John Roberts is hardly a swing justice in the mold of his predecessor, Sandra Day O'Connor. Just ask his pro-confirmation PR firm, Creative Response Concepts (CRC), who last year promoted the mendacious Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign.

On Tuesday the National Archives released a trove of documents from Roberts' tenure as associate White House counsel under Ronald Reagan. "The documents released today show that as a White House lawyer John Roberts was a forceful proponent of Reagan administration policies on abortion, school prayer, criminal justice and other hotly contested issues," said a CRC statement. "Those who try to paint Judge Roberts as a squishy moderate will not find any supporting evidence in these documents."

During the Reagan years Roberts endorsed a memorial service for aborted fetuses, mocked the "so-called 'right to privacy,'" balked at equal pay for women and blurred the line between church and state. As a corporate lawyer Roberts routinely defended the worst of big business and undermined common sense regulation. Recently, sitting on the DC Court of Appeals, Roberts issued rulings reinstating the Bush Administration's military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay and ordering a 12-year-old girl to jail for eating a single french fry on the DC metro.

So how are many Democrats responding to this startling record? By pulling controversial ads and offering fawning faux endorsements. When NARAL--one of the only groups to yet oppose Roberts--finally put teeth into the confirmation fight by running a controversial TV spot criticizing his record on choice issues, Republicans and Democrats alike immediately called for the ad's removal. "Has the opposition lost its nerve?" the Washington Post's Dana Milbank wondered. When the extravagantly false Swift Boat ads aired last fall, Republicans uttered nary a peep of condemnation.

"We Democrats bring a well-thumbed copy of Marquess of Queensberry Rules while the other side unsheaths their bloody knives, with a predictable outcome," said Democratic strategist Chris Lehane. Senate Democratic talking points fail to note Roberts' right-wing positions; Democratic Minority Leader Harry Reid earlier gushed over Roberts to The New Yorker. Infuriated liberal groups are rightly asking party leaders to show some backbone.

"Barring an unexpected development," the Post wrote yesterday, "Democrats will not launch a major fight" to block Roberts. Having ceded the ideological battle, prominent Democrats are locked only in a tactical argument with the White House over documents covering Roberts stint as deputy solicitor general under Ken Starr in the first Bush Administration. Even before the Roberts hearings begin, Democrats Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu have hinted at their upcoming support.

No wonder Americans think the Democrats don't stand for anything.

Comments (95)

1. Let's hope the Dems don't stand by when Stevens and/or Ginsburg resign. That's when the Big Change will come to the Supremes.

   Posted by proudlib at 08/17/2005 @ 10:29am

2. Update: there's been some progress from Leahy and People for the American Way: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/17/leahy.roberts.ap/index.html

   Posted by Ari Berman at 08/17/2005 @ 10:32am

3. Ari, thanks for the article. At least Leahy sees Roberts for what he is.

   Posted by RG at 08/17/2005 @ 10:37am

4. final senate vote will be either 65-35 or 64-36 to confirm. Good night Irene. This issue is over before it starts. The problem is that you who are in oppposition don't know how to count.

   Posted by love liberty at 08/17/2005 @ 10:42am

5. Once again the Dems prove Ralph Nader and his supporters, like myself, correct.

   In 2000 and 2004 we all heard the Supreme Court arguement. Now that the Dems have a chance to stand up to a right wing nutcase being on the Court they do their usual wimp job.

   Of course this is not much of a surprise. Every major initiative and nomination made by the Vacationer-in-Chief has received significant support from the Democrats. Given time they will also roll on Social Security.

   When will The Nation and the other "left" publications, pundits, and politicians who participated in the smear campaign against Nader finally admit that they allowed themselves to be used by the Lite Republicans. Then they can perhaps begin to redeem themselves in the eyes of true progessives in this country.

   Posted by vincem at 08/17/2005 @ 10:46am

6. This should not be a surprise -- the Washington DC Democratic Party has repeatedly proven itself to be an ineffectual and moribund opposition. Why? Because they are part of an insular Beltway culture committed to protecting the status quo first and foremost, and they are more concerned with keeping their jobs than making a stand.

   This should tell us that we need to stop looking to Washington and expecting anything out of these so-called elected representatives. Instead, we need to look to the states, counties and individual precincts, and take them over one at a time. Only when this has occurred will the stranglehold of status-quo Democrats on the Washington Party finally be relinquished.

   Posted by cochese3 at 08/17/2005 @ 11:34am

7. The inside the beltway Democrats are more worried about offending the GOP than they are about representing the Democratic party base (and others)and being an opposition party. What a betrayal that is to those of us who subscribe to Democratic party values. With the exception of most of the Congressional Black Caucus and a few others, nobody is standing up to the GOP. This utter spinelessness is destroying both the Democratic party and democracy itself. We need an alternative to the Republican party and Democratic party "Republican-lite" crap.

   Posted by Swamptillia at 08/17/2005 @ 11:40am

8. It's laughable the way the left condems Roberts as a radical right winger.

   The man simply did his job. He represented his clients. Why is this so hard to deal with?

   If you think this guy is too extreme, just wait for appointee #2 and possibly #3. I can't wait.

   Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/17/2005 @ 11:45am

9. Ted Kennedy has also been sharper than most Dems: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/politics/17dems.html

   Posted by Ari Berman at 08/17/2005 @ 11:51am

10. LL, You are not true to your name. But let me back up and first say that the opposition party does know how to count, which is one reason for the title of Ari's post.

    The problem is that the Senate is in danger of becoming a rubber stamp for the president's Supreme Court nominee. If you truly cared about democracy that would bother you.

    Everyone, Are you sick of how gutless the Democratic leadership has become? I am. I supported Howard Dean for president for two reasons: I liked his stand on the issues, and secondly, he had the GUTS to stand up and say he opposed the war when the rest of the Dem "leadership" were bending over to take it from Dubya.

    If someone is in the middle of the road, they need to see an opposition party that takes a principled stand. Why do you think so many people like Dubya even when his policies suck? It is because he stands for what he believes.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 11:53am

11. Actually NOW has, to its credit, opposed the Roberts nomination. But Berman's right that the overall picture of opposition from the liberal and Democratic forces has been utterly pathetic. I think Leahy and Reid's latest statements are merely readjustments--they've been so uniformly slavish that they're realizing that they're going to hand Bush a massive victory instead of just a victory and are pulling back. (The pounding Bush is getting thanks to Cindy Sheehan, and no thanks to the Democrats, is certainly helping them do the political math.)

    I completely agree with the conclusions Vincem has laid out.

    Posted by rvs-convener at 08/17/2005 @ 12:05pm

12. If you'd seen the NARAL ad, you'd pull it too. It was junk...no one with any sense could support the ad.

    The MORON who made the decision to run that ad is probably as responsible as the dems for hindering any chance of blocking Roberts.

    Posted by wereverywhere at 08/17/2005 @ 12:06pm

13. LL, You are not true to your name. But let me back up and first say that the opposition party does know how to count, which is one reason for the title of Ari's post.

    ILP, I am curious as to what in my post predicting the final vote for Roberts or the fact that I merely pointed out to liberals that there are already approximately 10 Democrats who have stated they will probably vote for Roberts?

    45 years of being involved in the political process gives me a fairly good appreciation of where a particular issue or candidate stands as regards approval/disapproval.

    Most of the posturing like Leahy's is merely a coordinated attempt (as both parties engage in) to keep the base active and feed them a political bone that mistakenly keeps the base thinking they (the party engaged in the posturing) is awakening to their interests and will turn the tide in their favor.

    That is American politics and most (I say most because there are some like Zero who truly understand politics) on the left who post here don't seem to understand how our 2 parties have operated for nearly a 150 years.

    Here is the bottom line, the Dems have done all the polling they need to understand that this is a losing battle with the majority of Americans. They will do the things necessary to make the base think that they are fighting the good fight. In the meantime, a sufficient number of Dems will vote to approve, which then lets the true leftists Dems vote against and satisfy the base that they fought the good fight.

    That is reality my friends on the left (and a lesson for the right also). Barring the totally unforseen and a new party emerges with the political will and strength to oust either the Dems or GOP, that is how politics in America will continue.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/17/2005 @ 12:10pm

14. ILP, yeah I'm sick of the Dems refusing to speak out. It seems that since there could have been an even more radical nominee, they're keeping quiet and settling for this guy.

    I really liked Howard Dean too. The infamous "Dean scream" made me want to vote for him even more. :)

    Posted by RG at 08/17/2005 @ 12:17pm

15. "When NARAL--the only group to yet oppose Roberts--finally put teeth into the confirmation fight by running a controversial TV spot criticizing his record on choice issues, Republicans and Democrats alike immediately called for the ad's removal. "Has the opposition lost its nerve?" the Washington Post's Dana Milbank wondered."

    Sorry, but while I distrust the Roberts choice, and agree with your assessment of the wussed-out Democratic Party, I was both offended and disappointed by the NARAL ad. Emulating the neocon attack strategies was a poor choice.

    Posted by drhammer at 08/17/2005 @ 12:17pm

16. DRHAMMER

    I agree with you completely on the NARAL ad.

    Posted by BSF at 08/17/2005 @ 12:19pm

17. You're correct RVS. NOW also opposes Roberts: http://www.capwiz.com/now/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=7853066

    Posted by Ari Berman at 08/17/2005 @ 12:20pm

18. "balked at equal pay for women"

    Typical leftist lie (maybe Rigoberta wrote his copy - or Ed Siad) - comparitive worth is NOT equal pay (and was struck down by the court) - it's social egineering of the worst sort - who decides that a waitress should earn what a truck dirver earns? What bullshit. It's so hard to be a lefty these days - the right is disgusting, but the left is infuriating!

    Posted by jabelson at 08/17/2005 @ 12:23pm

19. LL, as best as I can tell, the first sentence of your reply is incomplete. I am not really sure what you are trying to say there.

    An the point of my post was that having a rubber stamp senate should concern you.

    But then you somehow, with what logic I don't know, arrogantly misconstrued that to somehow conclude that I don't understand politics. Jeez, I actually wish that were true. Unfortunately, I understand it all too well, which means I have to continually resist the frustration and despair that comes along with that understanding.

    Now, let me try to be a little more direct. The original post of yours to which I responded, well, it sounded like you were gloating over the fact that the confirmation is almost a done deal. Doesn't that strike you as undemocratic, no matter where you stand on the nominee? Do you want a rubber stamp senate in the USA???

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 12:26pm

20. DRHAMMER, The attack strategy works for the neocons - they keep winning elections with it. Why shouldn't NARAL use successful tactics? In this situation, I agree that it wouldn't work directly, because the voters in this case number only 100 (or 101, if the first 100 vote 50 yes, 50 no) and they probably won't be swayed. NARAL needs indirect pressure by appealing to the senator's constituents.

    But in general, say in the next election cycle, why not use successful tactics?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 12:31pm

21. ILOVEPHYSICS

    Because the ad was hardly honest. Plus it wasn't very useful, there are plenty of other reasons to effectively oppose Roberts, implying that he's sympathetic to domestic terrorists.

    Posted by BSF at 08/17/2005 @ 12:36pm

22. "other than implying he's sympathetic to domestic terrorists."

    Posted by BSF at 08/17/2005 @ 12:37pm

23. ILP: I share your dismay with the Democratic Party, which is why I voted for Dennis Kucinich.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/17/2005 @ 12:40pm

24. HMAN23, My grandmother voted for him as well. No offense, but he doesn't seem progressive to me. More like an old-school, traditional liberal. Since I am a progressive, I couldn't join you in supporting him.

    Maybe that is part of the Democratic Party's problems - we have too many factions. The Gephart types, the Dean types, the Kerry types, the Kucinich types. For the GOP, they just have two types, the Dubya types and the McCain types, and the Dubya types are so dominant that there isn't much of a fight over nominees.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 12:47pm

25. ILP,

    First, sorry for the speed typing and trying to help get my wife's breakfast at the same time led to my incomplete thought.

    I was referring to your questioning my handle Love Liberty because of my initial posting indicating my prediction of the vote.

    Second: regarding my assumptions being undemocratic; not in the least. Nor is it a rubber stamp. I will gladly give my reasoning.

    1. Roberts has in the very recent past already gone through this same process with the Senate. They already had formed their stands and opinions on him (with perhaps a couple of exceptions).

    2. 99% of what they need to know about Roberts for their vote, they already know and have the information.

    3. The wonderful little Senate compromise in May of this year that stated there would be no filibuster of Judicial nominees "except in extraordinary circumstances."

    That means that unless something dramatic occurs (and no one in DC is predicting that), Bush already knows he has 62 votes for Roberts and I believe you will see 2-3 other Dems go along. That frees up the more leftist Senators to vote against Roberts at least molify their base that "some of them" were sticking up for liberal principles.

    I repeat myself, but that is the political process in the US.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/17/2005 @ 12:52pm

26. who decides that a waitress should earn what a truck dirver earns? What bullshit.

    This certainly earns the award for Dumbest Blog Comment for the day. Equal pay for women has nothing to do with the example cited above; it has to to do with women working the same position as a man to be paid the equal amount. Good gracious alive. And, uh, I detect more than a wee bit of sexism here: apparently, the first job that comes to mind to Jabelson when it comes to women is a waitress -- and, of course, for a man, a truck driver. How original! And let's not forget that there are women truck drivers out there, not to mention men waiting tables out there-- they're called "waiters", in case you didn't know.

    (rolls eyes)

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 12:59pm

27. Ari: Keep sticking it to the Democratic establishment. They deserve it. If Republicans win big again in 2006 and 2008, it will be their fault. Also, your article The Stategic Class is the best expose of Democratic LaZyBoy Warriors that I've ever seen. Wish I'd written that!

    Posted by aamurphy at 08/17/2005 @ 1:01pm

28. ILP:

    I consider myself a progressive too, as opposed to a liberal. Maybe I voted for the wrong guy, because I did support Dean's positions in addition to Kucinich's. :) I had Kucinich pegged as more of a progressive , but maybe I could have been wrong.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/17/2005 @ 1:12pm

29. Kevin, couldn't agree more about the equal pay. Usually I just don't have the guts to post what I'm really thinking here, lest I get attacked. :)

    Posted by RG at 08/17/2005 @ 1:16pm

30. HMAN23, Well, his views on social security (SS) seemed to be looking towards the past, rather than the future. If I am not mistaken, he wanted to lower the retirement age and up the benefits, but the demographics won't support this kind of policy apart from changes in the payroll tax. I must admit that I didn't pay too much attention to him after I discovered that. SS policy, IMO, must be based on sound actuarial principals or else it is a non-starter for me.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 1:20pm

31. RG, Let it fly, man!!! Don't worry about the attacks, man, it is just right-wing propaganda :-)

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 1:21pm

32. Ari-

    This post is a little disingenuous, don't you think? The record of Roberts performance is not so "startling". The french fry case has been dissected, and while it may not be good policy to allow the arrest of a child for a fry, it remains good law. Roberts should not be disparaged on that evidence. The equal pay statements refer to the concept of "comparative worth" of work, which concept fundamentally depends on classification of work by gender, defining "women's work", which I have to say I agree with Roberts on.

    The school prayer case is moderately troubling, but does not evince a lack of principle. The Guantanamo case is more worrysome, and Roberts positions on abortion and federal regulations are diametrically opposed to my own. Nevertheless, it remains difficult to predict which issues will become partisan hot-buttons five or ten years down the line. Furthermore, democrats need to focus on winning elections before they turn their attention to determining judicial nominations. Bush will not appoint a moderate no matter how hard Democrats push, and if Roberts was filibustered there is simply insufficient negative data to support that action. The public would likely turn against Democratic obstructionism in favor of keeping the court working.

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 08/17/2005 @ 1:29pm

33. ILP, okay, I'll try to be more bold. ;) That being said, your post about the NARAL ad raises an interesting dilemma for the Dems: do we use the attack ads that have gotten Bush and people like him elected, because it worked for them and we want to win by any means necessary, or do we stick to our principles and not stoop to their level? In other words, do we fight really dirty like they do or try to play fair? (Don't get me wrong, I've seen my share of attack ads paid for by Democrats. I'm certainly not saying Dems are shining examples of honesty when it comes to campaigning.) It's hard to say. On the one hand I was disappointed by the NARAL ad because it was a bit misleading and over-the-top, but the militant pro-choicer in me was saying, "Rock on! It's about time we fought fire with fire!" So I don't know. I guess in this case it probably wasn't the best ad to air, since abortion is such a sensitive and controversial topic, and attack ads may not be the way to go with this particular issue. But your statement that Dems should go with these types of ads for future elections and on different issues in general, that might just help them get back in power. So that's my $.02.

    Posted by RG at 08/17/2005 @ 1:38pm

34. Nattiebumpo,

    I agree almost entirely with your post. But what troubles me a little with your post and some of Love Liberty's statements is the nearly uniform acceptance of a less than desirable occurence for political purposes. Quite honestly, what do the Democrats have to lose? The President is slipping dramatically in his approval, but have the Dem's experienced a similar shift upward--of course not. At the least they can take stands, even when it doesn't alter the outcome. At least it will show them working toward something.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/17/2005 @ 1:38pm

35. Hi Kevin: roll your eyes back into your head - the "equal pay" issue that Ari refers to was related to "comparative worth" - and I used the truck-driver/waitress comparison because I believe that was one of the original comparisons made in justification - waitressing was absolutely a pink collar job as opposed to truck driving which is and was mostly male (don't forget, comparative worth is from about 20 years ago, when the lines were more deliniated. So I guess, you win the dumb-ass post guy award...

    Posted by jabelson at 08/17/2005 @ 1:39pm

36. I think there are reasons enough to oppose Roberts without fudging issues. He was not against equal pay, nor was he in favour of violent protest. However, the only reason needed is that opposition is healthy and nessesary for an idea or candidate to prove themselves. And I naturally mistrust anyone Bush has faith in.

    Posted by Dermor at 08/17/2005 @ 1:48pm

37. In your dream, maybe.

    Oh, and as for this:

    The french fry case has been dissected, and while it may not be good policy to allow the arrest of a child for a fry, it remains good law. Roberts should not be disparaged on that evidence.

    I don't know if it's a good law, but the thing to remember is that Roberts didn't write the law and there's no indication that he wet his pants in joy in upholding it. So if anyone wants to raise hell over it, direct it at the ones responsible for making that law in the first place. We don't want "activist" judges yet Roberts should have gone the activist route and ignored the law if he himself didn't agree with it? Don't think so. The french-fry case can be cited to get an easy knee-jerk reaction but is rather facile when trying to hammer Roberts with it.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 1:49pm

38. This certainly earns the award for Dumbest Blog Comment for the day. Equal pay for women has nothing to do with the example cited above; it has to to do with women working the same position as a man to be paid the equal amount. Good gracious alive. And, uh, I detect more than a wee bit of sexism here: apparently, the first job that comes to mind to Jabelson when it comes to women is a waitress -- and, of course, for a man, a truck driver. How original! And let's not forget that there are women truck drivers out there, not to mention men waiting tables out there-- they're called "waiters", in case you didn't know.

    Kevin my friend, you are incorrect as is Mr. Berman. It is important when leveling accusations at someone like Judge Roberts in this instance to respond based upon the facts and not a 3rd party comment. So here are the real facts.

    Roberts comments in question stem from a letter written by Olympia Snowe and 2 other women back in 1984:

    Roberts' memo in the debate over "comparable worth" in wages arose after a U.S. trial judge in Washington state ruled that federal anti-discrimination law required equal pay for men and women who held different jobs that required comparable skills and effort. Reagan officials were considering whether to urge an appeals court to reverse the ruling.

    Snowe -- along with Nancy Johnson, who is still a House member from Connecticut, and Claudine Schneider, who represented Rhode Island -- wanted the ruling to stand and urged the Reagan administration to stay out of the case. (In the end, the administration did not intervene. An appeals court reversed the trial judge's decision.)

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-15-roberts_x.htm

    But what is striking is how correct Roberts was in his response which though never submitted in a briefing to the Fed appeals court reflected the ultimate decision of the court.

    My main correction to you is that these women indeed put forth the "comparable worth" argument as is evident in the link I have included. Thus, you my friend owe Jabelson an apology.

    The memo from Roberts, now President Bush's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, was a response to a letter that the three women -- one of whom was Olympia Snowe of Maine, now a U.S. senator -- had sent to the administration. The women had said that the concept of "equal pay for equal work" had not sufficiently boosted women's wages because women were not in many of the same fields as men. The three were promoting the notion of equal pay for different jobs of comparable value, based on factors such as skills and responsibility

    Roberts never spoke out or wrote against equal pay for equal work by women. Just another liberal distortion.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/17/2005 @ 1:50pm

39. RG, I also would love to see a more civil political process in this country. Unfortunately, a poll in the last election showed that the vast majority of voters cast their vote based not on where the candidates stand on issues, but based on how they feel about a candidate personally, if he/she seems more "honest" or "strong" or "trustworthy," even if the candidate making the more favorable impression has espoused or enacted policies that are detrimental to the voter.

    Where the candidate stands on issues is the most important factor to only about 10% of voters (which includes me). Sadly, this reduces political campaigns to little more than a sales pitch. In order for this to change, 90% of the voters need to wake up and get a f***ing clue. That won't happen any time soon...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 1:57pm

40. Nattie,

    My resounding and sincere applause! Your 1:29 post was the most reasoned posting from someone on the left that a conservative like myself can recall.

    You hit the nail on the head and I'm afraid my not have endeared yourself to many of your liberal friends.

    Thank you for actually thinking through all the available facts and the dynamic of our current political situation. That took honesty and courage.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/17/2005 @ 1:59pm

41. ILP, yes, I guess the results of that voters' poll would explain why Bush won. Pretty interesting stuff. And yes, voters really do need an effing clue. ;)

    Posted by RG at 08/17/2005 @ 2:02pm

42. TJ:

    Good point. Maybe you're right and Democrats should strongly oppose Roberts' nomination. Maybe I was succumbing to the flaws of moderation that the DLC is in love with. But if Democrats strongly oppose Roberts, it should be on valid grounds rather than spurious arguments about "equal pay" or french fries. While a good fight against Roberts might encourage Bush to support a more radical judge for the next open spot on the court, it would also remind voters what Democrats stand for.

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 08/17/2005 @ 2:05pm

43. Oh no, Nattie, LL described your post as "reasoned" and "hit(ting) the nail on the head." You'd better recheck it for any accidental right-wing demagoguery, just to be safe...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 2:06pm

44. One of the primary reasons to have a Bill of Rights, as well as other rights, enshrined into law is to protect the rights of the minority in times of strife, when tyranny of the majority is a threat to freedom.

    The supreme court of the land, then, MUST be composed of sober, reasoned, evenhanded people, willing to resist the passions of the moment, in an effort to carry out the court's responsibility towards minority groups that are exercising their rights.

    If someone's ideology is so radical that he or she opposes the very rights that must be upheld (even when those rights are under severe political pressure), then that person is not qualified for the Supreme Court, no matter how genial, experienced, or educated that person may be.

    So who must determine if the nominee is either a) a champion of our rights (even when those rights are unpopular) or b) a threat to those rights? It is the job of the senate. They must do their duty to this country, and thoroughly examine the nominee.

    This seems so obvious that it should go without saying. But the right wing of this country is now so extreme, so willing to take away freedom of choice, right to a trial (at least for anyone in Gitmo that Dubya happens to label), separation of church and state, that I felt the obvious must be reiterated.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 2:16pm

45. Not so fast, LL.

    Roberts' memo in the debate over "comparable worth" in wages arose after a U.S. trial judge in Washington state ruled that federal anti-discrimination law required equal pay for men and women who held different jobs that required comparable skills and effort

    "Comprable skills"? So, wait, clarify this for me: What are the comparable skills of a waitress and truck driver? Would this law have made possible a waitress to be paid the same as that of a truck driver? No, I don't think so.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 2:20pm

46. Why do we refer to Democrats in the national Congress as an "opposition" party? They have a demonstrated history of general capitulation to the far right agenda that calls into question either the real priorities of the figures in the party leadership or calls into question any rationale for continuing to support the Democrats.

    Posted by Zero at 08/17/2005 @ 2:32pm

47. KC: the fact remains that the Roberts memo only deals with an admittedly controversial topic, i.e. defining "women's work" v. "men's work" and then ensuring those jobs are paid the same. What reasonable means could be implemented for determining comparability and policing pay? Furthermore, why is it not sufficient for society to ensure equal access to any job and allow employers to set wages based on the market for those services? Finally, this is first and foremost a legislative rather than judicial question, and Roberts would enforce a law passed by the administration declaring that women should be assured equal pay for jobs of "comparable worth".

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 08/17/2005 @ 2:32pm

48. It was a foregone conclusion that the Democrats weren't going to fight over Roberts. The Senate Democrats already agreed some time ago that they would not use the tool they have to stop extremist nominations, the filibuster, without Republican permission. It was predicted then that the Republicans were unlikely to agree that their president's SCOTUS nominees could ever fall into the category of "extraordinary circumstances" sufficient to warrant Republican permission for Democrats to fight back, and, unsurprisingly, this prediction has come true.

    In fact, on this very web site during the "nuclear option" showdown that the Democrats capitulated by forfeit to the Republicans earlier this year, I wrote several times that their capitulation was in essence their go-ahead to the Bush administration to nominate a judicial Idi Amin to the court, go ahead, they won't care, it's all good, they trust you George.

    Posted by Zero at 08/17/2005 @ 2:36pm

49. ILP

    "But in general, say in the next election cycle, why not use successful tactics?"

    Because I'd like to think that there is still a chance that we can effect change by exposing the truth. If we're all willing to win at the expense of our honor, then there really is only one party.

    Posted by drhammer at 08/17/2005 @ 2:37pm

50. Nattiebumpo: of course the record's ambiguous in places. This is one of the reasons Roberts was selected, in place of Idi Amin (post.) or Islam Karimov. Those latter two figures had more obvious records.

    But be honest with yourself. Do you really think George Bush, Messianic Radical and Far Right Jesus-Figure, would lose an opportunity to nominate someone to the SCOTUS who he did not believe was absolutely guaranteed to do everything Bush would want?

    Posted by Zero at 08/17/2005 @ 2:39pm

51. Kevin,

    I was trying to keep things on point. Mr. Berman said that Roberts had come out against equal pay. That is incorrect. Attributing to Roberts the statement by a Fed Judge is a distortion of fact, as is your added commentary when put in relationship to Roberts. He wrote against comparable worth and thus Reagan took his advice, the Admin didn't take an official position with the Court and the Judge who initiated the comparable worth issue was overruled by an Appeals Court.

    Thus, I repeat that this attempt to distort Robert's record and opinions is a lie that individuals like myself will not see unchallenged.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/17/2005 @ 2:40pm

52. DRHAMMER, I respect your principled stand. I am concerned, however, that the threat to America from the radical right is becomming so dangerous that "street fighting" tactics might be necessary. I hope I am wrong.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 3:06pm

53. ILP

    I understand your point. I hope you're wrong as well.

    Posted by drhammer at 08/17/2005 @ 3:29pm

54. LL,

    I haven't made any attempt to distort Roberts' record. And I've openly backed him on that french-fry case.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 4:27pm

55. You know, I wonder sometimes why this country makes true advances in tiny fits and starts. And then it hits me. So much of our important decisions are based on such things as, "That's not fair. