By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – President Bush named federal appeals judge John G. Roberts Jr. on Tuesday to fill the first Supreme Court vacancy in a decade, delighting Republicans and unsettling Democrats by picking a young jurist of impeccably conservative credentials.
If confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate, the 50-year-old Roberts would succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, long a swing vote on a divided court on abortion, affirmative action, states’ rights and other volatile issues.
In a prime-time, nationally televised announcement at the White House, Bush said Roberts would “strictly apply the Constitution in laws, not legislate from the bench.”
In brief remarks of his own, Roberts said he has argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court in a career as a private attorney and government lawyer. “I always got a lump in my throat whenever I walked up those marble steps to argue a case before the court, and I don’t think it was just from the nerves,” he said.
“I look forward to the next step in the process before the United States Senate,” he added.
That was a reference to Senate confirmation hearings, expected in late August or early September — and a vote on a timetable that would allow him to take his place on the court by the time a new term begins in October.
Reaction from Republican senators was strongly supportive. “He is a brilliant constitutional lawyer with unquestioned integrity,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah.
Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee issued a statement called for confirmation proceedings that “treat Judge Roberts with dignity and respect.” Echoing a refrain from this spring’s a bitter struggle over Bush’s conservative appeals court nominees, he called for a yes-or-no vote before the court’s term begins Oct 3.
Democratic response was measured, but initially at least, offered no hint of a filibuster.
“The president has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that is not the end of our inquiry,” said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Referring to planned hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Reid said, “I will not prejudge this nomination. I look forward to learning more about Judge Roberts.”
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said Democrats would want to probe Roberts’ views to see whether he holds “mainstream values.”
Abortion — arguably the most politically charged issue to confront Congress and the courts — swiftly emerged as a point of contention.
The abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America announced its opposition to Roberts when word of his appointment leaked before Bush’s formal announcement.
In a written statement, the organization cited a brief Roberts had filed with the Supreme Court while serving as deputy solicitor general in the Reagan administration. In the decision, Roberts said “Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled,” referring to Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that established a woman’s right to abortion.
The National Right to Life Committee, which opposes abortion, countered with a statement of its own. “Liberal pressure groups will insist that Senate Democrats filibuster against Judge Roberts, unless he pledges in advance to vote against allowing elected legislators to place meaningful limits on abortion,” said the group’s legislative director, Douglas Johnson. “Millions of Americans will be watching to see if the Democratic senators bow to these demands.”
I haven’t had time to look into Roberts just yet, but here are some right-left points of view:
Left – MyDD.com
I have done some reading, and this guy is clearly and ultra-right conservative. Dkos has some info. Bondad has some info. Allaince for Justice here and here has info.
This guy is totally unacceptable, and probably was chosen in order to start a fight. I think MyDD commenter yitbos96bb said it best:
You know what? If Republicans are forced to use the nuclear option to confirm Roberts, then so be it. As far as I am concerned, that is the only way he should be confirmed. People will pay attention to this one. We just have to make the case ot them why he was unacceptable.
Right – Several Sites – Source:
http://www.rightwingnews.com/
“A Republican political strategist tells me that this pick will further energize the Republican base with the ongoing talk that Stevens might retire before George Bush leaves office. Conservatives love Bush tonight. Make no mistake about it. Certain conservative leaders, if they were not men, would be offering to bear further children for GWB tonight. They love Roberts.” — Red State
“Pop the champagne corks, conservatives. Roberts is a fantastic choice, a brilliant and bulletproof conservative.” — Power Line
“Bush gets it. That’s my basic wrap-up, listening to him announce the Roberts nomination. Bush picked Roberts — didn’t play identity poltics. And he is making this announcemnent during primetime. The president is now emphasizing that the Supreme Court’s decisions influence the lives of every American (they can take your house!) He gets how important the Supreme Court is.
