DAMN PATRICK LEAHY FOR VOTING FOR JOHN ROBERTS to be Chief Justice of the United States of America. [story] And damn him for announcing it early to give other Dems cover to do so as well. Some Democrats won't need any cover and might as well walk across the aisle. Right now I am close to having a Dick Cheney Go Fuck Yourself Moment.
SOME DEMOCRATS WILL SAY be reasonable. This is not the time to look extreme. The center cannot hold if it has no substance. Will the next Court nominee get a similar rubber stamp?
John Roberts Sounds Reasonable in testimony at his Senate confirmation hearings[transcript], which may be the problem. Roberts defends a right to privacy, but won’t say whether he would uphold Roe v Wade, which may be a problem. [story].
Roberts Affirms Rule of Law in Rightto Die cases and Biden says voting for Roberts is a roll of the dice. [story] And it looks quite a few Democrats may roll with Roberts. Is it smart politics not to oppose what you cannot defeat or is it something else?
The simple fact is that Roberts has the votes to become the next chief justice, and no senator can force him to answer any question he doesn't want to. Which may explain why the hearing seemed to lack much passion. [Kurtz/WaPo]
This May Be The Problem. Democrats aren’t even going to fight. Twentyfive of them may vote for Roberts. If Democrats barely show courage on the small things, should it be no surprise they show so little backbone for a fight? [story] What is more important than the nomination of a man who will judge for life? Roberts Is What Roberts Is. Republicans are what Republicans are. But if Democrats act like what they are not, where are we right now? Damned Democrats. This may be the problem.
RECOMMENDED IS IT REALLY A HEARING IF EVERYBODY TURNS A DEAF EAR? [Feministe] I kept waiting for the Democrats to hand his ass to him — call me
naive — but all we got was a bit of grandstanding and snark, window
dressing on a smooth confirmation. Some Republican idiot speechified on the evils of abortionfor over five minutes without asking a question. The Dems were no
better, allowing Roberts to bob and weave his way past their questions In case you were wondering, this is the “important shit” and the big guys have a handle on it. Just make sure you get your permission slip before you walk out of the line . [more]
KNOWING THE LAW COLD [YellowDoggerelDemocrat]
What an appropriate expression: Roberts "knows the law cold." "Cold," in another context, means
indifferent, or even mean-spirited. The law is supposed to be impartial, not indifferent.
UPDATE Roberts on Seizing Property by Eminent Domain [story]
. . . . it is "very appropriate" for Congress to consider legislation that
would counter a recent Supreme Court ruling that allows cities to seize
private property in the interest of private economic development.
THE HERETIK NOTES Roberts says it is "very appropriate" for Congress to revisit seizining property. What will Roberts have to say about the opinion that the President can seize people without charge for life?
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED ROBERTS THE ELDER [Jonathan Turley/Village Voice] Predicting what Roberts will look like as a jurist at 64 or 84 is no
easy task. The usual bachelor's method for seeing the future effects of
aging—checking out the mother—is hardly available here. Traditional
forms of divination are equally unavailing. Oneiromancy (the divination
of dreams) requires disclosure of Roberts's dreams, which would
immediately be claimed as privileged by the White House counsel's
office. Physiognomy (divination by the appearance of the face) would
also come up blank. Since he was nominated, Roberts has adopted a
perfectly Buddha-like appearance that denies any hint of emotion or
recognition. Even goat entrails would trigger widespread protests from
animal rights activists before anyone could read them.
Somebody Somewhere Will Try to Sell You the Story of John Roberts. Much will be made of his experience and his judicial temperment. You will be sold the story that the President deserves to have his choice respected and if the man is capable, the Senate must capitulate to those compelling realities.
The Choice Is Whether We Live In The Light Of This Century or whether we return to a darkness of the past. John Roberts is a two hundred rich white man in younger man's body.
