Friday, July 22, 2005



Someone from the Federalist Society, like Judge Roberts, is in all likelihood, going to be a reactionary judge who will always find in favor of big corporations as opposed to citizens. He will probably be someone who will vote to limited individual rights and liberty rather than strengthen and expand them. If he has an opportunity to overturn Roe v Wade, he will probably act on it. Should progressives demand their Senators filibuster him?

Probably not. First off, it's not a fight progressives can win. Unless someone finds some "smoking gun" in Roberts' closet, he's going to be confirmed anyway. This is a battle that should have been fought when BushCheney, with the help of the criminal GOP Administration in Ohio led by Governor Taft, Secretary of State Blackwell and kingmaker/looter Tom Noe, was stealing that state's electoral votes, and thereby the presidency, last year. How many Senators stood with Barbara Boxer to demand a joint session of Congress and an investigation into what happened in Ohio? Answer: none.
If Kerry and the rest of the elected Beltway Democrats were willing to concede the White House to this pack of thieves and scoundrels then, did they think there would be no consequences? Did they imagine that Bush was going to name Al Sharpton to the Supreme Court? Keep bending over, boys, and letting Bush and the fascists dismantle the New Deal and save your fire and your ire for the Democrat who wants to REALLY turn things around: Howard Dean, head of the DNC, the Democrat who is NOT Joe Lieberman, who is NOT Joe Biden, who is NOT some Beltway hack making believe he represents the interests of ordinary citizens against the overwhelming power of corporate fascism. Howard Dean's the real deal-- the only one I see on the horizon who can save this country from the direction Clinton and the Bushes have taken it.


At 3:12 PM, Blogger DownWithTyranny said...

When I saw this Reuters headline: "Key Democrat Upbeat Over High-court Choice," I figured they'd dug up some corporate DINO (Democrat in Name Only) like Biden or Lieberman or one of the Nelsons to publically suck fascist ass. But when I started reading, I was surprised to see the "key Democrat" was Dick Durbin, a credible progressive. I hope he's correct and I'm wrong, but I have a feeling Mr. Roberts will be a tragic Supreme Court Judge (tragic for America). But I feel that, under the circumstances, we ain't getting anything better.

As usual I'm more buoyed by news from outside the Beltway-- where the majority of Americans are wary of Roberts' antipathy towards women's right to privacy and choice-- than from INSIDE, where Repug politicians and Democratic politicians have more in common with each other than with normal citizens.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court nominee John Roberts said on Friday he "hates bullies" who prey on the powerless, which pleased a key Democratic senator as the conservative candidate stepped up a Capitol charm offensive.
"I liked that answer," Assistant Senate Democratic leader Richard Durbin of Illinois said after a private meeting with President Bush's nominee.
Roberts has received generally upbeat receptions in initial visits this week with Democratic and Republican senators who will decide whether to confirm him to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor -- who was a key swing vote between the court's liberal and conservative wings.
Durbin was one of just three Democrats who opposed Roberts in the Judiciary Committee two years ago when he was en route to being confirmed to a seat on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Durbin complained that Roberts had been evasive at his 2003 confirmation hearing, and said he urged him to be more candid at upcoming hearings, likely to be held in September.
"I want to go into this hearing with an open mind," Durbin, told reporters. "I want to give him the chance" to answer questions on a variety of topics.
Durbin said they discussed a number of topics during the 40-minute meeting, aimed largely at getting an overall measure of the nominee.
"It was a positive measure," Durbin said.
He said he asked Roberts about his experiences in life and the law how they reflected on the plight of the poor and their quest for justice.
Roberts discussed his free legal work for the poor while a private attorney, Durbin said. "He went on to say that like most of us he hates bullies and he believes that the rule of law gives even the powerless their day in court and their chance."
Judicial nominees often walk a tightrope at confirmation hearings as they offer their judicial philosophies while being careful not to prejudge cases that might come before them. Lawmakers, on the other hand, are often eager to glean how a nominee would rule on controversial issues such as abortion.
During his 2003 hearing, Roberts said as an appeals court judge he would be obligated to follow Supreme Court precedents, which included the 1973 decision that legalized abortion.
But as U.S. deputy solicitor general in 1990, Roberts stated the first Bush administration's belief, in a brief, that the abortion decision should be overturned. Abortion rights groups have seized on this in opposing his nomination.
Durbin said he would not directly ask Roberts if he favored overturning the decision. "But I do want to know what he thinks about the underlying principle ... the question of privacy," he said.
Roberts, whom Bush nominated on Tuesday night, offered no commitment on how much he would say, Durbin said.
The senator quoted him as saying, "'I want to take a look at how previous nominees came before the committee and what they were able to say."'
Durbin said he gave Roberts a gift, a biography of Frank Johnson, a white judge who helped desegregate the South. Durbin said he inscribed the book with the words, "We all need heroes in public life."


Post a Comment

<< Home