I don't understand the argument of maintaining balance on the court, of replacing like with like.  If that were the case, we'd still have chief justices like Taney saying that blacks have "no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit."

Progress is inevitable, and we're a whole lot better off for it.

Ha!!!  He's probably in a foul mood this Labor Day.    But he would have been a wretched CJ with his acerbic attitude.

At least we're spared the spectacle of a "Thomas court."  That would have been stomach turning indeed.

I have to wonder if I am the only who thinks this is one of stupidest elections of a non-confirmed Justice to Chief Justice.  How can he be expected to direct 8 other Justices who have been together for 11 years...they must all be pissed?

No moderate, No deal.

Whether or not you think Roberts is a stealth Bork and whatever your views on ideological balance on the Court at this point we are at worst looking at replacing like with like. Rehnquist was a young, smart, ambitious judge with a short resume and Roberts is much the same. His appointment doesn't move the Court. And it opens some manuever ground for the next opening, Bush's ability to push some total disaster like Edith Jones will be limited if Roberts gets in on a tough, fair and narrow vote. 45 No's from Dems and a couple of Republicans crossing the aisle and you deliver a message.

Bush is thrashing and a filibuster would be tossing him a life ring. A ringing 'No' vote tosses him a boat anchor.

Besides Roberts may be a surprise. Atrios claims he was making a joke but the code words are tumbling all over themselves here. I mean who goes to Central America to adopt kids and finds two towheads that were born in Norway? Immediately after marrying another ambitious lifelong single lawyer in her early 40s?

The Bush Administration is one picture of Ken and Scotty showing America what a Mandate really means of imploding anyway. Let them have Roberts, the alternatives are worse.

The normal response to this is simple: No deal.  No one should be appointed to the Supreme Court without some firm, rational basis on which the Senate can advise and consent.  Let him be appointed to a lower court first, and develop a record on which he can be judged.  Roberts has a brief record--and it appears that even in that short time he's shown complete contempt for the most basic principles of fairness, in failing to recuse himself when he ought to have.

So, the argument in favor of him is "he's a complete cipher, you have no idea what he will do, but he's a damn fine corporate lawyer."  The argument against him is "he has a horrendous record of arguing against fundamental freedoms, and for arbitrary state power, and he has utter contempt for any sort of self-restraint in the interests of a fair judicial process."

Pardon me if I point out that the argument in favor is non-existent.  The argument in favor is "Bush appointed him."  But that's not an argument. It's a statement of fact. Period.

Now we're expected to take this non-argument as good enough to justify appointing him Chief Justice!

Well, I'll say one thing. It makes the appointment of Michael Brown to head FEMA look like a stroke of genius.

What is the purpose of opposing Roberts?

Are we hoping against hope that he won't be confirmed?

Do we think we can convince the gang of 14 to accept a filibuster?  Do we think a filibuster is even sustainable?

Are we just trying to muster enough no votes so that his tenure on the court will be delegitimized in some way?

If by some miracle Roberts is not seated, who do we think we'll get who will be more acceptable?  I'm not saying that there aren't lots more acceptable candidates out there, but does anyone really think there's a chance that Bush will nominate someone we like better than Roberts?

What's the goal here?

The only reason he's being nominated for CJ over Scalia is because he's younger.

Conservatives forced Clinton into appointing moderates, I don't see why we should do any less.

Liberals are always doing for repubs, what repubs would not do for them.

It makes no sense. Make them send someone worth confirming.

How can a man with only two years of experience as a judge be REMOTELY qualified to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?

Where are the Democrats?????????

This is another well organized Right-Wing diversionary tactic to take many of the vocal senators off the floor of the senate and have them stuck in committee hearings.

The question is what is the response and will the Democratic get a backbone and a leader to push back the Bush administration political machine?

For a variety of reasons, I would prefer that the Senate "reject" all nominees for the next three and a half years with one exception, and that's in demanding that President Bush appoint "elected" or "formerly elected" officials to the Court.

Simply put, an elected official brings forth not only the political baggage but a more well-rounded view of America.  Waging a successful political campaign and a transparent history while holding office, will eliminate a high level of doubt on the vast array of issues that have been addressed. As such, there is very little wiggle room or hiding in the carefully nuanced shadows of public discourse,and which reduces our normative and cynical view of what America can be.

