The problem is we do not know if Roberts is a thoughtful judge who has not prejudged every issue important to Americans or if he is a cleaned up Robert Bork.  Bork besides having an unpleasant personality holds some very dangerous views about our rights.  We need a lot more information about Roberts to know the answer.

Unless there's an Anita Hill in this guy's past, he's getting confirmed.  The "liberal media" are largely rolling for him; Newsweek ran what amounted to a hagiography of him, describing him as having "a twinkle in his eye" among other bits of ass kissery, and trying to suggest he was somehow non-partisan.  The overall tone of the story implied Roberts was a good old boy (with a twinkle in his eye!) who would be non-ideological.  The Post has run a few questioning stories, but it would take something with a lot of traction to derail him, especially with that terrible deal the moderates made.  Exactly what about Roberts could make his confirmation an "extraordinary" event, worthy of filibuster?

I think the key here is largely being missed.  The question isn't whether Roberts should be confirmed or not, because it's essentially a done deal.  The issue I'd like to see pushed is this: the country has moved too far to the right.  Roberts was rejected for a judgeship a little more than a decade ago because he was too right wing; now he's being passed off as a moderate, non-ideological conservative.  It's time for the nation to really look at where it is, because at the rate we're going, someone like Bork could be the next nominee, and Newsweek and the rest of the "liberal media" will run stories about how non-ideological he is.    

I think the Roberts "stealth" strategy will keep us from knowing whether or not we should oppose him. <p><p>Roberts will not answer questions, just as Gonzales did at his nomination. The White House will block requests for anything that reveals his true nature.<p><p>So, while of course a conservative President gets to nominate a conservative, the question is -- if the nominee says nothing and answers nothing, is that on its own enough to oppose him?

My own personal opinion is that we have nothing to lose fighting Roberts, even if he's Paul Krugman. I've come to the point where I see that what would best benefit America would be to get Newt Gingrich on Bush's ass and focus all our energies on opposing this administration in every instance, regardless of merit, just to get the message across that he's embattled and unloved. My only requirement for opposition at this point is that Bush wants it.

The cult of Bush must fall. 

The answer (to the original question) is yes/no.  IF you keep your fingers crossed that Reinquist will live till the next DEM president.  It would have been better if Reinquist had retired, and we replaced a rightwinger with a right winger.  But, it Reinquist is disgusted over the GOP salivating over his demise, then...

<i> think the Dems have the right to demand as moderate a judge as they have the political strength to negotiate.</i>

I think this is correct, with the key being of course, the term political strength.

And while I do think that the President may well have threaded the needle on Roberts, it doesn't mean that he should not face thorough questioning in confirmation.

Having said that, I think you have the question exactly correct, Josh, meaning do democrats face looking like sore losers or whiny children by putting forward a full throated disagreement with Roberts, or do they risk looking like they got run over by a train on this one?

Is there an in between position to be had here?  Can the Democrats fight on many fronts with their limited skill set when it comes to self organizing?

I think we will have to wait and see what comes out before the hearings begin in September.  While the White House is generally in a weakened position, they had a good week last week, and they are doing evertyhing they can to show they haven't lost control of things. 

I think it's a question of how weakened the White House is come September, from Plame-Rove-Novak-Libby-Hughes-Fleischer-Bolton-Hadley-Card-gate.

OT, but, I am having a hard time figuring out, is why the Coingate thing hasn't erupted into the MSM.

I think we can all agree that Bush has been re-assured that Roberts will be another scalia-thomas-rehnquist.

I think we can all agree that he was selected because his lack of a record makes him hard to defeat.

There's no doubt, Federalist Society, his choice to work in the Reagan administration and the far, far right arguments he chose to advance there that his view of the rights afforded by the constitution does not square with those of the american people. 

Bush has taken control of the news cycle again with the early roberts pick, leaking, then appointing Bolton in a recess appointment.  essentially driving plame gate and coin gate off of the headlines.

As for democratic strategy against Roberts, I think they should smear the hell out of him because he certainly deserves it and lay the ground work for the real fight when Rehnquist retires/dies. 