UPDATE: He will not legislate from the bench. Did I mention he gets it?” — Kathryn Jean Lopez at Bench Memos
Quick take from someone monitoring how it will play politically: “Roberts and Luttig were the most-qualified possibilities. Roberts is brilliant and solid. He has a good temperment and he’s very likable. There’s no downside. Fred Thompson is going to have a very easy time bringing him around. And Bush has kept his promise to nominate someone in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. It probably helps that he’s already been here in Washington, the way Scalia and Thomas were. He’s not going to ‘grow’ here.” — Rich Lowry at The Corner
“Republicans have tried the blank slate route before. That’s the Supreme Court pick whose opinions are unknown–perhaps even to himself. What did it get the GOP? David Souter, for one. President Bush has twice been elected president, and his party controls 55 Senate seats. If he really is a social conservative–let’s face it, this is all about Roe v. Wade–why should he operate from a position of weakness and nominate a consensus candidate? While Roberts is neither the consensus candidate nor 2005’s David Souter, his views on Roe v. Wade, at least, are unknown. Is a crapshoot the best conservatives can do? On the other hand, the Democrats refused to confirm him when George H.W. Bush nominated him to the bench, and took two years to confirm him when George W. Bush nominated him to the DC Court of Appeals. Perhaps the Democrats know something that we don’t. Time will tell.” — Flynn Files
“After that introduction, I’m ready to have (Roberts’) baby!” –Right Thinking Girl
“John Roberts: A home run for the president, the SCOTUS, and for the United States….Judge John Roberts may be the smartest lawyer I have known, and he combines that intellect with a graciousness and good humor that will make it hard for any except the most extreme ideolouges to oppose him.” — Hugh Hewitt
President Bush certainly came through for judicial conservatives tonight. Roberts is a solid originalist/textualist, and he will make for an incredible justice. — Confirm Them
Moderation queue – sorry about that guys – I had the links setting set too low. Should go straight through now.
I was expecting a post on the nomination, thought you might wait till tommorrow though, you aren’t truly surprised are you? I’ve been saying from the beginning of the Nuclear option, that this would be and will always be about Abortion…Bush fulfilled a obligation to social conservatives who elected him, and the left lets out a huge gasp “Oh nooooo…”
The new conservative litmus test, probably has something to do with getting Eric Rudolph out of jail.
The guy has only been a judge for 2 years but it would be interesting to look at his cases over that time to how he thinks and decides cases.
Micheal, regarding my lack of civility, I will try to be nicer in the future, nice to see new faces here. peace
Update on the nominee. He sounds pretty smart and is a Washington insider which makes him a safe pick, that is easy to confirm.
It is really hard to find anything that shows what he thinks, in a way that makes him a good judge, he has not let his personal views interfer with his opinions. However, without the threat of appeal that might change.
taking a pragmatic view, it does not seem like he will be easy to fight so maybe Democrats should just accept this as a cost of losing elections and move-on.
I would really like to see the same type of decency from the Democrats, that was afforded to Ginsburg and Breyer by Republican senators. The reason those nominations went smoothly wasn’t because of their political inclinations, Liberal or Conservative, but because of the decency and respect demonstrated towards them.
I’ve heard the talk from democrats in congress saying stuff like “A supreme court justice, should be a justice for all the people.” Or, in other words, he should magically be able to be both Conservative and Liberal at the same time…and to me that type of logic insures we will have some confusing rulings from this justice. They will be counting the votes on an important issue, “For” , “Against”, “Against”, “For”, “Against”, “For”, “For”, “Against”, and “For and Against”…by this standard, every judge should have to make every american happy with every decision, which is obviously impossible.
I do believe that the Supreme court should represent the entire nation, but not each individual nominee…2 liberal judges were appointed by Clinton, because the people elected Clinton, and Congress confirmed their qualifications…not their intentions. This president is expected to have the opportunity to replace two outgoing justices, with Conservatives, hopefully one of which will be a woman. The makeup of the court will continue to be 4/5 or 5/4 on the majority of issues…thus representing the entire nation.
My initial impressions are:
1. karl’s accertion right here
2. Being that the confirmation is months away, Democrats should say a thing about this over the summer
3. A man is the nominee…Dubya’s not getting any for a while!
Republicans aside, the media is frothing at the mouth for some negativity – they’re predicting what Democrats might find fault with. That’s right, they ALL got their predictions wrong, and now they’re predicting what opponents will say about him. Cable news commentary shows are really a bad thing for America.
This element makes it so partisan bickering can take place without a politician having to say a single word.
DI: This element makes it so partisan bickering can take place without a politician having to say a single word.
