Redstate

Roberts as an extremist.

Sure there are going to be dem attacks-and certainly there will be special interest group attacks, but I think it is difficult in the end to argue that he is extreme-considering he is far more like Renquist in thinking than say a Thomas.

In the end he gets confirmed, but there will be some blood in the ring with this fight.

This is going to get Nasty.

on some of the lefty websites and the response has been fairly constrained thus far.  There's a lot of concern and disappointment, but not a lot of vitriol.  It may come, but I think this will be a lot more orderly than Bork or Thomas and not the all out war some (on both sides) seem to want.

I was going to comment earlier on how conservatives will wake up tomorrow thoroughly tired after enduring infinite orgasms from this news. But i didnt as i thought it might be too risque... Probably still is... but i had to say it anyways. Sorry guys... if its too much, wont happen again. ( But its true, and you KNOW it. )

Your way of putting is wayyyy better. Wanting to bear Bush's children... ha ha ha.

Good work Erick. Yours were the best reports on the going on's in Supreme Court. Please keep it up.

Another says that the Dems will throw everything they can at Roberts in the committee, with Schumer taking the lead...

"With Schumer taking the lead"?!

Do they want to lose middle America?! Do they want the Dems to look like lunatics?!

Oy vey - if this is the tact the Dems take, this will be over even sooner than I thought!!

The successful Democratic effort to stand firm against social security privatization, against the nuclear option, and against the Bolton appointment have shown the merits of taking a hard line and sticking to it. The question now is: is there enough material to paint Roberts as a far-right extremist?

It could start with the anti-free speech brief he wrote in Rust v. Sullivan. "He was a

co-author of the government's brief in Rust v. Sullivan, the case in which the Supreme

Court upheld newly revised Title X regulations that prohibited U.S. family planning

programs receiving federal aid from giving any abortion-related counseling or other

services. The provision barred such clinics not only from providing abortions, but also

from "counseling clients about abortion" or even "referring them to facilities that provide

abortions."" Americans don't like the idea of the government telling them what they can and can't say.

Roberts will not answer their questions fully.

The attack on Clement as an extremists may explain why Bush floated her name in a bait and switch.

Now he can point to pretty Clements with her conservative but more O'Conneresque stances and make the "they will call anyone I appoint an extremist."

But even then it is really hard to paint this man an extremist-they will certainly attack him-especially the interest groups, and in the end other than idiotic Schumer and Durbin I figure the dems will leave it to the interest groups handle the real attack machine against him.

One thing-Roberts doesn't look the type to fold, and I think he will come out in the end the winner while Chuckie gets to cast a no vote and pout in the corner like a spoiled child.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg didnt answer a wide range of questions. She was still confirmed with a much higher vote than she deserved.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162812,00.html

is they are lefty hacks.

Though it's worth noting that none of those are done deals. Bolton may still make it to the UN (I certainly hope he does), and I seriously hope Social Security does, at some point, happen. Of course, I think Bush is spot-on with his ownership society, and I'd like to see it happen. But taking a hardline is all the Democrats have, other than rolling over, which can't be appealing to them.

I don't think it will require any actual material, that's just the template they will work from. I'm not sure everybody is going to be on board with the idea that attaching requirements about abortion counseling to federal aid is an actual limit on free speech, as I think it's difficult to argue that not having taxpayers fund something is an abridgement of free speech.

By the way, while you have the American people on the line, can you ask them if the government should be able to tell, say, charities that they can't talk about religion? Much appreciated.

DailyKos is already alleging that Robert's son is gay; any doubt this will be butt-ugly?

not a good sign...but rather representative of the tactics being used in DC right now.

his ability to be a justice?

I really do not understand this obsession with the dems to out any and all things gay that are even remotely related to republicans or the republican party.

Opposition to Roberts for DC Circuit

"Already, there is talk about a filibuster..."

Already? It was incredible enough that Wikipedia got their encyclopedia article updated so fast... And now, almost as soon as the decision is offically announced, people in Washington are talking about a filibuster. Well, I just saw on the news, video of the U.S. Supreme Court building, and there are already protesters out there - perhaps on both sides. They just said that e-mails were abuzz today in Washington, as soon as it became known who the nominee would be (I think that's what they meant, on MSNBC) - the thing is, I was under the impression that Roberts' name was only known about an hour or so before their official speech... Did people in Washington know it before then?