Roberts is bad enough so that Dems should vote no. To my knowledge the Adminisatration did not go to the Dems and ask for names the Dems would not oppose (Clinton went to Ashcroft & got Ginsberg OK'd as a compromise candidate), so ther is no need to reward the Republicans with a bipartisan approval.

On the other hand, he is not bad enough so that a filibuster can be sustained politically. So far we have nothing on Roberts that can sustain public outrage. We would lose, and we would lose badly. The filibuster would be killed for good, allowing Bush to get Roy Moore on the bench if he wanted to.

Vote no, but don't filibuster. That is how the Dems thread this needle.

Yes, he's that bad. Just look at the story in today's Wall Street Journal about the Gitmo tribunals that Roberts voted to uphold.
The key issue is not abortion or prayer in schools, but whether he will vote to prevent the Bush Administration from ignoring the Bill of Rights, and his track record shows his willingness to "suspend" the Constitution for Bush.
That said, I agree with the commentators here who point out that absent an Anita Hill scandal, Roberts is going to be confirmed. So if Democrats cannot find an Anita Hill, then they should vote against him, speak out against him, but not filibuster against him.

The question of whether the go to the mat is really a complicated calculus, requiring the weighing of several factors, some speculative:

(1) how bad is Judge Roberts;
(2) what are the odds of defeating Robert's nomination on the available record;
(3) what is the next nominee going to be like;
(4) how might going to the mat on Roberts and winning affect the nature of the next nominee?  what about losing?
(5) can the Democrats sell to the public going to the mat on two nominees.

I don't know what the answer to all these questions are.  I suspect that Roberts is more conservative than he has appeared, and is more political than we know, but that it will be hard to develop a good case for stopping him because of the available records.  If that is right -- he is worth stopping but would be hard to stop -- the question becomes what puts us in a stronger position going forward for the next nominee -- fighting?  landing a number of punches to make a point but not going to the mat?  lauding Roberts for his moderation and commitment to minimalism to set up for the future?  I think it is a hard call.

I think absent a skeleton in the closet emerging sometime soon, Roberts is going to be confirmed. I also think that Democrats are probably better off not going to the mat on this. Roberts will come off as a reasonable-sounding guy, judicious and careful and Democrats will come across as a bunch of screaming hysterics. In short, we'll lose the fight and not gain anything in the way of compensating political benefits.

Any victory for the Bushies is bad for the average non-wealthy American, but the confirmation of Judge Roberts does not have such cut and dried ramifications.  It is impossible to predict how he will judge on various issues over a 20+ year tenure (see Justice O'Connor).  This does not mean that the Dems should allow the man to pass through the Senate without a struggle, but unless he has one or two disqualifying skeletons in his closet, the Democrats would be wise to confirm.

Primarily, the Senate Democrats need to save their strength for the political destruction of Rove, and to a lesser extent Bolton (who may just as easily self-destruct after a few weeks in the presence of foreigners at the UN).  Rove is the real fight of this term, and the impending disgrace to the Rove apologists will certainly translate into Republican losses in 2006.  I can't wait to someday follow the Plamegate hearings on C-SPAN and watch this Administration tailspin into infamy.  The Dems have to pick their battles, and Rove is the battle worth fighting.

As to Judge Roberts' views on Roe V. Wade, I don't believe that there is anything to worry about.  In my opinion, the last thing that the RNC wants to do is overturn Roe and lose such a key issue with the religious base.  After all, what will they have to cry about if abortion is suddenly illegal?  That issue alone mobilizes millions of angry Christians.  They will continue to promise to uphold candidates dedicated to making abortion illegal, but the reality is that nothing will come of it because they need their minions to be angry in order to be effective.  Just a thought, I may be wrong...

QUESTION -- YES!!!) Roberts should, as with other nominees be strongly questioned to determine what his qualifications and philosophy are: A person with a life time appointment to the most important office of the land should be a known quantity.

 

VOTE AGAINST -- Yes) If, as we all expect, Roberts is a Scalia like, or there is not evidence that he is not, then as he is more conservative than "we" would prefer, and thus should be voted against.