I agree, they are inciting implications, that don’t necessarily HAVE to happen. They are playing pretend Senators…and trying to get the real senators to go ahead and start the political war, they are like the school yard kids yelling, “Fight, Fight, Fight”, not caring who wins, just wanting to see some blood.
Awesome analogy! Fight-Fight-Fight, absolutely perfect.
Politics, politics, politics! The next nominee for the Supreme Court will be the most important one !! Think about it – when the Chief Justice steps down.
when the Chief Justice steps down.
Or falls down, that guy doesn’t have a lot of time left.
It sure does seem like the guy has one last mission to complete – outlast the Bush presidency.
outlast the Bush presidency.
I just hope Democrats don’t politicize this anymore than they have. If they stall a Renquist replacement nomination for a year or more and a Democrat is elected president, that filibuster could be a perpetual event and rightly so.
I hate it that liberals are trying to stack the court, where is the respect afforded Ginsberg and the other liberal guy whose name escapes me?
Trying to stack the court? Did I miss something? Are Democrats in charge right now?
If they filibuster, you can be sure the cases they’re questioning will be posted here with the actual court documents. I’m posting some interesting judicial opinions in the links section to the left, new category…check it tomorrow. The Cooper-Plame appeal is going to be there shortly.
Why is Roberts lieing about the federalist society? I thought he was supposed to be conservative.
Trying to stack the court? Did I miss something? Are Democrats in charge right now?
Yes.
Answer in two words: Unprecedented Fillibuster.
If they filibuster, you can be sure the cases they’re questioning will be posted here with the actual court documents.
If they fillibuster it’s because the nominee isn’t a liberal and all the cases will prove is that a conservative president nominated a conservative judge. There is no viable reason whatsoever to fillibuster this nominee. It will be totally political with the hopes that the vacancy will be open into the next election.
This is great. You know Right – the most memorable leaders in any field, find a way to get things done. They don’t make excuses. The polling from prior fillibusters, expecially with the Bolton nomination, has been in the Dems favor.
Simply put, if and when the Democrats fillibuster a nominee of Bush’s that doesn’t deserve it, at that point he’ll win the fight. The problem with Bush is that it seems like every time one of his nominees is held up, it’s because HE doesn’t want to release information. That theme is already old.
Becuase if Bolton and Roberts are as worthy as he insists, there shouldn’t be anything to hide. Whether it’s the intercepts they refuse to release about Bolton, or the public demanding to know what Roberts did while he was representing THEIR interests, the impression remains this:
Bush is hididng things, Bush is lying. Government should be transparant.
Well I hope that everyone here will read the actual court documentation when it comes time to look it all over. During the Janice Rogers Brown confirmation I had her actual written opinions posted here, and it cut through the partisan flim-flam.
The problem with Bush is that it seems like every time one of his nominees is held up, it’s because HE doesn’t want to release information.
That is because Dems are going fishing, they want all this stuff that doesn’t matter so they can find something no matter how miniscule to discredit someone.
How about the Dems make a serious charge and then they can have the documents regarding that charge? Why does it have to be “give us everything and anything that might make this guy look bad?”
Becuase if Bolton and Roberts are as worthy as he insists, there shouldn’t be anything to hide.
Seriously, come one, this is partisan politics, Dems don’t care how qualified the guys are only that they can deal Bush another set back. Dems are elected based on their level of obstruction so going along with anything is going to hurt them.
Government should be transparant.
Governmental transparancy isn’t a suicide pact, it’s not for liberals to use against political rivals rather it’s to protect the public from the government. Dems would go though the guy’s sock drawer to find dirt if they could get away with it.
Don’t be fooled, liberals only want to hold these guys down as long as possible, there’s no well intentioned public service here. The most rabid liberal gets to run for president next so the pack is on the hunt.
During the Janice Rogers Brown confirmation I had her actual written opinions posted here, and it cut through the partisan flim-flam.
Yeah, but I don’t see Dems “seeing the light” on this one like they did with Rogers, they are so used having the activist judges that they think the Supreme Court is the same way, luckily it isn’t, mostly. Why do they fear a judge who upholds the constitution?
Bolton’s qualifications are questionable at best. When generals come in to testify that he doesn’t have the leadership abilities to manage a staff that large – it’s something to consider.
Roberts hasn’t even gotten going and the GOP is screaming about obstruction. Even though they’re in the majority and the confirmation hearing is over a month away – the crybaby stuff is already starting up.
