John G. Roberts, that is.

Okay, obviously this is a serious issue. Nevertheless, all I can think of is "John G. Raped and Murdered My Wife." I didn't even really like that movie.

AP's story:
http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3613047&nav=0RcecKU5

Democrats have long said this is where we make our stand. That leaves only one question: Are we willing to filibuster this nominee until Bush leaves office, if need be?

Bush won't back down -- it would end his Presidency. The only question is when -- or "if" -- we do.

Do we have the stomach for a fight?

This pick is, of course someone Bush will be happy with, but I think that the timing is everything here.  If he had chosen a non-controversial person, the press would be able to stay focused on Rove.  Now all we are going to hear about are the massive campaigns from both sides attacking or defending Roberts.

I don't know what to think.  One link camilow posted said Roberts potentially was a "Souter" in waiting.  The other painted him as a solid conservative who wants to overturn Roe, with an administration official predicting a huge fight would ensue.

Writings are irrelevant. No nominee is ever rejected becaues of what he's written in the past, esp not when the President's party controls the Senate and the nom is credible. Nominees are rejected -- and more importantly, President's lose credibility -- when a confirmation debate shows the WH to be governing in other than the public interest.

What the Democrats need to do is show how once again Bush is using his position to help his friends in big business and to reward the agenda-driven hard-liners.

Or, to show how Roberts symbolizes a culture of corruption and personal hypocrisy.

If we don't the goods or the stomach to attack Roberts as some combination of a) corporate stooge b) arrogant right-wing ideologue c) personally corrupt or d) morally craven

then we should celebrate him as a moderate consensus choice, praise the President for consultation, and say this shows how the President doesn't listen to the right wing anymore.

One of those two should be our approach but I don't believe the Democratic Sen caucus has the message discipline to do either and I think we'll end waging an ineffectual opposition.

Message discipline is fine when the Dems are fighting for something that doesn't really matter - like Bolton's appointment or Rove's White House tenure. This guy will be on the SC for 30 years.  The Dems ought to have more than message discipline motivating them.  Does the party stand for anything deeper than positioning Hillary, Biden or other self-important inside the beltway types for their next career move?  We shall see.  I fear.

Rove is going to skate away from these charges. Whoever is picked for the Supreme Court is going to be there for decades. No comparison.

If the TNR link is anything to go by, sounds like he isn't as bad (assuming no "nannies" in the closet) as we could have expected. Let's confirm this guy, show that consultation pays and show that the President doesn't listen to Dobson et al (and thereby further marginalizing them as ineffectual in producing real change).

Instead let's move BACK to Rove. Americans are with Dems on that subject and it truly hurts the President.

Ultimately we need to win elections and the Rove story helps us and Roberts doesn't.

<p><em>Those of us who are still happy to known as liberals expect to see plenty more above from the Democrats Love Conservatives party.</em></p><p>There are plenty of liberal judicial scholars who don't think <u>Roe v. Wade</u> was correctly decided.&nbsp; Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg thought abortion should've been an equal protection issue rather than a &quot;right to privacy&quot; theory that hangs on a very tenuous reading of the due process clause.&nbsp; I feel very strongly that the &quot;reproductive freedom&quot; is good policy.&nbsp; But that doesn't necessarily make it a constitutional right. <br /> </p><p>There's a widespread misunderstanding that supporting a right to abort means supporting <u>Roe.</u>&nbsp; Overtuning <u>Roe</u>&nbsp; will not automatically make abortion illegal; it will simply make it an issue for legislatures to deal with.&nbsp; <br />  </p><p>And it might end up better in the long run.&nbsp; Right now, the reproductive rights crowd focus all their energy on the courts, where it's hard to block nominees, as the recent fillibuster fight demonstrates.&nbsp; NARAL, NOW, etc. haven't bother to make it a political issue for some time, which has forfeited the political ground to the pro-lifers.&nbsp; Why is the debate on abortion so often centered on partial-birth and other politically damaging issues rather than back alley doctors and coat hangers nowadays?&nbsp; Reproductive rights have majority support in the United States, and if it becomes a legislative issue, where the left can be energize and <a href="http://pigsandbattleships.blogspot.com/2005/07/politics-of-abortion.html" target="_blank">make a strong political case</a>, those rights may end up being more secure than hanging all your hopes on the whims of one old person in a robe.<br />  </p><p>&nbsp;</p><em />

See, this is what annoys me with a lot of my fellows.  How about for once, just for once, we stop relying on the court to solve all of our problems and actually force ourselves to make the case to the citizenry.  We sort of need them if any rights determination is ultimately be considered legitimate anyway, and it would do our withered political apparatus good to fight somewhere other than in the bright hallways of the justice system for a change.  The short term effects of Roe going down would be bad, agreed, but if we can actually make the public get involved in defending rights, I think ultimately it would be all to the better. 