 

FILIBUSTER -- NO!!) If, as I expect, Roberts is an intelligent, rational, non criminal, qualified person, who is not a "Foams at the Mouth" extremist, then we should let the nomination proceed. only if a nominee is not, should the filibuster be used.

 

If Roberts is not "bad enough," then who is?  What is?  What position, what viewpoint, what writing do we consider worth fighting over?

And ask this question:  Why was Roberts' name  put forward?  Because he's a thoughtful and qualified jurist who will weigh every case on its merits in an attempt to do what is best for the greatest possible number of Americans?  Or was it because he's proven himself to be a Good Party Man, loyal to the cause? 

Or put it this way:  When has Bush <i>ever </i>thrown an iota of  support behind anyone thoughtful and qualified and concerned with the well-being of ordinary Americans?

Roberts was picked because he thinks like Scalia but looks like the kind of guy Dennis Quaid plays in movies.  He's a sneak attack on the Consitution.  If that's not bad enough, then I'd very much like to know what is. 

By all accounts he will make it past the Senate. This is A battle not the war. The war has to do with the Bush administration. They continue to stonewall on releasing pertinent information. This is what we need to document and use in the war on how this administration refuses to be truthful to the American people. We can lose this battle, but we can also use this battle to gain more ammunition we will use in the war against this admininstration in future battles.

Now that the Whitehouse has chosen to thumb its nose to the Democrats with his recess appointment of Bolton in Congress, they should filibuster everything. Don't let 1 single bill pass. I don't care how important. Filibuster everything all the way through the 06 elections. If that forces the nuclear option, so be it. The payback for doing that will be the worse for them. Time to give up the now for the long view.

Not only has the "center" been shifted ever rightward, but Democrats have allowed the ground they stand on to crumble each time, 'til there's barely any outrage they consider worth fighting.

When Josh asks if Roberts is "not bad enough," or if there's a "substantive judgment" against him, or if a "pragmatic assessment...doesn't provide enough grist for a successful opposition," isn't he actually contributing to the crumbling?

Democrats don't need "substantive" reasons to oppose Roberts. They don't need "grist".

They need the guts and muscles they've allowed to atrophy to oppose a stealth candidate presented by an administration that has proven its bad intentions innumerable times--the most recent example being the Bolton fiasco.

The Senate has been offered a candidate with a virtual paper bag over his head. It's been told what questions will be considered inappropriate to ask. They've been asked to rubber stamp a man who is largely a cipher. If that's not enough to say "No", nothing is.

In fact, saying "No" to almost anything Bush proposes should be reflexive at this point. It would be good for the country and good for Dem senators' souls.

That doesn't mean that Dems must "go to the mat" or threaten a filibuster. But they should vote against Roberts as a matter of principle and to make a stand for the record.

Of course go to the mat. The guy is a corporate hack like everyone else in Washington. The Dems. need to resist EVERYTHING Bush does. Half the country at least will support them. This middle of the road crap is sinking the country. They don't remember what opposition looks like. This Republican Light stuff is ridiculous.  Bush is getting his way on everything. EVERYTHING! The only thing he didnt get was the cop clown Kerik he wanted at Homeland who blew up on his own, no help from Dems required. To paraphrase WC Fields "I could carve a better political party out of a banana..."

He is bad enough, but the question is, are the Democrats strong enough and brave enough to make attempting to block him worthwhile?  I would say the answer to that question is a resounding no.  There is nothing more dispiriting and pathetic  than seeing Biden ask a nominee "tough" questions during hearings but then roll over like an ol' hound dog when it comes to the vote.

 Also, the media coverage of Roberts has been so fawning--he's so good looking, smart, and unstuffy!-- that most people would not be sympathetic to the Dems on this one.  It's a losing battle all around.

I'm thinking Pied Piper's questions are just about right for this issue:

(1) how bad is Judge Roberts;

On the McLaughlin scale, 1 being not bad in the slightest and 10 being the living embodiment of all that is evil, I'd give Roberts a 6.

