years.

Take responsibility for your actions. Perhaps you'll learn something.

[inthebrain]

25. What exactly does this mean?

So the actual people who voted FOR Bush aren't to blame?

Not to mention Cathering Harris for disenfranchising thousands of black voters in Florida. How about those democratic senators that refused to sign the petitions of the congressional black caucaus? No blame on thier shoulders?

Yet because I voted for Nader in 2000, and the Democrats lost an election they won, I am to blame.

You have a lot to learn about taking responsibility. There are a lot of problems with this party and the least of them are those that voted for Nader in 2000. I put my fellow citizens over my party in 2000 and if I have to, I will do it again.

Corporate America has way too much say in our political system. By 2000, the Democratic party had screwed working people by signing NAFTA and thowing our mothers in the jaws of Wal Mart via Wellfare Reform.

I coudlnt imagine this party signing n to something so despicable 20-30 years ago. It was a disgrace and I held them accountable for it!!!!

I dont regret it one bit.

You wanna tell someone to take responsibility? Tell those senators that refused to take the congressional black caucaus seriously.

[TheFarseer]

19. I agree

there's nothing we can do. I'm almost certain if we try to filibuster, they will go nuclear and it WILL work. Then democratic senators might as well go home til 2006 at least and probably til 2008.

[roguevalley]

8. the elected ones? Because they're bastards?

[radfringe]

10. Roberts is an UNKNOWN to majority of people

The reaction of people to the announcement was probably "Roberts who?", and then flipped the channel

he's an unknown.

everyone has a skeleton or two in their closet - but Roberts' skeletons are not out there in the news (yet) - the there is no widespread public outcry (yet)

the dems are taking the right course of action in holding back any expression of outrage or dismay. One thing working in their favor is the Rove investigation - Roberts nomination didn't bump Rove off the front page- mainly because there is no great reaction (from either side of the political spectrum) over Roberts' nomination. (no blood in the water over Roberts so no stories to run)

bush* wants roberts confirmed by October - but we have the August recess for congress (and bush*'s vacation) - so if roberts is to be confirmed by October this just leaves September for hearings etc. -- not enough time

and this is the dem talking point - one month is not enough time to check out this guy. A SCOTUS Justice is a lifetime appointment - as such great pains and careful consideration should be given to each and every nominee to ensure the person is the best one for the position. A SCOTUS Justice has great powers to effect the direction of the country and should not be rushed through for the sake of political expediency. The focus should be on what is best for America, not what is best for a political ideology.

[Disturbed]

11. The Hearing on this Nom won't take place until

Sept. Plenty of time to mount an opposition. He should be grilled and groups will oppose him. My honest view is that, unfortunately, unless something horrible is found out about him, he will be voted in. All Rethugs will vote yes and so will about 10% Dems.

[radfringe]

12. agree

unless there is some HUUUUGE skeleton in his closet - he's in

Most of us on the DU and from the blather of talking heads - seem to agree the roberts nomination was timed to divert attention away from the ROVE scandal.

doesn't seem to have worked - because Roberts is an "unknown" to the majority of Americans - there is no "big reaction" to fuel the presses. The dems didn't get out there and express any sort of outrage, so again there's no fuel for the presses

it's a given that anyone bush* would nominate would be a conservative - so no big surprise there

meanwhile - people have picked up on the blatant attempt to divert attention away from Rove. The big question: Why does bush* have to divert attention from Rove story if bush* thinks Rove is innocent? Does the attempt to divert media attention mean there is more to the Rove story?

unsolicited comment from a co-worker on Roberts nomination "he (bush*) did it (roberts nomination) now to change the subject. I guess terror alerts don't work anymore."

[hlthe2b]

15. well, considering how many here are advocating rolling over...

how can we be surprised? I'd like to think they are just "keeping their powder dry," but as more and more stick their big feet in their mouth (e.g., Lieberman) our options drop more and more...

[bemildred]

17. Why would they change now? nt

[Rainbow gatherer]

24. Reid not pro-choice.

Reid is a very likable person and comes from a Red state. That's why is is the majority leader. However, he is firmly in the pro-life camp. He even said when it comes to replacing Rhenquist he will support Scalia but not Thomas.

Don't expect the Democrats to put up anything but token opposition to Roberts. This will be done to satisfy our liberal base but not look too "extreme" or "unfair" to what they perceive as the larger "moderate" population.

Sorry, that's just the way it is.