Shit, meet the Fan

[snuffbox 0]

Justice - Do you really believe that Roberts is the best person for this job?

[The Robfather 0]

I am interested to see how one of my senators votes on Roberts... Mary Landrieu.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Why Roberts looks likely to win (MSNBC)

When he was nominated for the appeals court for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2003, he was praised by Walter Dellinger and Seth Waxman — two former solicitors general in the Clinton administration. And, Roberts is respected by the Washington legal establishment as one of the very best Supreme Court advocates of the present day.

 

Dem Strickland sees Roberts as "first-rate" (Denver Post)

Strickland, a two-time U.S. Senate candidate and now managing partner of Hogan & Hartson's Denver office, acknowledged that Roberts, a Republican, "is of a different affiliation and political orientation," yet "is superbly qualified and a gifted lawyer."

 

"I see the world differently than John on a number of issues, but he is widely hailed for his intellect, integrity and talent," Strickland said. "If you set aside partisan filters, you have to acknowledge that this is a person of superb qualifications to serve on the highest court."

 

Roberts had argued many cases before the Supreme Court and was "widely viewed as one of the top appellate lawyers" in the nation, Strickland said. "The president has done well to go to the top cadre."

 

"Were I in the U.S. Senate, I would be inclined to be very favorably disposed to confirmation," Strickland said, adding that, given the opportunity, he'd tell Colorado's Democratic Sen. Ken Salazar that Roberts is a "first-rate" candidate for the court.

 

I'd say this guy has it made, and it's probably good, as the Democrats need to keep their focus on the Rove scandal and not let shiny objects distract them.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Firstly, I really want to commend JOTW for being the only THINKING liberal in the CE folder. There rest of you...wow.

 

Roberts is about as moderate of a choice as Bush is going to throw out. Why? Because he WON this right. I said the same thing about Clinton. When you win, you get to dictate the agenda and players.

 

Roberts is going to be very difficult for the Dems to filibuster. Do you know how badly a filibuster is viewed (its the equivalent of blowing your load politically).

 

/Aside JOTW, its actually opposite. Most Americans are actually more identified with conservative values than liberal (no change vs. change). However, the country is still evenly split with about 1/3 strongly democrat and the othe 1/3 strongly republican. Had the US been so strongly liberal, Kerry would have won. It's quite the opposite.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

I am interested to see how one of my senators votes on Roberts... Mary Landrieu.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I imagine Landrieu will vote for him. Since Louisiana is a conservative state and she had to run on a conservative platform to a certain degree to win down there in December 2002 I don't think she'd appease her supporters much by voting 'no.' Also, Landrieu tends to not follow the Democratic party line as much as some people may think (for example, she voted to close the floor for debate over the John Bolton nomination and I believe voted for Bush's three nominees in the compromise).

 

As far as the arguement of cronyism is concerned, WHAT US President doesn't do that? Someone referenced how I'd feel if Bill Clinton nominated one of his lawyers to the SC and as far as I'm concerned I'd feel fine with it. The President gets to pick whoever they want to fill the seat and if they think one member of their legal team would do a good job then they should I have every right to pick them, whether they be liberal or conservative. I don't see this nomination as a 'payback' for anything for Mr. Roberts and can't say I'm too surprised by him getting the nod considering that Bush loves people from his father's tenure in the White House (ex. Cheney).

 

By the way, Ann Coulter according to the Drudge Report this morning has come out and blasted the nomination claiming that we'll get another David Souter on the bench. Just thought that was an interesting backlash from the far-right, although I don't believe it'll translate into the right killing this nomination.

[Justice 0]

Justice - Do you really believe that Roberts is the best person for this job?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

From what I've read so far, he sounds fairly good. The fact that he passed so easily through his CoA confirmation, even after being part of the Bush team in 2000 would suggest quite simply that his record is stronger than what any of you will admit. Perhaps while catching breathes between "OMG ABORTION" and "OMG BUSH V. GORE" you could, maybe, check his record. From what I've seen, he's gotten glowing reviews and recommendations from almost everyone. So please, put up a reason why he shouldn't be on the court.

 

We're innocent 'til proven guilty, aren't we?

 

On JOTW: 8 years? Want this to end a little too soon?