(2) what are the odds of defeating Robert's nomination on the available record;

Three chances: slim, fat, and no. If he gets less than 65 votes when it all goes down, I'll eat my motherboard.

(3) what is the next nominee going to be like;

Take Bork and Scalia and put their ideologies in a blender. (Note: Don't do that with the actual people. That's illegal. Maybe satisfying, but illegal. And messy.)

(4) how might going to the mat on Roberts and winning affect the nature of the next nominee? what about losing?

Dubya will say "Well, I tried to be nice, but those ebul Dem'crats didn't like it! So I can be ebul right back at'em!" And with this type of fight, you have to choose the battlegrounds carefully. And as to losing... There's only an Vanishingly small chance of winning, so why even bring it up.

(5) can the Democrats sell to the public going to the mat on two nominees.

In a word: no. It will be hard to sell the public on this one as it is and we will only lose ground in the polls, which means that Bush gains ground and we need him as far down in the dumpster as he can go.

Now, I brought up the strategic point of view (And no, it's not strategery when we do it.) and that's the bottom line for me right now. Everything that's out there, we Democrats need to ask ourselves how it will affect our collective bottom line for '06 and '08. If the answer is either a net positive or a push, we go for it lock, stock, and two smoking barrels. If it's a net negative, let there be no coordinated assaults and allow the members to act according to their reelection chances.

And it looks to me that the latter is exactly what's happening.

 He would fail the Voight-Kampff test.

He is a corporate android with a mind like a steel trap, totally devoid of empathy, or compassion.

He was created to serve fascist corporate interests, and he is not programmed to know about, or care about, human issues.


I could not think of a worse candidate. Clean air is not a constitutional right? If providing for the general welfare does not include assuring there is air to breath, then I am sure I do not know what welfare means, but I think it means to provide those things are are basic to human health and well being, which includes clean air and clean water.

Justabill is absolutely correct. This White House and the Rethugs will continue to ignore, trash, and step all over the doormat called Democrats no matter what they do. Time to fight fire with fire - obstruct, delay, argue, fight every bill and every nomination. Beat them senseless. It's the only language they understand.

Bush "the uniter".... what a joke.

I actually wrote about this on my blog last week sometime. In all honesty we will probably have 2 more Supreme Court nominations for Bush. Given the general public's short attention span and general intolerance for highly partisan battles I think we would be better served to hold fire a bit.

Here's a link to my actual post

Another way of looking at the Roberts nomination:   Has the Bush administration made ANY appointments or policy decisions that we could support?  Think hard, and try to name a few-- I'll bet you can't come up with more than a handful.  Given the track record of this administration on foreign policy, environment, healthcare, social security, the judiciary, or energy, is there any good reason to believe that Roberts is going to be a pleasant surprise?

This isn't about winning, or getting what we want. This is about whether there is a point where we stand up and say, "Enough is enough!"

Bush will never appointe a moderate. And we never have to confirm anyone. 

Yes, he is bad enough. The documents that have been released show that as a political deputy solicitor in the Reagan administration, he was to the right of Bradford Reynolds on civil rights issues. It's hard to imagine anyone to the right of Brad Reynolds, but Roberts has that distinction, unless he's changed his views -- and I see no evidence that he has. On Off Colfax' scale of 1-10, I'd rate him at least an 8. He will vote with Scalia and Thomas, but he will be more effective than either of them have been at building coalitions with Kennedy.

The Dems need to use the nomination to their best advantage in the 2006 elections. Privacy is an important right to most Americans, and a majority does not want to see Roe v. Wade overruled.  The Dems should expose Roberts' positions during the confirmation hearings and show (unless he lies as Thomas did) that he does not accept a constitutional right to privacy and that he thinks Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. 

When I say expose, I mean expose in a principled, dignified way. And then vote "no." Not filibuster, just vote "no." Because his positions are too far outside the mainstream.  And then say to the voters in the states where Senate seats are in play, if you vote for a  Rebublican you are voting for one or two more Supreme Court appointments who will destroy your right to privacy and choice.