John Roberts Is Entitled To His Opinions, legal and otherwise. Whether we have to live with them will soon be decided by other, mostly rich, mostly white men in the United States Senate. Whether more women die for Roberts' opinions is certainly worth a fight.
The Picture of John Roberts Is Tasteless and meant to leave a bad taste in the mouth. Whether this is but a taste of things to come is up to you.
HANGING JUDGE JOHN ROBERTS JUST RODE INTO TOWN Most likely there will be shootout over whether he succeeds to the bench Which Democrats will show up for real and which will show up only in name? Which Democrats will ride real horses in the charge? Which ones will allow themselves to be herded in the Oh, Okay Corral?
ARE WE A COUNTRY STEPPING INTO THE FUTURE or a nation falling back into the past? George Bush has nominated John Roberts to succeed William Rehnquist as Chief Justice of the United States of America. Sandra Day O'Connor will stay on until her replacement is found. AP STORYWHITE HOUSE ANNOUNCEMENT
MORE ON ROBERTS
SAYING IT IS SO does not make something so. MEDIA GIRL isn't buying Bush's pitch that John Roberts has won the nation's confidence:
Really? I thought his confirmation hearings haven't even started yet.
How did he earn the nation's confidence, when nobody had even heard of
him six weeks ago?
We're going to see more of this contempt for the truth, and we're going to see more of this lying in the face of reality. [more]
THE HERETIK ASKS what the rush is with Roberts when Rehnquist's body still hasn't been buried. This announcement comes on Labor Day. Anything to disract people from the twin realities of disaster in Iraq and in wake of Katrina are the political order of the day.
Judge Dredd may have been a lame 1990's sci-fi/action film starring a
sagging Sly Stallone. But Judge Dredd Roberts is real life horror film.
He ain't no Dread Pirate Roberts.
His soft, cushy boyish exterior will soon reveal a hardened heart, a
programmed brain and a ruthless vacuous soul. A Chief Justice Roberts
is not only Chief Justice of the Court, but he is Chief Justice of the United States.
THE HERETIK IS REMINDED that a Boy President with little previous, successful job experience as an executive now nominates a boy lawyer turned judge with little experience on the bench for the most important legal job in the country. And Bush wants it done NOW!
IMPATIENCE GOT US THE PATRIOT ACT without debate, which intrusions and expansions of executive power John Roberts would only further support.
IMPATIENCE GOT US THE WAR IN IRAQ with its promise of a rose petalled beginning, with no end now in sight. The Heretik again asks what is the rush with Roberts?
WOULD WE JUST BE RUSHING towards THE PAST? Roberts' views on the Commerce Clause threaten a rollback of much New Deal legislation. Security trumps liberty when he deals the cards. Would this SECURITY be on the table?
In the midst of a national disaster of biblical proportions, it is
difficult for the American people to participate fully in the selection
of the next Chief Justice, one of the most important positions in our
government and the chief protector of our constitution. Right now, as
they should be, the hearts and minds of the American people are focused
on helping the victims of the hurricane. Our response and focus to
Hurricane Katrina is a defining moment in our nation's history and a
test of our decency and humanity as a people. The White House,
Congress, and the American people must all focus together to address
the unprecedented human suffering and long term impact on our nation.
The President should take this time to unite and heal the country -- by
remaining focused on helping the hurricane victims recover, honoring
Chief Justice Rehnquist's memory by allowing the nation to mourn, and
taking time to ensure our next steps on the Supreme Court point the
country in the direction of progress.[more at TALK LEFT]
THE HERETIK RECOGNIZES BUSH'S STRONG LEADERSHIP Full speed . . . reverse.
SENATOR DOCTOR BILL FRIST ON MISTER ROBERTS
"Mr. Roberts is one of the most well qualified candidates to come before the Senate, said Senator William H. Frist, the Senate majority leader. "He will be an excellent chief. I still expect Judge Roberts to be confirmed before the Supreme Court starts its new term on Oct. 3." [NY TIMES]
THE HERETIK IS CERTAIN the other over fifty year old judicial candidates with more than two years experience totally agree that Roberts is the person most right for this job.
BUSH PUSHES THE ENVELOPE EVEN FURTHER
I'm beginning to think George Bush is playing a little game called "How far can I go before people give up defending me?" . . . .Seriously, if he keeps on this path, before his term is over, he'll be
ripping out the throats of puppies live on-air and I'll keep getting
emails from people asking why I hate the President.[AMANDA MARCOTTE/PANDAGON]
SOME DAYS YOU DO WANT TO THROW YOUR HANDS UP and give up. Then The Heretik does what any feeling person would do when watching Bush "perform". The Heretik throws up what he cannot stomach, then tells himself he must have the guts to endure more. Als find other metaphors to describe what Bush does. Metaphors to consider: violation, cancer, a fumble declared touchdown? Help me out here. And do more to stop this insanity.
ON JOHN ROBERTS, CHOICE, AND DEMOCRATS While the Supreme Court Nomination of John Roberts awaits Senate advice and consent, certain power dynamics and fracture lines are evident in the Democratic Party regarding women’s rights that the Republicans exploit. Is the choice for Democrats between the passion of Dean and the caution of the likes of Biden and Kerry? With Roberts, do the Democrats only have a choice of which hand do they lose with? Why do leading Democrats and so called “Big Dog” bloggers tell women their concerns are secondary to what the party wants to accomplish and how can a party succeed by ignoring the concerns of women in the Roberts nomination?
CHOICE IS NOT THE CHOICE OF MANY DEMOCRATS to battle Roberts on, if they battle at all. The Commerce Clause issues are huge stains on Roberts’ shining (we are told and sold) record. What I think some Democrats don’t acknowledge is Roberts as just the latest tool in the assault on liberty by Bush and the expansion of executive power and a divine right of kings approach to the people, the sovereign rulers of these United States of America. Roberts reasoning in the Guantanamo case he ruled on as he was being interviewed is troubling for anyone who treasures liberty in this country.
LIBERTY IS THE TRUE POINT OF BATTLE against Roberts. The magnitude of the assault is astounding, but citation of liberty is its own best defense. In the current political climate, you would think liberty is treason. If we don’t speak up now, soon it may well be. Defense of women and gender rights are not the fringe of this country, but rather its leading edge. Liberty is not a shrinking thing, but a confident expanding thing.
DEMOCRATS AND DEFENDERS OF LIBERTY ARE ATTACKED on narrow terms with broader, unspoken hidden agendas behind the arrows that strike one by one. Foes of choice paint defenders of liberty as though an America of liberty would be a land of forced abortions like China. Foes of choice nick at the edges of the how, when, what, and where of pregnancy only to show why theirs is the only way.
THE WAY ROBERTS CAN BE DEFEATED is pointing out how his views assault our liberties. Even choice and privacy do not have the resonance in the American conscience with which liberty sounds and resounds. Democrats in the Senate must remember what we fight for and what must be won.
RELATED READING The Heretik has here excerpted from “Post Modernism and Progressive Values” by Laura at MEDIA GIRL for better argument of points here:
[MEDIA GIRL] I've argued here before why it's not just about privacy, and I question that privacy is at all a convincing argument against anti-choice rhetoric. But I do believe it would trigger a very interesting national political debate, and perhaps flush some libertarian partridges out of the Bush-ist bush. But I strongly believe the heart of the issue is not privacy but liberty. It was the language used in the Planned Parenthood decision of 1992. And it is the value that can carry the argument against the breeder slavery status to which the "pro-lifers" would relegate women of childbearing years. . . . Kos' analysis does not ring true to me. It seems clear that the right is winning because they are taking clear positions on issues, while the Democrats have been trying to tap dance around everything. Kos seems to think that the Democrats just need to tap dance faster, and in step. That just strikes me as a ridiculous proposition. If the Democrats won't stand up for liberal/progressive values, then what do they represent? What do the Democrats stand for? We don't know. I haven't known for years. . . . Setting aside the indictment of identity politics -- that's worthy of another long blog post, if not an entire blog -- what the heck is this about "women's rights" as being identity politics? We're talking about equal rights here, and moves against women that have implications for everyone. . . . When we say, "It's not the government's place to decide what happens in a woman's womb," we're not just talking about privacy -- we're talking about liberty, about self-determination, about recognizing protections under the law for women equal to those that men already enjoy. And no tap dance, privacy talk, pie fight or post-modernist theories are going to avoid that fundamental question.
ALSO RELATED: [MEDIA GIRL] Kingmakers and the Real Net Roots [PENNYWIT] Kos Rex [MEDIA GIRL] Standing Precedent and What's at Stake [SHAKESPEARE’S SISTER] Truth in Every Joke [KOS] This site became popular because of my style, because of my voice,
because of my refusal to compromise what I believe in order to appease
LOOK FOR THE ROBERTS ROUNDUP from around the web with posts about John Roberts later today. NOTE: if you were looking for the actual Roberts Roundup that might take place with the unlimited executive power John Roberts supports, you will have to wait for his elevation to the Supreme Court and our descent into the inferno of further imperious rule.
THE HERETIK thinks John Roberts is unsafe for women, men, children and other miscellaneous Americans who are not white, male, and rich.
MORE TO FOLLOW Leave a Roberts link in comments. What do you think?
THE NEW MEME ON SUPREME COURT NOMINEE JOHN ROBERTS being unsympathetic to women’s concerns is that lawyers regularly joke about lawyers and housewives are just an afterthought, like janitors, or other people making less money than um lawyers. Maybe the problem is privileged lawyers look at everyone else as an afterthought. I come from a family of lawyers where the non lawyers regularly think about the lawyers as being the real comedians in our bunch of bananas.
HERE IS WHERE THE LAUGHS really start. Stop me before I fall on the floor. Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. is quoted from a legal brief in the WASHINGTON POST as questioning "whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good." A COMMENTER at BODY AND SOUL says it's a joke. Get it? Another commenter says if Jeanne at Body and Soul doesn’t get the joke, she must have a tin ear. That “joke” comes at the expense of lawyers who have big expense accounts. Big laughs.
TELL ME THAT ONE again. I didn’t get it the first time. Wow. Now I think I am going to pee in my pants. Stop me from laughing. A Roberts memo with a “joke” about housewives and lawyers is deprecating to the lawyers. That is the humored opinion of lawyers, a notoriously hilarious group of wits who regularly inject wisecracking asides in their briefs to impress even more comical judges, who get lost in hysterics before tittering and giggling on the way to kneeslapping judicial decisions. Who knew the sober world of justice had such laughs? Can't wait to read the briefs in the next capital punishment case before the Supreme Court. Looking forward to Lawyer Laughs at Comedy Central. Hijinks at the High Court. Hoo ha.
"CAN'T YOU TAKE A JOKE?" is invariably the response of the bully when the victim complains. But then of course the bully is guilty of nothing because the world is a darwinian jungle. Dog eat dog. Legal bore bores legal bores JOHN ROBERTS PROBABLY ALREADY KNOWS THIS JOKE and has told it in a self deprecating way. Why did god invent lawyers? Why? Because there are some things even prostitutes won’t do for money. Good looking crowd here tonight. . . .
RECOMMENDED READING [PSEUDO-ADRIENNE] AT ALAS A BLOG: . . . if anyone is going to speak up for the rights of women and call into
question Roberts anti-women-rights past during this hearing it would be
N.O.W. Since it sounds as if the Dems and everyone else will just gloss
over Roberts' disturbing legal records and memos disdaining women's
rights, such as reproductive rights, Title IX, and sex discrimination,
like it was nothing. After all, we all did crazy things during the
Reagan Administration remember, and he was young fella, so give the guy a break, right? Well the Judiciary Committee probably will so there you go. Damn…
“DEMOCRATS” GIVE UP Usually
you play the game before you are declared the loser. Joe Lieberman,
why wait to play the Roberts confirmation game when you can announce
you are a loser and have some “dignity” and be taken “seriously?” Who
accords any dignity to someone who gives it away? Who takes anyone
seriously who takes himself out of the game? Who takes a reporter
seriously who takes the “losers line?” DANA MILBANK SHOULD BE MORE HONEST
and write under a Republican byline. We have all heard already what a
smart, impregnable choice the probably anti-choice John Roberts is.
Now Roberts’ slam dunk victory is predicted and the Democrats are cast
as fawns more than foes in the political jungle. You would almost
think Bush was at the zenith of his presidency. But he is not.
one's planning all-out warfare," said a Senate Democratic aide closely
involved in caucus strategy on Roberts. For now, the aide said,
Democratic strategy is to make it clear Roberts is subject to fair
scrutiny while avoiding a pointless conflagration that could backfire
on the party. "We're going to come out of this looking dignified and
will show we took the constitutional process seriously," the aide said. "This
was a smart political choice from the White House," said one prominent
Democratic lawmaker, who like several others interviewed for this
article requested anonymity because they were departing from the
Democrats' public position. "I don't think people see a close vote
A POINTLESS CONFLAGRATION? “Democrats” might want to think how that sounds to the fifty one percent of the population that own a uterus.
A FIGHT CAN ONLY BE WON
by those who fight it. Way to early too throw in the towel. But not too
early to throw “Democrats” like Lieberman across the aisle where they
UPDATE [NEWSDAY] ROBERTS CALLS EQUAL PAY “RADICAL” As a Reagan White House attorney in 1984, John G. Roberts criticized three Republican congresswomen for supporting the "radical" idea of "comparable worth" to create pay equality between men and women.
THE HERETIK WONDERS what the "Democrats" who won't fight Roberts will find radical on the right. Their is no "dignity" in cowardice. It is well and good that "Democrats" take the constitution process seriously. They might seriously want to process how women will look at their votes when they see how "Democrats" vote on Roberts.
[SUSIE MADRAK] Winning isn’t the only reason to stand up against Roberts, you frickin’ morons. People won’t vote for Democrats when they don’t see the leadership fighting for them. This “calculated risk” crap has got to stop.
BUSH GAMBIT ON UNKNOWN STEALTH NOMINEE ROBERTS NOW STEALTH BOMB ABOUT TO EXPLODE.
And the self congratulation the Bush Administration lathered itself
with over the “well qualified” John Roberts will now be viewed with
more than qualified reservations. The John Roberts becoming known is
not the John Roberts sold. Big surprise there. Two years on the
Federal bench may not mean as much as Roberts coming off the bench in
the Reagan era to make some key plays throwing out opinions. Expect
Republicans to defend Roberts as merely doing his job for the Reagan
administration. Expect the White House to claim all needs for keeping
more information about Roberts to come out. Expect Democrats to act
possibly like Democrats. Expect Lieberman to move to whatever position
he can take credit for. Another shock and awe campaign is about to go
shocking and awful. John Roberts in the House of Wax begins to melt.
RECOMMENDED READING [NY TIMES]
On almost every issue he dealt with where there were basically two
sides, one more conservative than the other, the documents from the
National Archives and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library show that
Judge Roberts, now of the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit, advocated the more conservative course.
Sometimes, he took positions even more conservative than those of his
prominent superiors. [ROBERTS MEMO PDF]
"The question is: Who is John Roberts? What does he really believe?"
said Theodore M. Shaw, director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, during an appearance at the National Urban League
convention here yesterday. "What we're finding out is troubling. I've
moved from a position of neutrality to being deeply disturbed." Wade
Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil
Rights, speaking at the same forum, echoed that sentiment. He said he
found the documents "to be extremely troubling. They seem to reflect
the work of a deeply committed ideologue."