I’m outta here for a relaxing week in Venezuela, home of military coups and fifty-cent beer. Ross and Brian will be holding down the fort while I’m gone. As a parting gift, click on the picture below (via Erin Lady Byrne) to hear the greatest political song ever recorded.

See you next week.

Hey everyone, Ross A Lincoln here.

Aside from the Press that being a mushy, collaborating pansy gives you, what benefit is there in proving that you’re a “reasonable liberal”? You get your picture in the papers, but golly, who would be so politically short sighted that they’d sacrifice party strength and future electoral gains, undermining the public image of the left by living up to the Liberals = Wimps without real principles slur? Ta-DA! Enter the gang of 14.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Three members of the Senate’s “Gang of 14″ are downplaying the possibility of a Democratic filibuster to block the nomination of Judge John Roberts Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court.
…

The 14 agreed to limit their support of filibusters to what they termed “extraordinary circumstances,” derailing any GOP move to use the “nuclear option” and change Senate rules to prevent the tactic.
“I think that Judge Roberts deserves an up-or-down vote,” McCain said

I haven’t posted much about John Robert, but then what can I say? Bush nominated him, he’s been in and out of their most nefarious nonsense for the better part of a decade, and he’s got that creepy Stern, But Loving father look about him, that you just know hides underneath it a vicious, intractable disgust for what most Americans do when he can’t see them.

We can bet our bottom dollar that no matter how “nice” he is, (Reid awkwardly told us that by “all accounts,” he’s just sooo nice, didn’t he?) he’s guaranteed to reliably oppose just about everything we give a damn about. However self defeating democrats attempting to be reasonable delude themselves, there’s not a chance in SoCal that he won’t roll over and give Bush and his funders and fundamentalists exactly what they’re paying him for.

Sure he’ll act reasonable now, but anyone who’s paid attention knows in their bones that it’s a show. He gets to play the part of quiet, unassuming conservative-but-nonpartisan nice guy, while those Nasty Dems cruelly demand that he explain his positions on the things he might have to think about as a justice. THE HORROR! Fact is, should the pro choice balance of the SCOTUS tilts just one step further to the right, the first time a Roe V. Wade, or worse, a Griswold v. Connecticut related case comes before the court, you can bet on a vote against sexual freedom and personal privacy.

That’s the thing that matters the most here. As I mentioned in my previous post, it’s useless for us to try and pretend that we’re just slightly less preachy and intrusive Republicans. They already have the moral outrage shtick locked up and any attempts to glean some of that from them look pathetically transparent. Instead, to take my point further, I think our best option is to enthusiastically support sexual freedom and personal privacy without any wussy caveats and exceptions. We might not stop this guy, but we can start going on record for our actual principles.

And Why not? Why can’t the politicians who supposedly come from our side, no matter their particular beliefs, just be brave enough to come out as ardent supporters of the right of adults to enjoy themselves without fear that republicans will shame them?

What does this have to do with the gang of 14? And yes, I know that mentioned Harry Potter in my title. Don’t worry, we’re getting there, I promise. It’s a weak metaphor I realize, but I love the book, so bear with me.
(more…)

Let’s face it. Absent some extraordinary revelation, John Roberts is going to be on the Supreme Court. So, at the very least, can we chill out on all the filibuster talk at least until the hearings start? As Salon explains, the Dems don’t have the numbers to stop him :

No one is throwing in the towel just yet, but even hardcore progressive activists must be finding it hard to hold out hope that they can derail George W. Bush’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.

It’s all about the math. The Republicans hold 55 seats in the Senate. Assuming that we don’t learn about some tawdry elements in John Roberts’ past — and probably even if we do — we can guarantee you that every last one of those Republicans will vote in favor of Roberts’ nomination. That’s more than enough votes to provide Roberts the simple majority he needs for confirmation.

Yes, the Democrats could conceivably try to filibuster the nomination, and if at least 40 of them stuck together, they could keep Roberts’ nomination from coming to the Senate floor for a vote. But if the Democrats were to go down that road, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist would almost certainly begin dusting off the nuclear option, and it’s pretty clear that there won’t be enough renegade Republicans this time around to stop him.

And more depressingly, as Ezra put it, we probably had this one coming.

Liberals need to be careful how they play this one. I’ve heard a fair number of folks demanding that Democrats force the nuclear option, and that any who don’t should be disowned by the party’s base. At this point, that’s idiotic.

As we begin this battle, a few facts should be kept in mind. First and foremost, President Bush will nominate and the Senate will confirm a conservative judge. As McCain says, elections have consequences, and this is one of them. If we somehow shut down the Senate and force Bush to pick a different candidate, the replacement will also be conservative. There is no possible outcome where Roberts is replaced by a liberal, or even a moderate. Without a majority, we’re just not going to get an agreeable judge.