I am looking at this from a Pennsylvania perspective. The socially liberal, pro-choice Republicans in the 'burbs may think that a choice between Santorum and Casey is Tweedledum and Tweedledee and stay home. But if we can make the case that the Democratic Party is the only force that can protect choice, they may go out and vote for the Democrat. I hope. 

Obviously, the effectiveness of this strategy requires some party discipline, so I don't know if the Dems can pull it off.

The NY Times article of yesterday http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/politics/politicsspecial1/31rob erts.html on the Rehnquist clerks contemporaneous with Roberts, I noticed an old friend of mine mentioned, Robert Knauss.  His comment to the NYT that they 'did not wear their politics on their sleeves,' like the liberal clerks did, is very revealing.

Knauss also kept his politics under the radar at our evangelical church, except for the time our church council was debating support of a new local ministry to unwed mothers which was patently an anti-choice cover group. I brought up the duplicity of the mission of this group and Rob declared that such conservative Christian groups have a long and distinguished history of supporting the poor and underprivileged in our society, unlike liberals.  I laughed out loud at that, somewhat damaging our relationship.  

Our church denied the funding.  But what struck me was his naive, elitist, sheltered confidence in his worldview.  Roberts shares that incubated heritage, I'm sure.

I would recommend going to the mat over any nomination Bush makes that doesn't reflect a credible attempt to seek an accomodation with the Democrats.

Democrats used all their "political capital" filibustering nominees to courts lower than the SCOTUS. The filibuster is not available any more. This is especially true of Roberts.

Right now we do not know just how bad he is for certain. In my opinion though, all we need to do is look at his wife's record. Few men are strong enough to come down exactly the opposite of their wife's opinion. She has stated that overturning Roe v Wade would not be enough for her. If, in the next 20 years, a case comes to the court where they have the opportunity to vote on that, how likely do you think that he will vote to uphold Roe?

If abortion legality is left to the states, we may quickly see a return to the importance of state legislatures. While there may be little that Democrats can do to stop Roberts, a return to local political focus now could be an exceptionally fruitful plan. Maybe going to the mat should mean preparing a stronger, smarter grassroots movement. Maybe I've listened to too much Dean.

The path of blind follow the leader isn't the answer, but neither is a plan of blind obstructionism.

I believe that W has learned two lessons from the Souter experience of his father:

First, make sure there's no record that can serve as a basis for the kind of opposition that will play well on TV. 

Second, make damn sure that even though there's no record to be used against him, he's no closet lefty who will betray the cause.

So, to answer Josh's question, he probably IS bad enough to oppose - the way this crew does business it's inconceivable that they'd nominate anyone that wasn't bad enough to oppose - but he'll likely be confirmed.

So what should the Democrats do?  I like the suggestion that someone made above: question the hell out of him and if you don't get answers (which they won't) abstain.

I think the Democratic senators have to recognize that this is not about whether Roberts gets confirmed.  He will, and any attempt to filibuster will play right into the Republican hands. 

But imagine the media play if all the Democratic senators abstain for lack of adequate information.  It would very powerfully send the message that, as one of the other posts here put it, we're not playing anymore.  (At worst, the inevitable occurs but at least it happens in a way that avoids the set up for the old obstructionist labels that the Republicans use so well.)   

If we're lucky, a massive senatorial abstention might be a dramatic enough gesture to serve as the wake up call that's so badly needed in this country.

We just don't know if Roberts is a cleaned up Bork or really an open minded jurist. The Democrats at least have to probe very hard at this.  Bork's ideas are dangerous.  Scalia's ideas are dangerous.  We need to find out about Roberts'.

We need a lot more information about Roberts to know the answer.

I think that I disagree with this.  Can we say that Roberts is a rightwing ideologue?  Well, a lot of Dems seem to agree with DanielGree, but I see a few things that suggest to me that he'll go to the court with an agenda.