It’s not about digging to find ‘whatever they can’ to stop the guy…it’s about properly vetting candidates before they are put in positions where they represent every American.
Now, if Democrats owned more seats on the Judiciary Committee or more seats in the Senate – the obstructionist tag might fitt, but get real about this. Voinivich and other Republicans voted against cloture with Bolton – so it’s not about obstruction, it’s about picking the right man for the job.
If Bush’s own party has enough members of a Senate where they are the majority to block Bolton, the answer is to find someone else – not play the crybaby routine. This is why Bush’s poll numbers are dropping all the time.
If the Democrats manage to win this skirmish, Reid would be one of the greatest minority leaders ever. Or maybe Frist is one of the worst majority leaders ever, perhaps Bush has attempted to appoint some of the worst nominees ever. In the end it may be a combination of all three. The Kerik nomination was almost funny, the Bolton nomnation is right up there as well. If you have to hide information about your nominee maybe they should not be nominated.
I find it hard to believe that Roberts cannot remember if he was involved with the Federalist society. If his memory is that bad maybe the man could use some stem cells.
Karl – I saw you mentioned this earlier and I haven’t had time to look into it. What is it about the Federalist Socity that Roberts would want to distance himself from it? Could you provide some background?
Here is the backround, you mean you don’t have time to amimlessly surf the net. I gotta get a life.
Supreme Court nominee John Roberts declined Monday to say why he was listed in a leadership directory of the Federalist Society and the White House said he has no recollection of belonging to the conservative group. The question of Roberts’ membership in the society — an influential organization of conservative lawyers and judges formed in the early 1980s to combat what its members said was growing liberalism on the bench — emerged as a vexing issue at the start of another week of meetings for President Bush’s nominee on Capitol Hill.
Although no Democrats have publicly threatened to filibuster his nomination, they have said they’re concerned that not enough is known about Roberts’ personal and legal views. Questions about where he stands on a range of issues, including abortion, likely will be front-line matters at his confirmation hearings later this summer.
Roberts, nominated by Bush last week to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, was asked by a reporter about the discrepancy during a morning get-acquainted meeting with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). He smiled but didn’t reply.
“I don’t think he wants to take any questions,” Feinstein interjected during the session with photographers and reporters that was part of the meeting in her office with the Supreme Court nominee.
This one came from yahoo news:
“Roberts continued a fourth day of meeting with senators by seeing Lieberman, as well as Senate Judiciary Committee members who will get the first chance to vote on his nomination.
He waved off questions about whether he was a member of the Federalist Society, an influential legal group formed to counter what its members saw as growing liberalism on the bench.
A 1997-98 leadership directory for the Federalist Society lists Roberts as a steering committee member in the group’s Washington chapter, The Washington Post reported. At the time, Roberts was a partner in a private law firm. ”
Depends on what your definition of member is
I don’t get why he’d try to hide it, or deny he was affiliated with this group. It’s not like the Federalist Society is NAMBLA or the KKK. He’s a conservative – it’s been established, and was appointed by a conservative (albeit not a fiscal conservative) President.
Now flip the tables here and you have the kind of thing the RNC is blasting Wilson for. Only Wilson holds no office…this guy is an appointee to the Supreme Court. Let’s see if the Federalist Society is dug up and demonized like Wilson has been.
Dishonesty is troubling – but if Dems focus on this, it won’t get them far. Since Scalia is a member, I can’t wrap my head around why he’d deny it.
DI: Dishonesty is troubling – but if Dems focus on this, it won’t get them far. Since Scalia is a member, I can’t wrap my head around why he’d deny it.
Maybe, he isn’t a member…maybe he made appearences, and spoke, but didn’t become a member or pay dues. I really hope they don’t filibuster Roberts…because there is hardly any one LESS controversial on the short list. Requesting things that are protected under client-attorney privilege, isn’t a good thing, it has no bearing on his efforts as a judge…a role a person plays as a lawyer is the role of an employee to his client. The role he will play as a judge is what matters.
I don’t think the files that the Dems are requesting would be protected by priveledge as Roberts was working for the first Bush admin when he did the work. Thanks to Ken starr that executive priveledge in those cases is already limited.
