I want to know what good it does if we get Rove but are stuck with Roberts

[saracat]

for thirty years or more.It isn't likely Bush will nominate a moderate to replace Renquist! What is more important? I don't think getting even with Rove is that important and the 2006 elections won't matter at all if we stack the courts with these people . As a mamber of a gender threatened with losing equal status , I am furious that my rights are condisered inconsequential and a bargaining chip by the Democratic Party! Even if we cannot win the filibuster, we should show some spine and give the voters something to vote for by opposing this nomination.Instead , many are just rolling over. They have nothing to lose by fighting this. This is what the filibuster is for! I am disgusted.My admiration is for the few Senators who have spoken out in defense of women's rights, such as Kerry and Kennedy. The rollovers deserve a kick in the head.

[cornermouse]

1. Skinner said it best.

Rove won't be around for more than a couple more years. Roberts will be there for 20 to 30 years, maybe more. Roberts is the bigger threat to the American people.

[stray cat]

2. It isn't likely that Bush will nominate a moderate at all.

To defeat Roberts it will have to be blatantly clear that his ideas are completely at odds with the majority of Americans. I look forward to seeing that prove if it is out there. I also look forward to seeing what happens at the confirmation hearings.

[joemurphy]

3. Unfortunately, the "Gang of Fourteen" have apparently

decided that a filibuster of Roberts doesn't meet their idea of what constitutes "extraordinary circumstances". Thus, no filibuster.

I only hope Roberts isn't the ideologue personally that his record as an advocate indicates.

Sadly, Supreme Court appointments boil down to votes and we just don't have them. All we can do is vet Roberts, hope to find something in his record that disqualifies him, and failing that, register our objections by voting against him.

[katusha]

5. don't make the filibuster about roberts

kerry has already asked for documents about roberts work in gov't. i don't really think this lying, secretive admin. will give up those papers. so instead of filibustering this roberts guy on himself, make the filibuster be about the bush admins inability to deal forthrightly with congress, an issue we already have the support of the american people over.

[joemurphy]

7. Well, maybe. We'll see, I guess. n/t

[katusha]

8. sorry hadn't had my coffee yet

what i am trying to say is it will be much more effective to block roberts based on things the public is aware of, i.e. the meme that bush, rove, etc. are liars and corrupt, instead of basing our resistance on what this jar of mayonnaise roberts believes or how he may vote on the court.
roberts so far has had a very effective public relations effort on his behalf so it will be that much harder to overcome and paint him as extreme.
on the other hand it will not be that much of a stretch to convince a super majority of americans that bush is hiding something and it is important for the dems to stand on principle and demand answers even if this nominee is caught up in the fight.

we will only have one chance at defeating roberts, during the confirmation hearings. we will have to turn public sentiment against the nomination, not necessarily the nominee. if we dig something up on roberts during the hearings then that will be so much better but if we don't then we need to tie roberts to bush and make opposition to his nomination a vote against bush and not a vote against roberts. that way we will have enough joe q. public support to make the repubs think twice before invoking the nuclear option.

[joemurphy]

11. :-) No offense taken.

The trouble I have with getting Roberts out is Bush's ability to just reach down into the mire and coming up with someone worse
-- a Janet Rogers Brown sort, for example.

I think the only way we can have a "victory" is by somehow convincing the American public to put enough pressure on Bush to put up a moderate in Sandra Day O'Connor mold (not that I thought all that much of her either but she was, at least, somewhat independent and not an ideologue like Scalia or Thomas). I'm not sure how we get that done though.

I don't disagree with your strategies on Roberts. It's just that if they work we might just get someone worse.

[Emit]

18. There was a discussion about this (sort of) on Wa Week last nite

The video is at this link, the transcripts aren't up yet, but I found this part of the discussion interesting:

They were talking about the committee going after the documents on Robertson. Some of the docs will likely be in the Reagan library, some in Bush I library, some in Justice Dept., etc. Just as in the case of Estrada and Bolton, the Repugs might say "no" to providing the docs requested, and this, in turn, might lead some moderate Dems to be convinced that the White House is not being forthcoming with the docs and info, and thus, it might lead to a delay, or filibuster, based not on Robertson himself, per se, but on the fact that the WH might not provide the docs they request. Anyway, for what it's worth, I found this discussion interesting.