The number one indicator to me is his role when he was Deputy Solicitor General under Reagan.  His role, as I understand it, was to ensure that opportunities to push the Right's agenda in cases that came to Federal courts were not lost -- also to look for opportunities to proactively push the agenda using the power of Justice Dept.  He was, essentially, wielding the power of the Federal Gov't to advance a particular rightwing agenda.  From the margin notes he made, it seems obvious that he was not shy about doing his job pretty consistently.  I don't think you hire someone for such a role unless they are true to the cause, so protestations to the effect that he was reflecting his client's wishes are bogus.  Frankly, I think you could make an argument that, in this 'political' role he had a conflict of interest that could be seen as such a blot on his record as to require the withdrawal of his nomination (in my dreams).

It seems to me that a Deputy Solicitor General endowed with a 'political' portfolio is more of a 'Soviet' or, dare I say, Nazi-like construct.  I understand the realities of political appointees and the spoils system in DC and I thought that the way you pushed your party's agenda within and through the Bureaucracy was through those appointed positions, but apparently the Republicans feel they need a kind of 'Agenda Gestapo' to keep watch over their own appointees.  If you tell me that it has always been thus, i.e., that Clinton had a DSG with a political role, I shall become more diligent in the future when/if we ever take the reigns again.  Such a thing is, IMO, un-American.  And I do not think our taxes should be paying for a political gestapo.  

Other indicators are his written opinions which, though few, have pretty much all been anti-democratic, imo.  The infamous 'little girl w/french fry' case seems to reveal a guy that really doesn't 'get' that his opinions have real impact on real people.  I don't want justices curled up in the corner weeping for the masses, but I do look for a certain 'common sense' empathy of which this opinion is completely bereft.  Many conservatives do exhibit such empathy, but it looks like Roberts takes more of a cavalier attitude toward the victims of his rulings.

Finally, I do take his wife's significant involvement in the prolife movement as a strong indicator of where he is on Roe.  I'm not suggesting attacking his wife or some such.  I'm saying that in forming one's opinion about what  Roberts will do if given the opportunity to overturn Roe, his wife's activities should be considered.  Especially in the light of his political role in the Justice Dept. and the fact that the Administration used her involvement in FFL when defending him to their rightwing leadership vis a vis Roe.

But, will there be a filibuster?  No (See Gang of Fourteen.)  Should there be a filibuster?  Even without the G14, I doubt there'd be a filibuster, given the facts as we know them today.  I think that enough senators will make the political decision not to oppose this nominee.  I will not be surprised to see the vote for him top 80.  I'll be disappointed, but not surprised.  I think we should have as large as possible 'No' vote.  But I don't think we have the stomach for it.

No documents, no vote.  It's that simple.  This has nothing to do with Roberts, per se, and everything to do with whether the White House has the right to have more information in making their nomination than the senate does in confirming the nominee.

It is a truism that this White House has been hugely secretive about pretty much everything they do.  For a long time,  they have managed to get away with it, either through court stalling (Cheney's energy task force documents) or bypassing (Bolton's recess appointment).  Our democracy does not function when it's rulers must hide everything they do because of potential legal consequences, or simply because they do not trust the American people.

The only thing these Republicans respect is strength.  Democrats who went along with Bush prior to the 2002 election were seen as being weak, and they were shown no mercy.

Senators, Democratic or Republican, must send a message to the White House that they are not to be trifled with, that an Imperious Presidency will no longer be tolerated, and this is the perfect chance to do so.  The Senate has now had practice at rejecting nominees for this reason (Bolton), only this time there is no bypass.  A recess appointment of a Supreme Court Justice would be intolerable to the American people, and we must remind them of that. 

I'm in the camp that says we don't know enough yet about Roberts' judicial philosophies. We can't say today if Dems should filibuster the nominee.

We can say today that Senate Democrats should state right now that they are setting the bar very high for disclosure from Roberts during confirmation hearings. There's too much at stake for the Senate to rely on vague or evasive responses from Roberts on any subject.

In particular, I'd like to hear Roberts' views on the radical dissents of Scalia and Thomas for the last decade or so.

Bottom line: demand information (like the Solicitor General notes), and demand clear, honest responses to committee questions.

If not, well, then it might be time for a Bolton II.

John D.