Why would he lie about his membership and why all the foot draging on disclosure, where there is smoke there is fire and this nominee may get burned.
One more thought on this, I wonder if Gonzales was the first choice until his name came up in the plame scandal.
Karl: Roberts(attorney) was working for the first Bush admin(client)
-Attorney-Client Privlege…
Take for instance, Michael Jackson’s attorney…he isn’t required to divulge the information he gained from Michael Jackson as his attorney, and even if he did, it doesn’t reflect in any way how he would be as a judge. Its ludicrious, but expected of the democratic party now, I think everyone predicted the process by which democrats would approach any nominee, it honestly doesn’t matter how QUALIFIED.
The process:
Play like civility is the utmost goal, begin digging for material to attack the qualifications, and “Mainstreamness” of the nominee, locate wife, determine her opinions about hot button issues, interview dog, and kid, to see if they agree, assume their is a correlation, declare nominee ‘out of mainstream’, request more documents, that have never been delivered in previous nomination proceedings, let out a great big ‘GASP’ when the Bush Administration, refuses to take the time of day to fulfill the minority obstructionists wishes, declare that there must be something in those documents that says he/she was a former KKK member, ACLU advocate, Flag Burner, Racist, Liberal, Right-Wing Nut, or some variation…Shit on themselves as they watch him/her be confirmed…dun dunnn duuunnnnnnnnnn
Micheal:
Clinton tried the same executive privelegde argument and it does not work. The argument goes something like this: He was representing the US not just the president, so he was really yours and my attorney, pretty cool we are represented by the best, but by granting him priveledge you are really giving him priveledge from his client, you and me.
A lot of these problems could be solved if the administration would find a nominee with more of a record, if the man actually had ruled on a few cases and written some opinions it would be easier to see if he is fit for the job.
My personal opinion of Roberts is that he may be a nasty surprise for the religous right and a boon to corporate interests, I will try not to soil myself watching this train wreck.
Attorney client privilege in clinton’s case wasn’t judicial nomination proceeding, it was a investigation of criminal acts. Here you go…setting the record straight on the Clinton Attorney-Client Privilege:
After the Supreme Court refused to take the case, the D.C. Circuit decided the case on an expedited basis. Recently, the D.C. Circuit issued an unredacted opinion. The majority held that there is a qualified attorney-client privilege that attaches to governmental attorneys’ communication with their agency clients, but that this privilege never applies when the attorney receives information that may be relevant to a criminal investigation. In other words, whatever privilege there is dissipates in the presence of a grand jury subpoena.
I.E. Subpoena’s make null the attorney client privilege, last I heard, Roberts isn’t testifying in front of the grand jury. Will leave that to Rove…
Karl: A lot of these problems could be solved if the administration would find a nominee with more of a record, if the man actually had ruled on a few cases and written some opinions it would be easier to see if he is fit for the job.
That is a laughable statement…it wouldn’t matter if his whole life were video taped from the time he exited the womb. This is the strategy, its about harnessing disdain for the Bush Administration and focusing it on anything Republican…it is away for the democrats to say, the president is holding up the process, which is what they really want to do, it doesn’t matter at all what nominee it is…wanna bet that they do the same thing when he nominates another Conservative, with a ‘paper trail’, to replace Rehnquist?
40,000 documents should be plenty to decide if some one is plenty to determine his opinions.
Karl: My personal opinion of Roberts is that he may be a nasty surprise for the religous right and a boon to corporate interests, I will try not to soil myself watching this train wreck.
I’m glad you found your friend Delusion, if he’s going to be a nasy suprise, let him on through, i assure you it isn’t going to be nasty to the religous right, he’s just what they’ve been asking for…you might not soil yourself, but you will see the a forced cloture, if Dems refuse to confirmed him by Oct. 3
Micheal:
It is mistake to write everything off as political, maybe they want to know what the guy wrote to see if he is fit for the job. For exapmle if you apply for a job people might want to see a sample of your work, unfortunately this guy in unwilling to show any samples of his work. Next time you apply for a job try refusing to answer questions and see if you get the job.
PS
Conservatives are asking for a sycaphant(did I spell that right?) to james dobson, while I don’t think this guy is the ideal choice he does not seem like sycophant, at some point he will piss off the right. I think the odds are in my favor on this prediction as pissing off the right is an easy thing to do.
The Jackson comparison isn’t entirely accurate, as the one problem I have with what they’re trying to keep under wraps has to do with Iran-Contra. Let’s say Alberto Gonzalez was passed up due to his involvement in a scandal…why whould Roberts be spared from this same criteria?
I don’t have a problem with him having gone down to Florida…there’s nothing there from what I can see. The difficulty I have with a nominee who was involved in something like that – something where the law was subverted…kind of like how Gonzalez writes an opinion that the Geneva Convention statutes can be subverted – it puts the official on the wrong side of the law for the sake of appeasing a political client, and for a judge, that can’t be…
I don’t know. There are a lot of guys who got indicted/convicted from Iran-Contra who are working in the White House today, and that really gets under my skin. If he provided legal advice during that time, the Senate should be able to know where he stood on an international scandal. Did he give sound advice, or did he tell the guilty parties what they wanted to hear?
Maybe he helped the contras smuggle drugs, in an odd way that would make me like him better, at least he might show some common sense regarding the war on drugs.
Roberts seems like the ultimate washington insider on the bright side that makes him pragmatic. I have a hard time deciding whether or not this guy is worth fighting or not.
I think that when a group ‘underneath the tent’ gets angry at one of their own, the opposition tends to immediately infer that this group’s point of view equals that of the entire party. Republicans do this all the time by injecting Michael Moore into a debate and then talking about all liberals or all Democrats embrace everything Moore says. In effect, the person championing the idea that Michael Moore is the undeniable ‘leader’ of a political party even though he’s not a politician. Jane Fonda serves this purpose for them as well.
We do it when it comes to the evangelicals…remember that Dobson chastised the Republicans when the nuclear option was not carried out. So what karl is saying here is right, but like the example I provided above, they don’t represent all Republicans. I make this point though because in terms of the evangelical vote – voting Democrat would be a vote for Satan for most of them, and when you come down to it – with this in mind, where else do they have to go?
The amount of contradictions when it comes to the faith and the policies of the party evangelicals support with their money and votes is enormous. But much less so when the idea is accepted that God has chosen my religion in a battle against the evil Islam…as it’s at this time that several commandments can be blacked out of the text altogether.
It’s an interesting thing really – as the fact is, that a dynamic exists with this group that kind of allows Republicans to stop caring what they think after a while. Less with the politicians as the judges though. Election compared with a lifetime membership.
I really think that Democrats can make points through hammering the President for documents, as it highlights the fact that he had things to hide with the Bolton nomination as well. If he appoints Bolton w/ a recess appointment…this thing is going to go in a direction where the focus is the White House and the processes are secondary.
Roberts’s beliefs aside – the President thinks of himself as a king, and it will be this that brings all these people down. Because Roberts won’t get defeated if not by the White House’s obstruction.
The focus has always been on the president, thats what i’ve been saying, it wouldn’t have mattered what person was nominated. Documents would be requested…now 75,000 documents have been released, and that includes all documents from the Reagan administration, but not the any protected by Attorney-Client Privilege while he was the deputy Solicitor General. Do you wish for Democrats to push for those too? Have you read the letter from all of the past Solicitor Generals who are still living? When does it become a fishing trip?
karl: It is mistake to write everything off as political, maybe they want to know what the guy wrote to see if he is fit for the job. For exapmle if you apply for a job people might want to see a sample of your work, unfortunately this guy in unwilling to show any samples of his work. Next time you apply for a job try refusing to answer questions and see if you get the job.
Ok…it is politics, its a mistake to think it isn’t…do you honestly trust any politician? I agree with republican principles, but don’t trust any politicians. The politics behind this one is simple, Dead explained it, so did I, its to harness disdain for the president, and push any hold ups in the process onto him, even though Democrats “WANT” to hold the process up, for that very reason…if a video tape of his entire life came out, the democrats would want to see documents declaring he is actually the person they see in the video tape. This was expected by the majority of Republicans, so we weren’t surprised at all. Rest assured if this tactic is effective, republicans will use it on the next Clinton Administration.
For many reasons the Republicans cannot give the Dobsonites all they want, imagine what would have happened if they had passed a law requiring that all brain dead people be kept alive using all means available. The expense and political backlash would have been a disaster for the repubs.
The problem is that now that repubs control both the house and senate plus the presidency they do not have anyone to blame when they don’t pass a law that the loyalist want. Social Security comes to mind, the repubs could pass a phase-out bil and no one could stop them, but they don’t and they try to blame the dems. Being the grown-up in a relationship is tough and right now the repubs have to be the grown-up, because the dems are not around to do it for them.
Karl: For many reasons the Republicans cannot give the Dobsonites all they want, imagine what would have happened if they had passed a law requiring that all brain dead people be kept alive using all means available.
They have, its the Americans with disablities act, people with deseases of the brain are disabled, and should be treated humanely. Disagree? I’m assuming this is a Terri Shiavo plug, so I will ask this of you, please do answer, is starving a person(in general) humane, what if they can’t feel any pain from the starvation because they are shot with morphine?
karl: The problem is that now that repubs control both the house and senate plus the presidency they do not have anyone to blame when they don’t pass a law that the loyalist want. Social Security comes to mind, the repubs could pass a phase-out bil and no one could stop them, but they don’t and they try to blame the dems. Being the grown-up in a relationship is tough and right now the repubs have to be the grown-up, because the dems are not around to do it for them.
No they still have obstructionist to blame. If the republicans were a super majority, you would hear alot less out of democrats, because it would be futile, they actually have the power of filibuster right now. Man, I sure hope they loose that too in ’06
If it was at any time deemed ‘inhumane’ by the American Medical arena – it wouldn’t be allowed to happen. And in a lot of cases where someone dies in this way, heavily sedated and unaware, in the opinion of their proxy who authorizes ending their life – it is absolutely deemed humane…in fact, letting the loved one suffer further would be the action they’d consider ‘inhumane’.
75% of Americans told Evantelicana, Bush, Frist and the rest of those trying to martyrize Shiavo without her concent that they were wrong…they were and still are. It’s none of our business, and knowing that her brain was mush and bones cracked due to osteo-perosis, the inhumane lot in this argument are the ones insisting that more of her brain was allowed to liquify and bones allowed to fracture…
Those who were advocating the right of her parents to be able to keep her as a pet.
Leadership is a skill – Negotiation is a skill – What you’re saying Michael, is that while over two centuries of Presidents have found ways to work with an opposition party to move the country forward, this particular President, with the Legislature owned by his party, he needs to have both the House and Senate AND for the rules to change in order to do his job?
That says something about the President, not Democrats. If Bush was more skilled as a leader, he’d find a way to get things done…just like every president before him has had to do.
The guy was a male cheerleader at Andover Academy…so we probably should have figured he was a follower – not a leader.
From MyDD.com
The other day, when it was confirmed that Roberts was indeed a member of the Federalist Society despite his claims to the contrary, I finally decided that the Democrats need to make a serious effort to stop him. Up until then, my feeling had been that Roberts was bad, but that he would be confirmed. Unfortunate, but unavoidable.
And now there’s this, from the New York Times:
Just to be clear, it was Roberts’ opinion that it was “obvious” that the minorities recruited under affirmative action policies were, by definition, “inadequately prepared candidates.” In other words, it wasn’t possible for minorities to be anything but “inadequately prepared.”
This was not a position based on research or fact. This was not even a position based on an ideologically conservative reading of the Constitution. This was a position based on prejudice.
John Roberts is not fit to serve on the Supreme Court.
Source
DI: If it was at any time deemed ‘inhumane’ by the American Medical arena – it wouldn’t be allowed to happen. And in a lot of cases where someone dies in this way, heavily sedated and unaware, in the opinion of their proxy who authorizes ending their life – it is absolutely deemed humane…in fact, letting the loved one suffer further would be the action they’d consider ‘inhumane’.
Well, I propose the humane starvation of murderers, what do you say? Whether someone is loved or not has nothing to do with the humane treatment of them…millions of stray cats, aren’t individually loved, but we don’t round them up and put them in boxes and wait for them to starve to death. But thats what you can do to some one if you love them? Her parents loved her too…
DI:Leadership is a skill – Negotiation is a skill – What you’re saying Michael, is that while over two centuries of Presidents have found ways to work with an opposition party to move the country forward, this particular President, with the Legislature owned by his party, he needs to have both the House and Senate AND for the rules to change in order to do his job?