 

I dunno if I'd call that 'cronyism'. Just because he was nominated before doesn't mean he's OMG BUSH PAWN. It just shows that he was something back then, and he's something now. I mean, what if it had been 4 years earlier and Reagan had nominated him? I don't see that as a problem, just that he's been on the docket waiting for a chance. I can understand other accusations of 'cronyism', but this... this doesn't seem like it. Hell, any SC nomination from a Republican would naturally be old enough that he was involved with the 1st Bush or even Reagan. It's just to be expected because lawyers, clerks, and judges have a long shelf life.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

On JOTW: 8 years? Want this to end a little too soon?

 

I guess you didn't interpret that right, but I was including Pops' administration, too. I know that father and son aren't clones of each other and he's probably not asking his Dad to help him out on everything like I used to suggest years ago during 9/11 ("We got an emergency, we're being attacked and Daddy's phone is busy!") but there's so many of the same guys in that administration that are in this administration, that I kind of just blend their years together into on long blur.

 

It just shows that he was something back then, and he's something now. I mean, what if it had been 4 years earlier and Reagan had nominated him?

 

Maybe. If Reagan had nominated him it would have been a little different, since it wouldn't further connect him to a family legacy. This is why I don't like legacies in office.

 

Kind of just seems like there's a tad of a good ol' boy system in place, with friends and acquantainces being given cushy or powerful jobs. The Bush family wouldn't be the only ones to be accused of this. Remember MikeSC's rant about Janet Reno and how it was clear that Clinton was just giving cabnet positions to friends and that it would be insane to think there wasn't another American, somewhere, who was better qualified to do the job?

 

Same token I'm playing here.

 

It's just to be expected because lawyers, clerks, and judges have a long shelf life.

Maybe. I guess in light of who was being replaced, I was just hoping more for an outsider than an insider. Still, insider question mark who seems okay is better than an outsider bible thumper.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Former Clinton admins are saying its a good choice

 

hell, everyone in DC seems to be saying (hmm, good choice, weird)

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

Mr. Santorum called Judge Roberts "exactly what this court needs."

That has me a little concerned.

[SuperJerk 0]

Firstly, I really want to commend JOTW for being the only THINKING liberal in the CE folder.  There rest of you...wow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, excuse me for also pointing out that maybe Bush shouldn't be using the Supreme Court to reward people who've helped him with his political battles. Oh, wait, I just realized...I must not have been thinking because I came to a conclusion that disagrees with your opinion, right?

 

And I guess my calling the Democrats on their abortion hypocrisy was thoughtless.

 

Seriously, dude, quit being so fucking arrogant.

 

 

Most Americans are actually more identified with conservative values than liberal (no change vs. change). However, the country is still evenly split with about 1/3 strongly democrat and the othe 1/3 strongly republican.

 

It depends on how you define "liberal" and "conservative" values, doesn't it? Oh wait...I disagreed with you again. I wasn't thinking.

 

 

Speaking of intelligent, well thought out opinions...

 

So please, when talking about that as some sort of disadvantage, consider that he was called in to work on the biggest case in the century or so.

 

Yeah, sure it was.

[Justice 0]

Yeah, excuse me for also pointing out that maybe Bush shouldn't be using the Supreme Court to reward people who've helped him with his political battles.

 

Win political battles? God, seriously man. He was up for the appealate spot back in the early 90s after his work in the Reagan and Bush Administrations. His record seems very solid. He has numerous, numerous endorsements from both sides of the aisle.

 

And this is supposed to be an obvious Bush payoff?

 

He's not being rewarded for 'helping Bush win political battles'. Looking at his record now, with his long history in the Reagan and Bush Administrations, he seems like he was slated as a SC choice LONG before GW was around. His fast-track was simply delayed by a Democratic Senate and then a Democratic president. He's obviously qualified, and the amount of bipartisan support that seems to be coming out for him makes it seem as though he was going to be a #1 choice sometime in the future, no matter who the President was. Perhaps if he had ONLY worked on that case and was getting in, you'd have an argument. But this guy looks like he was a high-riser years ago and he's finally reaching the summit.

 

He's not getting the spot because he helped Bush's team in 2000, he was on Bush's team in 2000 because he was a possible future Supreme Court Justice.