Besides, have you ever watched a person attempt to get an abortion at the sole clinic in the state of Mississippi, in Jackson?  It's upsetting, to say the least.  There's not really a right in the state, despite constitutional rulings.  Maybe, if people there who believed in the right to choose had to fight for it, they'd actually show up at the polls and make certain the right was in actually accessible.

Can anyone seriously think that the Supreme Court could or would declare Social Security and similar progarms unconstitutional? The results would nothing less than the collapse of the economy followed by a revolution so violent it would make the Civil War look like a playground tussle. Even wingnuts have better sense than to court calamity on that scale. Not to mention I doubt there's a single vote on the Court right now (with the possible exception of Thomas, and even he usually believes in deferring to legislatures) for such a move so Bush would have to appoint an number of such fanatics for such a thing to even approach the realm of the possible.

Ummm...a vote to uphold Roe nominated by Bush would cause not just a fight, but an absolute mutiny on the right.

Confused here.  You indicate that its still 5-4 on Roe, but then turn around and say the other nominees would result in the Constitution in Exile being in charge of the Supreme Court.  These are mutually inconsistent positions.

Incorrect, the constitution-in-exile specifically applies to a reinterpretation of the Commerce Clause, Roe was premised on the Penumbra argument in Griswold.

That is what is so amazing about this appointment. Much will be made of his comment that Roe v. Wade should be outlawed, but like we've seen here on this board tonight, the Right will see through that one footnote.

With this nomination, Bush has just stuck up his middle finger at Dobson et al. Now let's watch the fallout from the Right.

<p>There are plenty of liberal judicial scholars who don't think <u>Roe v. Wade</u> was correctly decided.&nbsp; Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg thought abortion should've been an equal protection issue rather than a &quot;right to privacy&quot; theory that hangs on a very tenuous reading of the due process clause.&nbsp; I feel very strongly that the &quot;reproductive freedom&quot; is good policy.&nbsp; But that doesn't necessarily make it a constitutional right. <br /> </p> <p>There's a widespread misunderstanding that supporting a right to abort means supporting <u>Roe.</u>&nbsp; Overtuning <u>Roe</u>&nbsp; will not automatically make abortion illegal; it will simply make it an issue for legislatures to deal with.&nbsp; <br />  </p> And it might end up better in the long run.&nbsp; Right now, the reproductive rights crowd focus all their energy on the courts, where it's hard to block nominees, as the recent fillibuster fight demonstrates.&nbsp; NARAL, NOW, etc. haven't bother to make it a political issue for some time, which has forfeited the political ground to the pro-lifers.&nbsp; Why is the debate on abortion so often centered on partial-birth and other politically damaging issues rather than back alley doctors and coat hangers nowadays?&nbsp; Reproductive rights have majority support in the United States, and if it becomes a legislative issue, where the left can be energize and <a target="_blank" href="http://pigsandbattleships.blogspot.com/2005/07/politics-of-abortion.html">make a strong political case</a>, those rights may end up being more secure than hanging all your hopes on the whims of one old person in a robe.

"Jeffrey Rosen's one of better observers of the Court"

Jeffrey Rosen's one of worst observers of the Court.  He once wrote a rather absurd piece in which he claimed O'Connor is a moderate because she struck down a federal law which banned guns around schools (based on the tenth amendment) while she struck down also a law which banned local anti-gay-discrimination laws.  

His view of "moderate" is utterly absurd.  This is the kind of moderation which fits well in law school but not in real life.  If anything, much more people who live outside the beltway would judge the exact opposite rulings would be correct.  In general, Rosen's view of "moderate" simply flies in the face of what ordinary moderate people actually believe but fits in well with what the upper class white elite considers to be moderate.

"You indicate that its still 5-4 on Roe"

It's currently 6-3 on Roe.