It will be interesting to see if there are any twists or turns on this, as there [quite-unfortunately] were the last times a Republican president appointed justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. The thing is, I don't recall having even heard of Judge Roberts' prior to a few minutes before the official speech, when I checked pertinent online sites. I think that many others also know hardly anything about him, and we have to be careful about how we react to his nomination. We can't afford to "get burned" again, as we did last time.

that doesn't exist. Sure, Ginsbuirg did refuse to answer a bunch of questions and got confirmed anyway. But do you think the Senate Dems will remember that? Or the MSM? No way.

with everything but the name of the nominee....probably been done for two weeks.

... the Democratic leadership itself.

Humble Howard Dean doesn't see himself as a borderline psychotic-a howling madman running wild through the streets at midnight with a butcher's meataxe in hand, but the rest of America does.

Bush knows that. He's counting on the Howler to play to his base in the basest of fashions, and for the Kos Kids to respond in kind.

Charles Schumer and Pat Leahy don't see themselves as smug and condescending. In fact, they are rather intelligent individuals. They would have been smart to be cautiously welcoming. Instead, they appeared arrogant and shrill. Bush is counting on Chuck Schumer and Pat Leahy not to conduct themselves with grace and style in the upcoming hearings, but to be themselves. Chuck and Pat think that Bush is a stupid Cowboy from Texas who can be had. They are wrong. Bush knows them like the back of his hand.

He was counting on their reaction tonight.

These hearings, followed as they will be by the Rhenquist replacement hearings, will jazz up our base like nothing since the 72 Hour Plan. Just in time for the '06 Cycle.

that doesn't exist. Sure, Ginsbuirg did refuse to answer a bunch of questions and got confirmed anyway. But do you think the Senate Dems will remember that? Or the MSM? No way.

They won't get to 40 votes with this tact. I'm not even sure they'll get to 30.

There's just not enough to get Roberts on (much of the controversial stuff he can just brush off by saying that he "was just doing job as an 'advocate', and that those briefs don't necessarily reflect" his personal views.

So Red State Dems will wave it off.

I just don't think the Dems have the horses on this one....

They think we care. It's a Known Fact™ over on Kos that we find out that Roberts has a gay child, we'll suddenly oppose him.

Looks like she was a decoy....

They assume a bigotry that doesn't exist.

I am just tired of the whole gay witch hunt among the GOP the left seems to think is legitimate-I swear they are overly obsessed with who is or isn't gay.

The Dems are the obstructionists, the party that stands for the exact opposite of whatever Bush stands for! There are certain Dems who were going to come out in opposition to ANY nominee Bush put forth.  

They were quick to paint Clements as an extremist today and they're equally quick to paint Roberts as an extremist.  It's the rhetoric that energizes their left-wing base.  If they're smart, they will let Roberts sail through virtually unopposed and won't make the battle too bloody.  2006 is just around the corner and if they keep up their current "strategy" the House and Senate will be safe GOP strongholds....

Put down your celebratory drink first, and read what Mark Levin said over at Bench Memos on NRO.....

"I understand Dick Durbin's original draft statement accused Roberts of being Pol Pot's lawyer."

So what if Roberts son is gay? So what if a guy who works for Santorum is gay? I'm really mystified as to why the left delights in gay-bashing when it involves a conservative or a Republican.

After all, Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian and also a homosexual while being simultaneously the daughter of Vice-President Cheney . . .

It'll make a nice sturdy virtual club for use against thick virtual lefty skulls in the next week, I would think.

The Dem's objected to Souter as being too right-wing at the time of his nomination.

As it turns out, he "grew" on the bench. Sigh.

The Democrats will do what they can to block Roberts but they just don't have many cards in their hand.  By all accounts Roberts is well-qualified and if they threaten to filibuster over bogus "extraordinary circumstances" then expect McCain and the other Republican members of the Gang of 14 to threaten to support the nuclear option.  

There are some very nasty people in the left-wing activist groups who will try to destroy Roberts and keep a fire lit under Democratic Senators to block him but ultimately there's not much that they can do to stop him from being confirmed.

http://dailykos.com/comments/2005/7/19/21825/1962/63#63

They will fight Roberts during the Judiciary committee hearing, and the Leftist groups will howl and run adds painting him as someone who wants to revert all women and minority rights in the country.

BUT in the end I think the Senate Democrats will realize that they don't have the votes to prevent him from being seated on the court, and instead of sending him to the court on a 65-35 vote they will instead vote to confirm him 95-3 or something like that.

What this will do is allow them to portrey themselves as having allowed Bush to place a conservative on the court.  So the next time when Bush appoint someone more conservative than Roberts they will be able to say that they were more than willing to vote for the "very conservative" John Roberts, but they will use this against the next nominee.

For example, next time Bush nominates someone like Edith Jones.  The Dems will be able to say, they were more than willing to allow a mainstream conservative like John Roberts, but Jones is so radical, so far to the right of Roberts that they must fillibuster

...January 2001.

... whether they are more conservative or not. He could name a liberal Republican type and they will still call that person an extremist compared to John Roberts, because Roberts will be a done deal so attacking him more won't do them good. But the next one . . .

I'm still crossing my fingers for Janice Rogers Brown.

Schumer is throwing red meat to his blue state, the rest of us are pretty happy with the Roberts pick.  I would say half of Dems are relieved and 100% of independent moderates who understand the politics of a nomination are pretty happy.  All conservatives and GOPers should be happy too.  Maybe he's becoming a uniter in his old age.

Read Levin's book on SCOTUS ASAP. Sheer brilliance.

about religion. What they can't do is proselytize. You can look up the websites of any number of Christian NGOs that get money from the government - WorldVision, IJM, you name it. They say "We are a Christian organization." If you talk to their fieldworkers, they'll tell you all about their religious beliefs. They just can't go out and recruit with the money that they get from the US gov't. Incidentally, this doesn't even mean that the denomination can't proselytize. It's just that the program that receives federal money can't proselytize.

While, on the other hand, a doctor working for a federally funded anti-AIDS program in the third world who treats a pregnant woman with AIDS who might die if she tries to carry the baby to term is forbidden to tell her, even if she asks, that an abortion could save her life. He's also forbidden to tell a heroin addict who's about to shoot up with a dirty needle that there is a free clean-needle program down the block.

have the link to that post?

That would be saying to people, "Your life would be much better if you followed the teachings of Jesus Christ," right? As opposed to "Your life would be much better if you availed yourself of the abortion clinic down the street," which should be A-OK? I was hoping to subtly point out that there's a bit of a fallacy involved in declaring "I can't get government money if I say 'X'" to be equivalent to "I can't say 'X'," but evidently the subtle approach is lost here.

Besides

IF

this is true wouldn't that give him a broader look at the human condition, which would make him more compassionate and understanding of the gay lifesytle?  

There arugements make no friggen sense!

Americans don't like the idea of the government telling them what they can and can't say.

Hmm... how in the world does this:

Title X regulations that prohibited U.S. family planning programs receiving federal aid from giving any abortion-related counseling or other services.

Qualify?

You can counsel people about abortion all you want to, you just can't use my tax money to do it with. If you're not capable of understanding this distinction, I'd suggest you read the "Republican Zone" post again, and consider reading for a while before posting. It's good, sound advice.

He's also forbidden to tell a heroin addict who's about to shoot up with a dirty needle that there is a free clean-needle program down the block.



Instead of telling him NOT to shoot up?

Here ya go... the government will provide u money taken from hardworking individuals for indulging in your reckless and irresponsible behavior. You want to shoot up? Sure... Take this syringe... its cleaner... Also, why dont you try to buy from that pimp over there the next time? He has better quality.

/sarc //bewilderment

Why do people think the Democratic attack on Roberts will be based on his judicial philosophy?

I find it far more likely that it will be over some personal flaw, business connection, or some such thing.

Listening to C-SPAN today, I caught some reporter asking some senator (Spector?) about Roberts being registered as a lobbyist.  What that has to do with fitness for SCOTUS is something I can't discern, but with almost two months before the confirmation hearings, I would be more concerned about some detail about his personal life, his family, his business, his former law firm partners, or some such inane and irrelevant thing surfacing.

Heck, I personally wouldn't put it beyond some of the Democrats to gin up some sexual harassment stories or some such thing.  Some pretty young female lawyer levelling an accusation of fondling by Roberts some late night at the office is likely to provide filibuster ammo as an "extraordinary circumstance", no?

Imagine trying to prove that you did not do something?

-TS

for an industry group should sit on the SCOTUS?

I have no idea what Roberts' history is, but such things-- personal, professional, etc.-- are definitely part of the advice and consent process that the Senate is OBLIGATED to pursue.

Specter, et al, would be derelict in their duty if they did not pursue those questions.

What do you think lawyers are, exactly? Charity hedge knights, wealthy noblesse oblige ronin who wander from cause to cause at will, gently suggesting that their client should be given an extra little bit at the table?

Not that I'm opposed to having non-lawyers as judges; I'm not. I'm saying you're either dishonest or don't know that of which you speak.

that's why this argument is a straw man.  I think some Roberts' supporters are becoming delirious with paranoia.

Where's the reference on the "gay son" allegation?

I don't see why not.  Lobbyists try to influence policymaking -- judges interpret the language of the law and apply them.

If he were an activist type judge, then perhaps I would feel differently, but as long as he's constrained by actual rules of interpretation, I couldn't care less whether he was a lobbyist, a piano player, or a blogger before he got appointed.

-TS

about those relationships?  

and I bet I know more than you realize.  I was merely asking your considered opinion about lobbyists sitting on the SCOTUS-- and you gave it.

Your defensiveness is an odd reaction.

what in your view would be an actually illegitimate question for a senator to ask judge Roberts?

Seems there's no limit in your worldview.

-TS

Is purely your reading of the words on the page.

Lawyers are advocates. Full stop. That a lawyer is an advocate for A is no different than being an advocate for B. Your suggestion would either mean that lawyers with corporate clients, or simply lawyers, should not be on the SCOTUS.

Thus, dishonest or not understanding. Pick.

that lawyers should not be on SCOTUS.  The word originally presented (not by me) was "lobbyist".  

I was merely clarifying your position when you said that it's OK for lobbyists to sit on the SCOTUS.  I'm still noodling that one because I'm not sure that "lobbyist = lawyer".

Whoa.

Let's try this again. Roberts is a lawyer. He was a lobbyist. Most lobbyists are lawyers; this lobbyist was.

However, I was making a larger point about your statement. Draw your own conclusions; you seem to be steaming along with that as we speak.

of an illegitimate question that I would.

Various precedents have been set over the last decade of government officials being asked very personal questions that are not necessarily pertinet to their job duties.

Certainly Judge Roberts' dealings as a (possible) lobbyist would be fair game.

That lobbyists are allowed to sit on the SCOTUS?  OK, I see your point.

But I was asking if the Senators are allowed to ask him about those relationships.  I would say yes.  

The Sophist was intimating that the "fight" over Roberts' nomination will be personal.  I will say that I doubt it.  He'll be asked the usual questions which he may or may not answer...

... and he'll be confirmed 90-10.

from "You think paid lobbyists should sit on the SCOTUS?" which came across like, "You think communist child pornographers should sit on the SCOTUS?" but fine, your current position appears to be that senators can ask Roberts about his lobbying days.

I'm not too worried about that.

I do think that the fight, if there is one, will be personal.  Roberts seems well-nigh unassailable on jurisprudence or qualifications.

-TS

The title of this diary is "This Means War" and your comment decried the fact that Roberts may be asked gasp questions about his professional relationships during the confirmation process. Those items seem a little paranoid and irrational to me.

The Republicans control the Senate and the WH.

My opinion is that Roberts will be confirmed overwhelmingly, BUT if he isn't, then it is Republicans who will nix the nomination-- not the Democrats.  Remember Bolton?

So you need to be compassionate to read the constitution? Compassion is a good thing to have... but is definitely NOT a pre-requisite.

BTW, he adopted 2 kids whom he loves. I heard that in his speech... and havent heard evidence which suggests otherwise.

And grodge, just a stroll over to Dkos and DU would give u all the hate you want to roll in. Straw man? Here goes...

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/7/19/22458/3189/87?mode=alone;showrat
e=1#87

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/7/19/22458/3189/200?mode=alone;showra
te=1#200

Oh yes.. you wanted the gay son reference... Here Ya Go...

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/7/19/21825/1962/63#63

So... what do u think about this 'superman' created by dkos? And next time, look around to find the straw men... you can generally find them in 5 mins on the 'reality based' web sites.

Lets see...

Justice Thomas being harassed with 'unfounded' allegations about sexual harassment which have nothing to do with what he would do on the bench - Fair Game.

Ginsburg being asked questions directly related to how she would 'legislate' from the bench - N/T fair game?

I think what was done to thomas was WRONG. The onus is on the accuser to prove it was done... How do u fricking prove you did'nt do something?

What was done with Ginsburg was RIGHT. Similar treatment should be meted out to Roberts.

Schumer can ask him whatever he wants as long as Roberts doesnt have to answer. Only fair.

So... Roberts is obliged to answer the lobbyist questions only as much as Ginsburg was required to answer ACLU type questions.

We were hopeful that Clement would be the nominee. Not the justice we would have picked, but a moderate who everyone at least understood. Check out Kos yesterday - people weren't happy, but prepared to live with it.

Verdict is still out on Roberts. Careful consideration of a nominee for our nation's highest court takes time.

That just shows you how low, and rediculous the Democrats over at DailyKos are

Jack is 4. He has no sexual preference at this age.

But not surprising that those who claim to be the most tolerant consistently attempt to make up absurd rumors about sexual preference in an attempt to score points.  

I don't think there is going to be enough there for the dems to hang their hat on.  Sure there will be plenty of rhetoric about Roberts not being a consensus pick or out of the mainstream, but, ultimately, they are going to have a very hard time justifying a filibuster.  They'll drag it out, but it will not be a serious assault.  The democrats recognize that, while Roberts may not be exactly who they want, he's not the worst nominee they could have faced.

my comment questioned why people on this side of the aisle were focusing so much on Roberts' judicial record, writings, and philosophy, when it seemed far more likely (to me) that the attack -- if one were to come -- would be something about his personal life, his financial dealings, and so on.

That a reporter asked Spector (I think) about Roberts having been a lobbyist -- as if that were in any way shape or form relevant to his judicial temperament -- was indicative, I thought, of the angle of attack.

Now, if you had responded, "So you think questions about his lobbying are off-limits?" then perhaps I would buy this current characterization of your position and tone.  Sadly, that wasn't the initial response, and I think your initial reaction is what the majority of liberals (not necessarily Democrats, but liberals) would have: "How dare a evil corporate lobbyist sit on the SCOTUS!"  You can, and have, since changed that position to have it be about the "process", about senators asking questions, but I think it somewhat disingenuous to disavow the initial reaction.

Minor quibble, really.  Roberts will likely be confirmed overwhelmingly.

But recognizing that you do have some unhinged leftists who control the Democrats right now, I think a filibuster attempt can't be ruled out, and I do think that the basis for a filibuster would be something personal rather than judicial.

-TS

state dems and more moderate dems want to die on.

Party discipline aside, they aren't going to waste their bullets on Roberts.

The next appointee they may bring the guns and bullets out for, but I suspect in the end we will hear mostly the vitriole from the usual suspects, and everyone else will vote "yes."

his son also looks to be about 5 or 6 years old.

A little young to declare homosexuality I should think.

if they can't get you on the record.

That is what happened to Thomas.  One reason I think he may be reluctant to take a CJ position, if he was nominated-anyone else think Anita won't be trotted back out for Anita Hill round II?

So you are probably right, they will start digging into his past to find some personal issue, I just hope this time they don't go for sexual harrassement again-that one will be hard to pull off post Clinton.

is an "evil corporate" lobbyist, as opposed to a benign indutry advocate, then I think that more than just liberals may have a problem with his nomination.  Senatorial advice and consent will be necessary to elicit his level of "evilness."

Personally, I do not recognize that "unhinged leftists" are in control of the Democratic party anymore than I would characterize the Republican Senatorial leadership as "unhinged rightists."

I want to believe that some common ground existts in the deliberative upper chamber of congress, moreso than in society in general.  

lobbyist his reputation would already be well known in the beltway, and it is unlikely that he would have been nominated in the first place.

He has been around Washington too long for a bad reputation to be kept hidden.

Nan Arons and MoveOn.org and whoever it was that Chuck Schumer was on the phone with than the Democratic Senators themselves, but okay.  We'll agree to disagree that the unhinged left is in control of the Democratic Party, and agree to agree that we hope common ground exists in the deliberative upper chamber.

-TS

to answer any question posed-- that is our right to protection against self-incrimination under the 5th amendment.

Thomas did not have to respond any allegation, but the senate DOES have an obligation to listen to accusations by a former colleague, a civil rights attorney, who made potentially heinous allegations.  The Senate would have been derelict in their duty if they had approved Thomas' nomination without questioning his accuser.  Thomas was confirmed, so what's the beef?

Thomas was free to sue Anita Hill regarding false allegations, etc.  He chose not to.

Ginsburg had the same choice-- to answer questions posed, or not.   Roberts will face that challenge as well.

Remember, two-thirds of Americans believe that women should maintain their right to abortion and more than half think that Roe v Wade was decided appropriately; and Roberts will have to take that into account when choosing to answer questions regarding the privacy of individuals.

to target two comments out of 300 on that one diary (not to mention the other 7 or 8 diaries on the topic of Roberts) as indiciative of a "gay witch-hunt."  Please.  That particular comment was rated 1.75 by kossacks and the commenter was roundly chastised for his/her lack of insight and gravitas.

Serious commenters are not questioning Roberts' love for his kids.  I hardly see "hate" as representative of the comments and diaries.

Somebody downthread here went the other way and conjectured if Roberts' (4 year-old) son were gay, then  Roberts would have "compassion" for the homosexual lifestyle.  Yikes.  He's 4!!!!

The rhetoric over this nomination has reached a fever-pitch on both sides.

Yes, it was clearly in jest... just like Kedwards' references to Cheney's daughter were clearly compassionate.

Roberts does not have to take any polls into account while deciding cases... nor should other justices.

Supreme Court is not in the business of deciding what it feels is correct. It decides what is correct. Let the elected politicians look at what the polls say. Such considerations in my opinion should not bear on any decisions of any Supreme Court Justice.

The case for abortion can be made if you say that it is an accepted precedent. True... i would not argue in support for the constitutionality of Roe vs Wade. But it is still the law of the land now. Whether it is changed or not does not mean much to me.

However, i dont think it is appropriate for any nominee or justice to feel the need to look at popular consensus on deciding law. If issues are decided on what the public opinion is...

Say good bye to homosexual marriage and welcome the death penalty.

The 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination is not implicated in a Senate advice-and-consent hearing.  It's a highly overwrought job interview, not a criminal proceeding.  I don't even know if the candidate is placed under oath -- anyone know about that?

Plus, the Senate has no obligation to do anything except provide or refuse to provide consent.  Try and find some evidence in the Constitution that imposes an obligation to listen to accusations against a judicial nominee, well, good luck with that.

Finally, whether two-third of Americans believe X or Y should be as irrelevant to any judge or nominee to a judgeship as what he or she had for breakfast that morning.  If 9 out of 10 Americans believe that the United States should establish the Church of America with federal funds, does that mean judges should choose to ignore the First Amendment?  Half of the public could believe Roe v. Wade was correctly decided; one person could believe it, and 99% of the public could believe it.  None of that would matter.  Constitutionality, I'm afraid, is not a popularity contest.

If half of the voting public believes abortion should be a constitutional right, and that there should be a privacy right under the U.S. Constitution, by all means, they're free to pass an Amendment to specify their beliefs.  Otherwise, what the public believes or doesn't believe is, and should be, utterly irrelevant.

-TS

that Roe was not decided wrongly and should be overruled, who was "correct?

It [SCOTUS] decides what is correct.

Is the Senate allowed to question him on the "correctness" of the court?

I understand him to have said it was settled law, but for an appeals court you would expect that answer, no matter what their beliefs on the matter, since the appeals judge can't overturn Roe anyway-only the Supremes could do that.

But if you have a link to where he said it wasn't decided wrongly I would be intterested in reading it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/16/AR200507160
1049_pf.html