 

Yeah, sure it was.

 

I'm sorry, but Bush v. Gore was one of the highest-stakes trials in the history of the US, and one of the biggest decisions ever. Seriously, there aren't many that are more important to the United States than this one's with its aftermath.

 

Being chosen for one of those legal teams is more than party hackery, it's an honor.

Edited July 20, 2005 by Justice

[Special K 0]

You, know, I don't know a thing about this Roberts guy yet, and I'm pro-choice, but I think Roe V Wade is complete bullshit. If you look at the case, you'll see the same thing.

[Gary Floyd 0]

He's gonna get in.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for the Punishment forcast

 

Also, is it just me, or does this guy look a little bit like Bill Murray?

 

Also, can't the Bush Administration not pick up a guy who's sparked controversy or under investigation? Is it that hard for them to do?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Also, can't the Bush Administration not pick up a guy who's sparked controversy or under investigation? Is it that hard for them to do?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can please all of the people some of the time, and you can please some of the people all of the time...

[NoCalMike 0]

Umm, when did I suggest that Roberts was horrible for the job? Was I ever really making that much of an uproar at all? I was being sarcastic mostly, when responding to snuffbox, as me and him were obviously speaking in a joking manner.

[SuperJerk 0]

Yeah, excuse me for also pointing out that maybe Bush shouldn't be using the Supreme Court to reward people who've helped him with his political battles.

 

Win political battles? God, seriously man. He was up for the appealate spot back in the early 90s after his work in the Reagan and Bush Administrations. His record seems very solid. He has numerous, numerous endorsements from both sides of the aisle.

 

That just raises the question: why would someone who is up for an appointment to the judiciary working for Bush's legal team?

 

He's not getting the spot because he helped Bush's team in 2000, he was on Bush's team in 2000 because he was a possible future Supreme Court Justice.

 

Wording it THAT WAY makes it actually sound like a BIGGER conflict of interests.

 

 

I'm sorry, but Bush v. Gore was one of the highest-stakes trials in the history of the US, and one of the biggest decisions ever. Seriously, there aren't many that are more important to the United States than this one's with its aftermath.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So now its gone from being one of the most important cases of the last century to being one of the most important cases ever?

 

First of all, you're basically admitting that it was the Supreme Cpurt's stopping of the recount that gave Bush the White House. Last time I checked, that wasn't how the good conservatives of America was spinning it.

 

Second, the impact of the decision, and the full effects of the Bush Presidency, won't be known for a while yet. To claim this case is more important than the overturning of segregation, the elimination of school sponsored prayer, the Court's support for the New Deal, or the legalization of abortion, is an exaggeration of vast proportions.

[The Czech Republic 0]

As for the cronyism in the Bush Admin.: it's bad, but it's not Warren Harding bad.

[Justice 0]

Yeah, excuse me for also pointing out that maybe Bush shouldn't be using the Supreme Court to reward people who've helped him with his political battles.

 

Win political battles? God, seriously man. He was up for the appealate spot back in the early 90s after his work in the Reagan and Bush Administrations. His record seems very solid. He has numerous, numerous endorsements from both sides of the aisle.

 

That just raises the question: why would someone who is up for an appointment to the judiciary working for Bush's legal team?

 

Perhaps because Democrats blocked his confirmation to a higher position, he's well-known to anyone on the conservative side, and he'd probably be looking for a high-profile case to put on his resume.

 

Wording it THAT WAY makes it actually sound like a BIGGER conflict of interests.

 

Well, the fact is they chose the guy because he was that good. If you got the chance to procure the services of a guy who might be SC-Material, would you waste that opportunity?

 

So now its gone from being one of the most important cases of the last century to being one of the most important cases ever?

 

It basically ended the biggest election debacle ever. That's pretty big, any which way you cut it. I really don't understand how you can try to undercut how big Bush v. Gore really was.

 

First of all, you're basically admitting that it was the Supreme Cpurt's stopping of the recount that gave Bush the White House. Last time I checked, that wasn't how the good conservatives of America was spinning it.

 

Hey, let's jump to conclusions out of nowhere, eh? No, it ended the entire debacle of a recount, and ended one helluva Constitutional crisis. That's pretty 'big' in my book.

