Centerfield

NOW and NARAL are not doing their constituencies any favors by preemptively opposing this nomination when even the most liberal Senate Democrats are reserving judgment. (I saw Sen. Boxer on CSPAN for a few minutes today and even she talked reasonably and in a not completely judgmental way.) But, I suppose, the organizations who have been preparing for war forever regardless of who the nominee would be just can't wait. I heard on Minnesota Public Radio tonight that 1,000s volunteers are heading out in the Twin Cities metro starting tonight to knock on doors to warn people about the dangers of this nomination.

Posted by: Todd Pearson at July 21, 2005 12:14 AM

It might be well to point out that this exchange between Sens. Hatch and Schumer took place during Roberts' last nomination hearings two years ago. It might be more appropriate to present this link as a "Flashback" rather than "In other news ..."

Posted by: Michael at July 21, 2005 07:40 AM

the Bush administration has cynically forwarded an unqualified, token candidate like ___JOHN ROBERTS___ to mask its callous indifference to the plight of the ___WHITE MAN___ community.

I love it...

Posted by: Scott at July 21, 2005 07:42 AM

Todd I'm not holding my breath waiting for the day when:

NARAL opposes only some pro-life politicians

The Catholic Church only opposes some pro-choice candidates.

The ACLU focuses in on protecting only the really important civil liberties.

Talk radio makes a distinction between reasonable liberals and the left fringe.

I don't think the advocacy groups right now are hurting themselves at all. And personally, I'm still waiting for a good answer as to why the people have no right to ask their senators to help them find out the views of prospective judges on issues they hold dear. I'm not troubled much by Roberts right now,and I think he deserves to be confirmed absent some sort of unforeseen revelation. But he should try to be forthcoming, if he truly respects the people and wishes to honor the role he's being asked to serve, which is, after all, one of the most important services of the government to the people.

Posted by: bk at July 21, 2005 08:16 AM

Thought I'd fixed that already, Michael, but I was tired and forgot to republish. My error, now corrected.

Posted by: Tully at July 21, 2005 10:32 AM

The ACLU focuses in on protecting only the really important civil liberties.

They abandoned the 2nd Amendment long ago, Bryan.

Talk radio makes a distinction between reasonable liberals and the left fringe.

Amen. Though I'd "revise and extend" across the spectrum on that, so as not to exclude Air America.

Posted by: Tully at July 21, 2005 11:55 AM

Thanks, Tully. I had to read it in full--couldn't help but laugh.

Brian mentioned some of the advocacy groups, and I couldn't help but mention something that I stumbled on last night. The Human Rights Campaign, which is supposed to be promoting GLBT rights, immediately issued a press release stating their opposition to Roberts because he would "overturn Roe v. Wade. What a gay rights group is doing advocating abortion rights I have no idea. It just makes you wonder if these "single issue" advocacy groups are really nothing more than extensions of the party closest to their chosen issue.

Posted by: AR at July 21, 2005 11:55 AM

What a gay rights group is doing advocating abortion rights I have no idea.

They are seeking to protect a constitutional right to privacy. Posted by: Todd Pearson at July 21, 2005 12:08 PM

It just makes you wonder if these "single issue" advocacy groups are really nothing more than extensions of the party closest to their chosen issue.

I think it's more the other way around nowadays. But as Iowahawk so humorously notes, the lock-step pre-programmed pattelar reflexiveness is certainly worth a laugh.

Posted by: Tully at July 21, 2005 12:31 PM

Todd I'm not holding my breath waiting for the day when . . . The ACLU focuses in on protecting only the really important civil liberties.

You mean as opposed to the NOT SO IMPORTANT civil liberties? Yikes! Do I dare asking which of our civil liberties you don't want the ACLU to be protecting?

I have to agree with Tully's comment earlier though. I tend to support the ACLU on most issues, but it's difficult to take them seriously when they seem to have no interest in defending the second amendment. If they were truly principled, they would defend ALL civil liberties. The ACLU needs to start calling out liberal politicians that violate our civil liberties, not just conservatives.

