Sometimes I really wonder if they are serious about some of this stuff, or if they are just playing to the crowds and trying to sell more progressive blogads.
Is there really anyone to the right of Think Progress (also known as the other 95% of the country) who thinks a filibuster of Judge Roberts makes any tactical or strategic sense? Because, you know, Republicans everywhere would just be distraught if they were handed the golden opportunity to kill the filibuster forever when ‘obstructionist Democrats’ try to block a nominee like John Roberts, someone Joe Biden yesterday called ‘the best.’ That would really rip us a new one, Armando.
ppGaz
Armando has no sense of choosing one’s battles. He is balls to the wall all the time. Trying to gin up a battle over Roberts is a dumb move.
Roberts will be confirmed, and DKos will somehow survive it.
Mike S
I haven’t seen the full “you’re the best” quote but I got the impression that he meant he handeled the committee better than anyone Biden has seen.
Either way I don’t like Roberts but also don’t think he’s worth filibustering. One of my warnings to people talking about voting for Bush had to do with 2 or 3 new SC justices. I lost the battle and have to accept the outcome. And at least he’s not a Borkish lunatic.
Manish
Republicans everywhere would just be distraught if they were handed the golden opportunity to kill the filibuster forever when ‘obstructionist Democrats’ try to block a nominee like John Roberts
First off, there is the agreement between the 14 Senators which would curtail any ability to pass a resolution to kill the filibuster. Second, do Republicans really want to kill the filibuster? It wasn’t that long ago that it was the Democrats in control of the Senate.
Frank
There are at least some Democrats who would be glad to see the end of the filibuser. Check out Lawyers Guns and Money. (the blog not the album) This is likely to be the best possible time too. Since the Republican’s popularity is tanking the Dems wont have to endure being on the losing end too long.
Geek, Esq.
A fillibuster would be colossally stupid and inappropriate. I have confidence that Harry Reid won’t let it happen.
anon
Frank
qiut filibussing. Lern how too spel. then democrat wi elections inn2007.
Bsh sux. ks rls
i luv ths blg
Mr Furious
Armando needs to get outside once in a while. DKos has become such an echo chamber that there is almost NO perspective for most of those guys. It’s a big reason why I spend my time here instead.
“I have expressed my view that the Roberts nomination should be rejected. And I think the public would agree….”
What the fuck are you smoking, Armando?
First, the “public” could, as a whole, give a shit either way.
Second, even if they did, the Dems would clearly come out looking bad for filibustering (however justified), and would likely end up losing in the end anyway. Bad strategy.
Third, while I’ll agree with many of the premises as to why Roberts doesn’t deserve to be confirmed, his confirmation was, for all intents and purposes, decided last November. By not nominating a certified fire-breather, Bush has basically played it perfectly. Now that roberts is replacing Rehnquist, all of this rings that much more hollow.
I’m not taking this as far as I’d like (nor as clearly) ’cause it’s late and I’m tired…
So, in conclusion: The Dems lost this fight a year ago, Armando has his head up his ass, we could do a lot worse than John Roberts, and the Dems need to keep their powder dry for the next judge coning down the pike.
Good night.
Patrick Lightbody
I have no idea why Kos is so against Roberts. As far as I have seen, he seems very solid — even I probably won’t agree with his rulings. Unlike Renquist or Thomas, he truly looks like he would interpret the law consistently, which is more important that the actual interpretation himself. On top of that, he’s practical too — his concession that offering a stay of execution if his vote was needed to the the 5th just makes sense. I can only hope that this is the “convervative” justice Bush will nominate :)
Patrick Lightbody
Wow, that last post had about 15 errors in it. Clearly I need to go bed.
anon
Agreed,
Frannk wil spell check you post for you tomorow
GoodNight!!!
anon
Has anyone here ever checked out
Very richeous stuff, if i may sayso
He spells nice too.
anon
Shit, that didn’t work:
iraqwarwrong.com
this mite
anon
so sorrry,
try Speak truth to power!!!
Fuck i hate the internets.
Vlad
I don’t think Armando really thinks about what he’s posting a lot of the time. He just shoots from the hip, and way too often it ends up making him look unreasonable, if not flat-out dumb.
Brad R.
Yep, that’s really dumb. Save the filibuster (not to mention the little black pills you’ve been saving in your medicine cabinet) when Bush nominates Roy Moore to replace Renquist.