 

So I'm not saying the Court 'gave' Bush the White House. I'm saying that it was one of the largest cases of our times. When two potential Presidential Candidates are arguing over a disputed election recount. That's a big deal, especially in the immediate.

 

Are you trying to deny that Bush v. Gore wasn't important at all?

 

Second, the impact of the decision, and the full effects of the Bush Presidency, won't be known for a while yet.

 

Uh, dude, it brought an end to a huge Constitutional Crisis in the making fairly decisively. The immediate impact was pretty big, I'd say.

 

To claim this case is more important than the overturning of segregation, the elimination of school sponsored prayer, the Court's support for the New Deal, or the legalization of abortion, is an exaggeration of vast proportions.

 

Congratulations for putting words in my mouth. First off, I never weighed in on where it stood, but it was nonetheless a very important decision. I'd say it ranks up there because it's the first time ever that two presidential candidates have ever (And hopefully will ever) come to the Court disputing the methodology of election system, particularly state recounts. The players involved and the stakes were high, and even if it was a one-shot deal, it was fairly important.

 

That fact that you can't get over Bush v. Gore being a pretty crucial case for it's help in ending the 2000 Election Crisis, averting what could have been a veritable shitstorm in Congress, is mindboggling. Things don't need to be a 'precedent case' to be important.

 

Oh, and I'd say your priorities are mixed up on your cases: Seriously, no M v. M? Schenck? Miranda? Griswold? If you gonna try and take me to school on what's important and what isn't, how about getting some better cases? Brown is about the only one I care about in that when it comes to precendent importance. Talk about 'an exaggeration of vast proportions'...

[Art Sandusky 0]

I don't mind this dude. If he's got the credentials to be a Justice and follows the Constitution to the best of his abilities, then great. I mean, no one ever picks the best anything for these big offices. There's probably some laywer out in the Oregon/Idaho border area who would be the best Justice ever, but you'd never know it.

[SuperJerk 0]

It basically ended the biggest election debacle ever. That's pretty big, any which way you cut it. I really don't understand how you can try to undercut how big Bush v. Gore really was.

 

There have been bigger election debacles in American history.

 

All the case did was end a recount. According to the state election officials, the outcome had already been determined.

 

 

Hey, let's jump to conclusions out of nowhere, eh? No, it ended the entire debacle of a recount, and ended one helluva Constitutional crisis. That's pretty 'big' in my book.

 

Constitutional crisis? In order for it to be a Constitutional crisis, different branches of the government would've had to have been in conflict. WATERGATE was a Constitutional crisis. Bush v. Gore was a hiccup by comparison.

 

Congratulations for putting words in my mouth. First off, I never weighed in on where it stood, but it was nonetheless a very important decision.

 

Not to call you a liar or anything, but here's what you ACTUALLY said:

 

So please, when talking about that as some sort of disadvantage, consider that he was called in to work on the biggest case in the century or so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

AND

 

I'm sorry, but Bush v. Gore was one of the highest-stakes trials in the history of the US, and one of the biggest decisions ever. Seriously, there aren't many that are more important to the United States than this one's with its aftermath.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So calling it the "biggest case in the century or so" and "one of the biggest decisions ever" isn't weighing in where you stand on its importance?

 

Excuse me, Mr. Justice, but I do believe your pants are on fire.

 

 

Oh, and I'd say your priorities are mixed up on your cases: Seriously, no M v. M? Schenck? Miranda? Griswold? If you gonna try and take me to school on what's important and what isn't, how about getting some better cases?

 

Now who's putting words in people's mouths? I never said my examples were every single case that was more important than Bush v. Gore. Did I? DID I?

 

Also...if "M v. M" is supposed to mean Marbury v. Madison or McCulloch v. Maryland, I'll remind you that was not a decision which took place "in the century or so", as you so awkwardly put it.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Christ people, none of the piddling protest is gonna mean shit in five years. Let history go on, I wanna see what happens next.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

For pete's sake there's alot of uneccessary posting and bickering here.

 

Getting back on the subject, it appears today (from a dc persepective) that we're going to enjoy a long confirmation, but no filibuster. Most everyone is pretty much saying this guy was as close to a non-controversial pick as you could get.

 

guess the confirmation hearings will be fun...webcasts!

 

/aside...stupid pro-choice protestors making most pro-choicers look crazy...we don't even know where he stands yet, please dont have rash protests, he wrote that opinion for a client, which is different from his opinion, and his only stated opinion was that its just law (meaning Roe) now, and he upholds just law...

 

yawns

[Vyce 0]

Firstly, I really want to commend JOTW for being the only THINKING liberal in the CE folder.  There rest of you...wow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, excuse me for also pointing out that maybe Bush shouldn't be using the Supreme Court to reward people who've helped him with his political battles.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I find you remarkable, in that you represent every 'virtue' of liberals that has led to them becoming the minority party. Congrats.

 

As for Roberts, I'm going to laugh really hard when he gets a relatively easy confirmation. You think the Dems will filibuster? Not going to happen. The precious little 'Gang of 14' has already said, if the Dems even think about it, they're going to lose. Republicans are going to support Roberts, and more than a few Democrats will as well.

 

This was as smart of a choice as Bush could have made. Not only did he choose someone who will likely get an easy confirmation, but the Dems will look REALLY bad if they try and paint Roberts as a 'right-wing extremist'.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

OMG WASHINGTON POST REPUBLICAN BIAS LOL2005!!!

 

Credit: Washington Post

You can follow the next two months of political thrashing and hullabaloo over the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, or you can get the whole thing over with by looking at how he handled a single french fry.

 

Thanks to a ninth-grader at Deal Junior High School who in 2000 committed the horrifying crime of eating a fry in the Tenleytown Metro station, we have as strong a look inside Roberts's mind as we're likely to get from weeks of investigation and hearings.

 

 

Download audio transcripts of Marc Fisher's previous Talk Live call-in shows or subscribe to the XML podcast.

 

Ansche Hedgepeth was only 12 when a Metro police officer caught her, fry in hand, as she waited for her Red Line train. Under the system's zero-tolerance, no-eating policy, the cop arrested Ansche, cuffed her and took her in. An adult in that situation would have gotten a citation, but District law said minors were to be taken into custody until retrieved by a parent.

 

The french fry case hit John Whitehead's buttons. A Charlottesville lawyer whose Rutherford Institute fights for civil liberties from a conservative perspective, Whitehead took on Ansche's case, arguing that the government had gone too far. The matter wound up in the U.S. Court of Appeals, and Roberts's decision last fall shows him to be a witty writer with the confidence to show some heart. He seems pleased that after "the sort of publicity reserved for adults who make young girls cry," Metro changed its policy and no longer arrests young snackers. Roberts recognizes that Ansche wants the charges nullified because no one wants to have to say yes to that standard application question, "Ever been arrested?"

 

But Roberts quickly divorces himself from the human side of the case. He has no sympathy for the notion that Ansche was discriminated against because of her age. Roberts says government has every right to treat children differently, setting age requirements for voting, marriage, driving and drinking. Anyway, he notes, the fact that Metro changed its policy so quickly shows "that the interests of children are not lightly ignored by the political process." But Roberts rejects the idea that the court should weigh in on whether the police trampled on Ansche's freedom.

 

President Bush has always said he likes judges who take a limited view of their role, who stick to the facts without imposing their political interpretations. But that's all political rhetoric: Every case requires every judge to interpret the law. The question is what philosophy guides them.

 

At every turn in the french fry case, Roberts defers to authority. He says Metro's policy of arresting kids "promotes parental awareness and involvement" by requiring parents to pick up their misbehaving child.

 

Roberts may personally doubt Metro's arrest policy -- "it is far from clear that [the arrest is] worth the youthful trauma and tears" -- but he concludes "it is not our place to second-guess such legislative judgments."

 

There's the Roberts philosophy. He repeats it throughout the opinion: It's not the court's role to tell police whether an arrest is reasonable if the officer has probable cause. It's not the court's place to consider Ansche's constitutional rights if Metro has already changed its rules.

 

As Whitehead told me yesterday: "He's exactly what I would expect George Bush to choose. He's very deferential to authority, whether government or business. He's not a civil libertarian. He is a thinking judge and he sees Ansche's pain. But he's like the father that comes to whip you and says, 'This hurts me more than it hurts you.' He just doesn't see that the letter of the law only works when it applies to human beings."

 

The french fry case tells the story of someone much like the president -- a man who embraces the rhetoric of limited government but defers to and protects government authority. Roberts will disappoint both ends of the spectrum. He's neither an Antonin Scalia nor a William Douglas, justices whose personal passions bled through their judicial opinions, making them polarizing but creative and influential.

 

The reporting on Roberts describes him as a conservative Republican, but a single french fry reveals more about who he is on the bench: a judge who sees it as his task to separate the mess and emotions of daily life from the letter of the law.

[Justice 0]

There have been bigger election debacles in American history. 

 

All the case did was end a recount.  According to the state election officials, the outcome had already been determined.

 

Uh... Not really. 1876 and 1800, were perhaps bigger. But there are very, very few election debacles that top 2000, especially considering it went on for over a month and finally ended in the Supreme Court.

 

Nice try for the downplay, though.

 

Constitutional crisis?  In order for it to be a Constitutional crisis, different branches of the government would've had to have been in conflict.  WATERGATE was a Constitutional crisis.  Bush v. Gore was a hiccup by comparison.

 

Uh... one of the problems came as what we were supposed to do without a President, and what was going to happen if the Florida electors didn't vote, putting it into sudden death overtime in Congress. While Constitutional Crisis usually come into play with conflicts between branches, some situtations that were never planned or have ever happened (indeed, recounts have occurred, but not for a months time, nor with any of the baggage that this had).

 

Oh, and the entire debate on whether or not the SC could legally intervine or not when the State SC had decided.

 

Not to call you a liar or anything, but here's what you ACTUALLY said:

 

So calling it the "biggest case in the century or so" and "one of the biggest decisions ever" isn't weighing in where you stand on its importance?

 

Excuse me, Mr. Justice, but I do believe your pants are on fire.

 

Holy shit, I said in the second post it was one of the most important cases ever! Wow, this is a conflict how?

 

And uh, just so you know, this case is listed as 2000, so none of those really apply for the 'century'. Welcome to century 21, man.

 

Obviously you don't understand the concept that I did call it importance, but I didn't weigh it against other important cases.

 

So excuse me, Mr. Y2Jerk, I do believe you're an overreactive partisan idiot.

 

Now who's putting words in people's mouths?  I never said my examples were every single case that was more important than Bush v. Gore.  Did I?  DID I?

 

Holy shit, one can't take a friendly joke. Never mind, you're hopeless.

 

Also...if "M v. M" is supposed to mean Marbury v. Madison or McCulloch v. Maryland, I'll remind you that was not a decision which took place "in the century or so", as you so awkwardly put it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I said 'ever' as well, you moron. Jesus, you are so concerned with trapping me you don't even read half stuff.

 

This is a joke. You're trying to downplay the immediate importance of a case that basically helped end one of the greatest election screw-ups ever. You act there wasn't any sort of stake or importance in it at all when both sides basicaly had access to greatest lawyers of our time. Talk about partisan hackery.

Edited July 21, 2005 by Justice

[SuperJerk 0]

And uh, just so you know, this case is listed as 2000, so none of those really apply for the 'century'. Welcome to century 21, man.

 

The first day of the 21st century was 1-1-2001, Brainiac.

 

I stand by everything else I said, as well.

 

Yeah, excuse me for also pointing out that maybe Bush shouldn't be using the Supreme Court to reward people who've helped him with his political battles.

 

I find you remarkable, in that you represent every 'virtue' of liberals that has led to them becoming the minority party. Congrats.

 

As for Roberts, I'm going to laugh really hard when he gets a relatively easy confirmation. You think the Dems will filibuster? Not going to happen. The precious little 'Gang of 14' has already said, if the Dems even think about it, they're going to lose. Republicans are going to support Roberts, and more than a few Democrats will as well.

 

This was as smart of a choice as Bush could have made. Not only did he choose someone who will likely get an easy confirmation, but the Dems will look REALLY bad if they try and paint Roberts as a 'right-wing extremist'.

 

First of all, I'm sorry you lack the comprehension skills to realize liberals and Democrats aren't neccesarily one and the same. I'm not a Democrat, although on occasion their interests and mine intersect.