Posted by: nicrivera at July 21, 2005 02:46 PM

You can relax, that's really 99% joke. I was only trying to make the point that these things were not going to happen, not making any comment about whether any of these changes are ones that I think should happen.

I consider civil liberties to be very important, moreso than the average bear, I'd dare say. I was, however, personally turned off some years back when I discovered how utterly inflexible an advocacy group they were. I found some of their positions rigid and unreasonably absolutist, troubling enough that I could not in good conscience join them.

Posted by: bk at July 21, 2005 03:35 PM

Interestingly enough, Brian, there was also a flap several months ago in regards to the massive amount of shredding that was going on at their (ACLU) headquarters. Apparently, the same organization who sues the Federal Government under the Freedom of Information Act feels no obligation to run a transparent organization themselves.

Posted by: AR at July 21, 2005 03:41 PM

...it's difficult to take them seriously when they seem to have no interest in defending the second amendment.

The ACLU's position on the Second Amendment is one that has never been upheld, and to which there is a body of federal decisions affirming that the first eight amendments are all individual rights.

So as not to unfairly tar the ACLU, I did check. Policy #47 of the ACLU states that they stand four-square behind the right of state militias to keep and arm bears.

Posted by: Tully at July 21, 2005 04:43 PM

hehe

Posted by: Scott at July 21, 2005 05:38 PM

Maybe this is astupid question to ask but hell ...Saw the NOW and NARAL rallies. Do they expect a 4 year filibuster? Do they expect Bush to nominate someone to the left of center?

Posted by: c3 at July 21, 2005 07:45 PM

If Roberts is somehow rejected and Bush gets to appoint someone else, probably more conservative, who the Senate Republicans railroad through to spite the Dems, NARAL is going to implode.

Posted by: Scott at July 21, 2005 08:07 PM

Even more entertaining would be Roberts sailing thru, followed by another opening within the year. At that time, Bush could appoint Bill Clinton to the court and James Dobson would implode. We'd all win!

Posted by: AR at July 21, 2005 09:31 PM

Frankly, I started this thread to illustrate the knee-jerk nature of the anti-Roberts propaganda. For comparison purposes, here's the Alliance for Justice's report railing against the Supreme court appointment of David Souter. See any similarities?

And in the EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG category, the Washington Post's Supreme Court blog today noted that despite the huge number of media outlets from all sides of the spectrum stating that John Roberts is a member of The Federalist Society, he isn't, and never has been.

Posted by: Tully at July 21, 2005 11:22 PM

The AFJ Souter report is a great link Tully. "About Justice Souter, uh, derrr.....he's ok now."

Posted by: Scott at July 22, 2005 07:31 AM

I do need to point out that this time around, the AFJ is taking their time before jumping into the fray, as is People for the American Way. They may yet (almost certainly will) oppose Roberts, as AFJ did in 2001, but they're notably NOT running down the knee-jerk path waving boilerplate laundry lists ala Iowahawk's humorous piece. Yet. Unlike MoveOn.org, NARAL Pro-Choice America, NOW, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

The AFJ report opposing Roberts' 2001 Circuit Court nomination is here. (PDF warning) Also fun to compare to their report opposing Souter, and Iowahawk's piece. I suspect Iowahawk used it for a template.

With the Gang of 14 signalling that Roberts is not an "extraordinary" candidate under their agreement, his nomination is off to a strong start. Roberts was first nominated for the Circuit Court in 1992 by Bush 41, but was never passed out of committee. In 2001 his nomination was confirmed by the Senate without a roll-call vote, by "unanimous consent" during a week which saw repeated successful filibustering of both Priscilla Owen and Miguel Estrada.

Posted by: Tully at July 22, 2005 11:16 AM

Retroactive Quote of the day has to go to Hatch:

"Some I think are dumbass questions, between you and me. I am not kidding you. I mean, as much as I love and respect you, I just think that's true."

As much as I love and respect you...too funny.

Posted by: Adrian at July 22, 2005 10:22 PM