So the question, on Roberts, is how to lose. One way or the other, we will lose, all that matters is how we look while we flame out. And the first rule there is that we shouldn’t look like a bunch of rabid ideologues begging for a battle. We should want to confirm this judge. We should. We should hope Bush has nominated someone easily confirmable, who will spend the next few decades blessing the Court with enlightened jurisprudence. If and when facts come out that say otherwise, we should reluctantly, sadly admit them into the analysis. And when the vote finally comes due, after his opinions are well known and our thoughts on those opinions are widely broadcast, we should vote no and lose well.

As conservatives are apt to say, if Democrats are so upset about this, they should try winning a few elections for a change. If Roberts turns out to be the hard-right ideologue we’re all hoping he isn’t, the Democrats shouldn’t once again reward the American public’s short-term memory by politely ignoring facts that make their opponents look bad.

Pay attention America. John Roberts is the man who you chose to be on the Supreme Court by virtue of your votes for George Bush. If you disagree with him on abortion, affirmative action, civil liberties, or any other issues, it’s your own goddamned fault for spending more time wondering about whether John Kerry threw his medals or ribbons than who would be the person making the next 2-4 lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court.

From the GOP briefing memo on the John Roberts confirmation :

critics who attack Roberts’ unstated views on abortion are simply attempting to impose a religious litmus test on nominees, i.e., practicing religious (especially Christians) need not apply

I wish I could be shocked by this level of arrogance and self-righteousness, but this is, sadly, par for the course in the current GOP. As far as they’re concerned, the GOP position is the religious position and any attack on their political ideas is a bigoted attack on religious expression.

C’mon, liberal and mainstream Christians. When are you going to stand up to these dickheads who have co-oped your lord to push through a xenophobic and extremist agenda?? Seriously. We’re long overdue for a “Have you no sense of decency?” moment.

UPDATE : By the way, there was a time when, say, comparing a political figure to Jesus was considered sacrilegious. If anyone was looking for a reason to call bullshit on the Republican abuse of Christianity, here’s an excellent opportunity. The Dems should start playing the “Why haven’t you refuted these remarks?” game the the GOP leadership on this one.

Atrios is so right about this one. The fact that the White House was clearly feeding bullshit through the press about the nomination of Edith Brown Clement yesterday is an outrage. Looking back at the Bush’s press conference that morning, his wink and a nod to the question about Clement seems to indicate that the plan to decieve the public went all the way to the top. Any reporter who still thinks their anonymous sources deserve protection after having their trust exploited like this is an ethically bankrupt hack. This isn’t about whistleblowers, it’s about a bunch of media elites too cowardly to do the right thing if it means the possiblity of losing any access.

Heh. I love that the President, in a clear attempt to deflect attention away from the Plame scandal, pushed forward a nominee to the Supreme Court that’s been described as “non-controversial”, “affable”, and “boring”. If they honestly thought somebody as bland as John Roberts would dominate the news for 6-8 weeks, then the White House is even more off its game than I thought.

Please tell me this is a joke. The exact same attacks again??

The most enlightening thing you can read about the upcoming confirmation hearing for John Roberts is this transcript (huge PDF warning) of his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee two years ago. (via How Appealing) Since the focus seems to be on Roe v. Wade lately, here are some exchanges that might shed some light on where Roberts stands.

Senator DURBIN. So, in 1991, you are in the Solicitor General’s Office, and in Rust v. Sullivan, you end up signing on to a brief which calls for overturning Roe v. Wade, one of the more controversial Supreme Court cases of my lifetime. When we asked repeatedly in questions of you what your position is on Roe v. Wade, you have basically danced away and said, “No, no, my personal views mean nothing. I am just going to apply the law.”

This, in my mind, is evasive. I need to hear something more definitive from you. Was the statement in that brief an expression of your personal and legal feelings about Roe v. Wade, that it should be repealed?

What is your position today, in terms of that decision?

Mr. ROBERTS. The statement in the brief was my position as an advocate for a client. We were defending a Health and Human Services program in which the allegation was that the regulations issued by the Department of Health and Human Services burdened the constitutional right to an abortion recognized in Roe v. Wade.

At that time, it was the position of the administration, articulated in four different briefs filed with the Supreme Court, briefs that I hadn’t worked on, that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

Now, if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, the challenge to the regulations that we were tasked with defending would fail, and so it was appropriate in that case to include that argument. I think it was all of one or two sentences. The bulk of the brief was addressed to why the regulations were valid, in any event.

But since that was the administration position, and the administration was my client, I reiterated that position in the brief because it was my responsibility to defend that HHS program.

Senator DURBIN. Understood. I have been an attorney, represented a client, sometimes argued a position that I did not necessarily buy, personally. And so I am asking you today what is your position on Roe v. Wade?

Mr. ROBERTS. I don’t—Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. It is not—it’s a little more than settled. It was reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be overruled in the Casey decision. Accordingly, it’s the settled law of the land. There’s nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as Casey.

Not exactly music to the ears of Roberts’ Operation Rescue defenders. Care to elaborate a little further Mr. Roberts?

Mr. ROBERTS. Roe v. Wade is an interpretation of the Court’s prior precedents. You can read the opinion beginning not just with Griswold, which is the case everybody begins with, but going even further back in other areas involving the right to privacy, Meyer v. Nebraska, pierce v. Society of Sisters, cases involving education. And what the Court explained in that case was the basis for the recognition of that right.

Now, that case and these others—certainly Brown was subjected to criticism at the time as an example of judicial activism. Miranda was as well. But, again, all I can do as a nominee is look to the rationale that the Supreme Court has articulated.

Senator SCHUMER. So you don’t think Roe v. Wade was judicial activism as you defined it in your—

Mr. ROBERTS. The Court explained in its opinion the legal basis, and because the Court has done that, I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to criticize it as judicial activism. The dissent certainly thought it was and explained why, but the Court has explained what it saw as the constitutional basis for its decision.

My definition of judicial activism is when the Court departs from applying the rule of law and undertakes legislative or executive decisions.

So, based on his appearance before the Senate, Roberts isn’t quite the hardliner that Bush promised and we feared. Then again, when pressed on his judicial philosophy, he wasn’t exactly forthcoming :

Senator DURBIN. I found your answer evasive. When I look at what you had to say about your philosophy, you said, “In short, I do not think beginning with an all-encompassing approach to constitutional interpretation is the best way to faithfully construe the document,” and then you went on to say I am not going to draw any conclusions on the Supreme Court decisions.

I need more. I need to hear more from you about where you are coming from and, at least hypothetically, if you agree that those who call themselves strict constructionists would not likely be in the vanguard of the socially important Supreme Court decisions that we have seen in Brown v. Board, Miranda or Roe v. Wade.

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, Senator, I don’t know if that’s a flaw for a judicial nominee or not, not to have a comprehensive philosophy about constitutional interpretation, to be able to say, “I’m an originalist, I’m a textualist, I’m a literalist or this or that.” I just don’t feel comfortable with any of those particular labels. One reason is that as the Constitution uses the term “inferior court judge,” I’ll be bound to follow the Supreme Court precedent regardless of what type of constructionist I, personally, might be.
[. . .]
Senator DURBIN. That is a reasonable answer. It is also a safe answer, and I am not going to question your motive in that answer. I accept it at face value as being an honest answer, but it raises the question that comes up time and again. If this job is so automatic, if the role of a judge is strictly to apply the precedent, then, frankly, I think we would have as many Democrats being proposed by the Bush White House as we do Republicans, but we do not. They understand that it is not automatic, it is not mechanical.

There are going to be discretionary and subjective elements in decisions, and that is why we have people coming from major law firms who have made a living representing rather wealthy clients. We have people who are conservative in their philosophy. We have many, many members of the vaunted Federalist Society, which my Chairman is so proud to be part of, all of these people come before us because I think, when it gets beyond the obvious, we understand that there is subjectivity here.

Again and again, when pressed to state his personal preferences, John Roberts obfuscated, reminding the Senators that the role of an appellate judge is to apply Supreme Court precedents, not to question them. You’ll be hearing a lot on the right about how John Roberts has already been confirmed once, but it bears repeating that the answers that Roberts gave in his previous testimony aren’t applicable to a Supreme Court confirmation. He shouldn’t be allowed to stonewall again on questions of judicial philosophy.

Needless to say, Roberts’ mealy-mouthed answers give me a lot of reservations about what kind of jurist he’d be. My continuing hesitancy can be summed up by this statement by Ted Kennedy earlier in the transcript :

President Bush ran on a platform of selecting judges who will be like Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas. We all understand that meant judges who will be activists in reducing the power of Congress to protect people’s rights. You must understand, as everyone else does, that you were selected because those at the White House and the Justice Department knew your record and assured the President your decisions would please President Bush.

Since the President made sure to cover all his bases by picking someone who has very little experience on the bench and a lifetime of opinions that he can blame on his clients (whether fairly or not), our best bet is to research the hell out of this guy and be prepared for some serious grilling.

There’s nothing that Fox News hates more than having to cover a story that makes the President look bad. That’s probably why they temper their coverage of the Plame scandal with teasers of completely irrelevant bullshit (via Crooks and Liars) :

Stay tuned guys! When we’re done with this boring stuff we’ll talk about the sex teacher. Also, stick around through our fleeting coverage of the latest suicide bombings in Iraq for an encore presentation of the hour-long documentary, Big Butt Sluts Go Nuts, an expose on what happens to our vulnerable little girls during spring break and why they deserve it.

Just to put things in perspective, my website is older than the judicial career of the man George Bush chose to put on our highest court. Not that his inexperience means that the President has any doubts about how John Roberts is going to rule on issues like abortion. You don’t pluck somebody from the mailroom to be CEO unless you know what you’re getting. With a resume light on jobs that require a black robe, the Roberts pick is less about picking the right man for the job and more about screwing the American people out of the ability to adequately evaluate the President’s choice. I’ll keep my fingers crossed until the hearings, but I’m not gonna get my hopes up.

You also have to wonder how seriously the President takes this appointment when it’s been hastily announced in a transparent attempt to deflect attention away from the Plame matter.