 

Second, your comment really makes no sense purely from the standpoint that it has NOTHING to do with what I said. It was just another one of those irrelevant attacks you're so good at.* If you're not going to address what I actually said, then please don't quote me.

 

 

*My use of "good at" was sarcasm, in case you missed it.

[Justice 0]

Pfft. All I have to say is you're saying people who are helping people out in their 'political battles' shouldn't get Supreme Court positions. This means no Attorney Generals, Solicitor Generals, anyone who has ever worked as a legal clerk for any of the above, and many many others. You're trying to judge him on one single point in his career, saying "That he was obviously put into office because of that", ignoring the fact that he's been working for various Administrations and has oh, a few dozen Bi-partisan supporters. To think he got this simply because 'He helped Bush in a political battle' is narrow-minded, especially when looking at the amount of people coming out of the woodwork to support him.

 

You've tried to somehow downplay one of the biggest election mistakes ever (And it was a Constitutional Crisis: State Power in their own electoral process in a federal election, with State and Federal governments being the conflicting two, with it finally ending with the SC overruling the State Court), and consequentially, one of the most important SC decisions ever (In effect, ending the election for President by determining that the Recount was unconsitutional in its current form). Yes, there is value and impact by ending a federal election for President, and it does have an impact, whether you'd like to admit it or not. Trying to say "We won't know for years to come" is just ignoring the fact that it ended a month of legal battles for who would become President, and it allowed us to even have a president without resorting to Congress. Hell, none of the last 5 years might have happened had they not done what they did. That's a pretty big impact, I'd say. You still haven't named any other election debacles that were larger outside of the 1800 election and 1876, which I named for you. You ignored me saying

 

It basically ended the biggest election debacle ever. That's pretty big, any which way you cut it. I really don't understand how you can try to undercut how big Bush v. Gore really was.

 

To go on your little 'liar, liar, pants on fire', which is useless when I explained the above, and for conventional dating purposes, 2000 is generally considered the start of the new millenium and century, even though there technically wasn't a year 0.

Edited July 21, 2005 by Justice

[SuperJerk 0]

To go on your little 'liar, liar, pants on fire', which is useless when I explained the above, and for conventional dating purposes, 2000 is generally considered the start of the new millenium and century, even though there technically wasn't a year 0.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Except we both know when the 20th century really ended (12-31-2000). In the future, please refrain from correcting me when you know I'm right. It'd save both of us a lot of time.

 

As far as the rest of your post goes...agree to disagree. We're not changing each other's minds, and all we're doing is saying the same stuff over and over.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I can easily undercut how important that case was.

 

"Hey, it's over, so let's like, you know, try and make now better instead of arguing about then."

 

It's not the outcome I wanted, but whatever. The system, dragged kicking and screaming, produced a President, and as the citizen over which this President now has soverignty, I look at what I can do to improve things within what I perceive as limitations with the current folks in charge. If only the Democrats did this instead of fucking bitching about everything and being a bunch of cockwads, they'd be in much better shape and could have won in 2004. Only the people in charge of the party could be so inept so as to fuck up unseating a President that had such a load of stuff against him.

 

Frankly, all that keeps me from saying I'm independent are Howard Dean as DNC chair, wanting to see and talk about people from "my party" winning and doing cool stuff, and that blue is a better color on a map than yellow or red.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

This was as smart of a choice as Bush could have made.  Not only did he choose someone who will likely get an easy confirmation, but the Dems will look REALLY bad if they try and paint Roberts as a 'right-wing extremist'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Plus they're distracting themselves from the Rove scandal, which is where the really important shit is. HOPEFULLY, that's what they do. Reid's "this guy is impressive, but we'll make an opinion later" comments give me faith that they recognize the decoy and don't take the bait.

 

Besides, if they shit their pants in reaction to this mild conservative, Republicans will say "omg obstructionist" and the Democrats will have their balls chopped off, meaning they won't be able to say squat when a seriously fucked-up rightie with a real boner for "cleaning up the culture" is nominated for the next seat.

 

The most politically savvy thing to do would be to offer a little, but not very much, resistance to Roberts. Let him through, but don't embrace him with open arms. Then, if he turns up to be a partisan figure, the Democrats can just say "Well, we didn't like him from the start." He's getting through regardless, so just make some token minor objections and then carry on.