Your knowledge of history must be backwards, when there wasn’t a clear majority in power, bickering was the norm and stagnation too. Look back on your history books, see when the most troubling times in american history were. No amount of leadership will bring together a house so bitterly divided.
“Buchanan struggled haplessly in trying to keep the South from seceding throughout his term. By the 1860 election, his party had split into Northern and Southern factions, allowing the upstart Republican Party, with Abraham Lincoln as its nominee, to sweep the Northern states and win the presidency.
Realizing that the North now held a majority of electoral votes and fearing that Lincoln and the Republicans would act to abolish or imperil slavery, Southern states took steps toward secession. On Dec. 20, 1860, South Carolina first took the plunge. On Feb. 7, delegates from seven states met to form the Confederate States of America. Buchanan was too weak both personally and politically to stop them. He thundered about the illegality of secession but refused to back up his words with force. Congressional Republicans, meanwhile, in consultation with Lincoln, thwarted Buchanan’s slapdash efforts to negotiate the South back into the Union. Civil War became inevitable.”
The greatest devisions weren’t overcome by any leader, they were overcome with time. Lincoln pulled the union back together by force, but the divisions remained. Time was what cause the devisions of then to fade. Time will remove the devisions we face now, but neither side will cede there opinions, so we will just let the next generation decide who is right, and then the devisions will disappear for a generation hopefully.
If they were doped up to the point where they weren’t aware of anything – then this would be a suitable method of execution. Costly, but entirely suitable.
Her parents had been presented with ample proof of her condition and chose to make a spectacle out of her instead of doing what was right all along. The autopsy proved that they were wrong all along.
The states’ rights issues that launched us into Civil War do not at all compare to what’s going on today. Great Presidents have been up against it much worse than Bush and have come out with results. Every employee in the world, with few exceptions, can either get their job done, or find another job.
Bush is one of those people who don’t have to accomplish anything and still keep his job.
The GOP chose to turn Shiavo into an issue – and they chose to consider changing Senate rules rather than work with Democrats. They’ve created this problem on their own.
I find it hard to believe that Roberts cannot remember if he was involved with the Federalist society. If his memory is that bad maybe the man could use some stem cells.
This is totally irrelevant and by saying he can’t recall is a classy way of saying F-Off you liberal SOB’s.
Micheal:
In answer to your question, Schiavo was brain dead she did not feel pain, so the morphine was unneccassary.
The problem with Schiavo is that the people who wanted to keep her alive refuse to believe in science and they insist that some miracle will save these people.
Do you think all brain dead people should be kept alive? I personally think the government should stay out of these decisions.
DI:The states’ rights issues that launched us into Civil War do not at all compare to what’s going on today. Great Presidents have been up against it much worse than Bush and have come out with results. Every employee in the world, with few exceptions, can either get their job done, or find another job.
We could argue over this day in and day out…but in my opinion devisions of opinion on slavery is what caused the civil war. If pro-abolition hadn’t gained control over the senate and the presidency, the devisions of opinion wouldn’t have forced the division of the union.
karl: Do you think all brain dead people should be kept alive? I personally think the government should stay out of these decisions.
So the government has no responsiblity to treat the mentally handicapped with humanity?
Micheal their is a difference between brain dead, i.e someone has no awareness that they are even alive; and a mentally handicapped person. So don’t worry you are safe.:)
I hope we do! Several times over…I’m finding American History to be a most enjoyable hobby of mine as I’ve gotten older. The slavery aspect was the symptom, but not the cause. Remember now, that less than 2% (or 1%…didn’t want to overstate it) of the population actually owned slaves. It was only the rich plantation owners who were going to suffer from abolition of slavery.
It was the government, all the way up north in DC telling them what they could and couldn’t do, while demanding a slice of their profits be paid to them in tax…that’s what got the whole thing rolling. Slavery was a symptom, just as taxation was – but ‘state’s rights’ was the cause.
Aside from providing a social security check, no. Doctors are the ones who decide whether the patient will make it or not, then the proxy decides whether to let their loved one pass on, or linger for a while longer.
The government has no place within that arrangement at all…not in determining the science behind the doctors’ diagnosis, or in the personal decision made by the proxy…in both instances, the government has no right to be involved. It’s an invasion of privacy.
A perfect example of the gov’t saying “We know what’s best for you better than you do yourself”