Also, another point that came up, and, unfortunately that was not elaborated enough on, was one of the reporters (Gloria Borger, CBS News, I think) talked about how Roberts goes a long way back with the Bush family. This was in response to the idea that some people were surprised by the nominee, or didn't know much about him. But this reporter said, no, that's not really the case, and then alluded to these connections dating way back. To me, that says a lot about this nominee. But, then again, I'm pretty biased. Phfft!

Anyway, here's the link to the video: It's the 7-22-2005, and I just viewed the "whole video" option, 'cause I wanted hear again the info they put forth, as I was pretty tired the first time I watched it on TV last night:

http://pbs-ww.virage.com/cgi-bin/visearch?user=pbs-ww&template=template.html&squery=VideoAsset:pbswwr072205

[saracat]

17. We don't have them because our friggen senators won't even vote together!

We aren't that short of votes if all the Dems would vote as one!

[TriMetFan]

4. Yes we might get stuck with Roberts, but

with Rove being exposed for what he is and with Bush #'s going down the drain, don't y'all think that if Rehnquist retires that Bush will not have no choice but to do what the people want him do to? I'm if Rehnquist go's after 2006 and we take seats back in 2006. Bush will just be a failed lame duck.:shrug:

[napi21]

6. Getting Rove on CRIMINAL charges is MORE important!

The reason I say this, is because Rove's inditment will not only hurt him, but the entire Pub Party! Depending on what those charges are, and just how far the charges go beyond Rove could be devastating to them!

I understand Roberts will probably be on the SC for decades, but there is still a lot of unknowns with him. We are afraid he's a RW nut, and the Pubs are afraid he's not! If he's confirmed, only the future will tell.

Right now, it looks like we've got Rove, and who knows how many others in this admin. for criminal offences. Convictions, even if they're pardoned, will harm their party for decades too! I say play the sure hand here!

[kansasblue]

9. Republican won the elections....

if the Dems are afraid to fight the corrupt elections then we have to live with the results. The winning party will put like minded people on the sumpreme court. We should have fought for Ohio like Gore fought for Florida. We didn't, Roberts goes to the SC.

[Mr.Green93]

10. There is no vacancy to fill

Check what is on this neo con site....O'Connor's July 1 letter to President Bush declared that it was "to inform you of my decision to retire from my position as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States effective upon the nomination and confirmation of my successor." If those last nine words are understood as setting a condition on her retirement, such that she continues in office and would take part in the next October Term of the Court if Roberts' confirmation were delayed or defeated — or even if Bush gave Roberts a recess appointment, since that would lack "confirmation" — then O'Connor has created a classic Catch-22.

Here's why. Title 28 of the United States Code, section 1, reads: "The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum." Article II, section 2 of the Constitution tells us that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court." For the president to appoint, there must be a vacant seat, whether just vacated or newly created. No tenth seat has been created. If Justice O'Connor remains in her seat today, then there is no vacancy among the nine available seats, and President Bush's nomination of Roberts is a legal nullity.
http://bench.nationalreview.com/

[Disturbed]

12. Impeach Cheney.

W is merely a Sock Puppet. Scooter Libby is the ignored player in the Plame case. He leads directly to Cheney, who in my view was the one behind the trashing of Joe Wilson, his wife and the covert project that she headed up regarding proliferation of WMDs.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

13. What did the "President" know and when did he

know it?

The leak etc and the policies on abuse, the lies exposed by DSM, all seem to point to the highest levels.

Do I smell an im_PEACH_ment at the highest level in the air???

:9

That'd stop a lot of stuff.

Then how do we go about taking the Presidency for Kerry, the rightfully elected President until 2008...

[ClassWarrior]

14. It's a giant house of cards. Let's go for 'em all, cuz if one goes down...

...they ALL do.

NGU.

[Nederland]

15. False dilemma

You aren't going to get Roberts. Sorry to say, but its the truth. You aren't going to get Roberts. As someone else around here said, unless he ends up with a dead girl or a live boy, he's going to be appointed. Rove, on the other hand, is a reachable target.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. Hmmm

Because the chances of taking down Rove are much greater....

That being said...

I want to see where Roberts stands on the right to privacy and the ninth amendment...

if he doesn't believe in the right to privacy and unenumerated rights we should filibuster him to kingdom come...

19. Why settle for one or the other

http://worldcantwait.org/

[wli]

20. once we get congress and the presidency back we can pack the bench then

We can slap down an extra 6 Democratic Justices after sweeping the White House and both houses of Congress. Of course, we have to get past Diebold et al, first.