Krista
I think that’s a part of why Democrats and/or liberals have not been taken seriously of late. They’ve been looking for anything that might help take down Bush (not realizing that he’d eventually do that quite nicely on his own.) First they were too demoralized to fight at all, even for the worthy battles. And then, when they woke up and realized that no, this wasn’t a bad dream, everything fragmented — some chose to drift right, hoping that this would bring over some of the fence-sitters. Others chose to start firing their cannons in every which direction, hoping that something would hit.
In regards to Roberts, I think it could be a HELL of a lot worse, so dems might as well, as Mr. Furious said, keep their powder dry.
Another Jeff
While i worry that my head might explode because I’m agreeing with Mike S, that’s the exact same impression i got from the “you’re the best” quote.
jobiuspublius
The best way to ditch Roberts is to applaude him for not commiting to overturning Roe, etc. Say that there is nothing in the constitution that explicitly forbids firarm regulation and that you expect all those icky ak-47 and uzzi knockoffs to me made illegal soon, and other stuff like that.
Does anybody remember hearing any questioning regarding labor issues or universal health care?
BTW, I don’t see how the filibuster could be saved. They can smoke their crak and pull the Nuclear Option whenever they want.
TallDave
They don’t care about making strategic or tactical sense. That’s why the Dems keep losing elections, and why virtually everyone Kos backs loses.
bonk
It would be straight-up insane for the Dems to filibuster Roberts – no question about it, and my fav justice is (was) William Brennan, so I’m not someone who’ll agree with Roberts much. Armando is crazy, full stop.
That said, every quote Armando cites from a senator is reasonable. It’s batshit insane that the Senate simply can’t get any substantive answers whatsoever from Supreme Court nominees, no matter what side they’re from. What we get is days and days of nothing; empty words about impartiality, ruling based on law rather than opinions, blah blah blah.
Feingold is right: senators of either party should have a right to get some information of substance about a nominee. The crux of the problem is that the only time the public is allowed to get an idea of how a justice will rule is…after it’s too late to decide whether that justice should be confirmed. And no one thinks that e.g. just because Scalia always, ALWAYS rules in favor of religious displays of any sort in public places or functions, and that he’s a member of Opus Dei, that he should recuse himself from similar cases in the future. Opinions about past cases do NOT disqualify a justice from ruling in the future, and you simply can’t assess a justice without getting opinions on previous cases. I think the public has a right to a full assessment before a lifetime appointment to one of our most powerful governmental institutions.
It’s nuts, and I’d say the same if President Dean was nominating a clone of WIlliam Brennan. I don’t know how to fix it outside of a filibuster (which again, I oppose), but that doesn’t make it any better.
Angry Engineer
I’m no fan of Bush, but Robert’s performance during the hearings was pretty impressive, and I’d be hard-pressed to think of any reason why he shouldn’t be confirmed. He seems like a poor target for mouth-foaming hatred.
Trent
Here’s a sincere question for the conservatives here:
What are your desired results for a remade Supreme Court? What are the list of things that you would like accomplished/struck down/upheld, whatever…
The whole Supreme Court discussion is so vague other than Roe v Wade that it would be nice to put some concreteness to it.
And please be more specific than Roberts. :-)
Geek, Esq.
Am I the only person who found the hearings informative and useful?
Of course there were stupid and useless moments (Would you agree that being dead is the opposite of being alive?) but I came away pretty convinced that the John Roberts testifying this week was not the same John Roberts that wrote those memos 20 years ago.
People do change over time.
Jorge
Um, am I the only one who was there when Thinkprogress launched. The site stated that its mission was to provide talking points for Progressives to fight every battle versus Conservatives. It is meant to be a counter to all of the Republican talking point sources. It has a very different mission than this site.
Defense Guy
I heard Schumer say yesterday that Roberts is not an extremist or an ideologue and that he has the best knowledge of the law of anyone he has ever seen. I’m sure it’s a done deal.
goonie bird
When there a demacratic president the repubicans should filibuster all their requests
Randolph Fritz
“I’d be hard-pressed to think of any reason why he shouldn’t be confirmed.”
Because he seems to have a sharp answer generator where his compassion ought to be. He seems not to have empathy for people outside his social circle.
“For if ye should love those who love you, what reward have ye? Do not also the tax-gatherers the same?”
Com Con
Is he really a member of Opus Dei? I’ve always admired and respected Scalia, but Opus Dei is some scary stuff.