During the David Souter confirmation process in the Senate, the former Senator Bill Bradley had this to say:

"...most of what we do in this body involves shaping a part of America through the instrument of legislation;  the Court, on the other hand, defines the possibilities of an entire nation."

At the end of the day, when it comes to the Court, there is no recourse to the "lemon laws".  And "buyer's remourse" is a wasted effort and far too costly as exemplified by the Invasion of Iraq.

Perhaps, a far easier approach to 'caveat emptor' is better accomplished by nominees that have a track record as 'elected' officials.  As an aside, I too would prefer to see criminal defense attorneys, consumer law attorneys, Native American law attorneys, and water rights law attorneys sitting on the High Court.

And until Bush nominates "elected" officials, I am opposed to "appointed" officials.

Roberts getting confirmed is a dead issue. He's going to be named Chief Justice, barring some unforseen development. Now the much more important task of replacing O'Connor is upon us all over again. If he picks another WASP I'm going to be sick.

We have no idea how this guy is going to vote on key issues, which already makes him better than 9/10ths of the candidates Bush had in mind. A very conservative president is in power along with a conservative legislature. It is his right--and duty--to the people that elected him to nominate someone that share's their viewpoint no matter how much the losers (us) dislike it. Would we expect anything different if liberals were in control? Would you expect a liberal president to throw the religious right a bone and elect a conservative? LOL! Believe what you will about the elections, but the fact remains Bush was elected. We exposed the lead-in to the war, exposed his radically conservative viewpoints, exposed a wildly disturbing first-term record and you know what the majority of americans did? The reelected him. I'm tired of us being sour-grapes over the whole thing. It happened, its done, there's nothing we can do about the past.

I say ask the tough questions. If he gives respectible answers then Dems would be compelled to give a yes vote. They/We need to save their political ammunition for a really scary nominee. Baring a successful filibuster (which won't happen) Roberts is going to be confirmed. If Dems throw a nasty hissy fit now and inevitably lose, they'll look even worse if and when GWB elects a militant right-winger. It'll look like Dems are just being partisan and voting against ANY conservative. It'll look like they are  crying wolf and the rest of americans will sigh and think the democrats are just being sore losers again. No, we need to have a coordinated, effected opposition ONLY when it is absolutely critical. If we use up our ammo on Robberts there will be nothing left credibility wise for an ultra conservative.

As for "sending a message"--what message would a considerable amounts of "no" votes tell this president? Is there anything about GWB that makes you think he can hear such a message? Do you honestly think he or those around him (KR) cares? He hasn't for 5+ years, and he won't start listening now. If he gets any message it will be that the Dems are going to oppose ANY conservative, that they will inevitably lose the battle, so he might as well nominate the most ultra conservative he can think of.

Matt

This is Rove 101 at work. Call their bluff. Agree to Roberts. See who blinks first.

If Roberts is another Rehnquist then the next right wing nominees get filibustered. It's take no prisoners time.

One file withheld, regarding the Iran- contra affair, was a draft memo from Roberts to his bosses with the heading "re: establishment of NHAO" -- referring to the Nicaraguan Humanitarian Assistance Office.

The office was one of the ways the Reagan administration got around what were known as the Boland amendments, which prohibited U.S. intelligence agencies from spending money to overthrow the Sandinistas. The office was a way the administration could get funds to the contras for nonmilitary purposes, but once there the money was used for all sorts of things.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/24/AR2005082402016_2.html

I would also like to point out this:

On July 15, the day President Bush interviewed John G. Roberts Jr. about an appointment to the Supreme Court, the judge was part of an appeals court panel that approved broad presidential powers in the war on terrorism.

The ruling gave the administration a green light to use military tribunals to try those labeled "enemy combatants" at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. And it said that those combatants had no right in U.S. courts to enforce provisions of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/8/15/14033/8173

Roberts expansive and non-constitutional view of presidential power is dangerous to America.

It shows a disregard both for law, the rule of law, and for ethical conduct by government officials.

Roberts is lawyer who has no concept of ethics or the law.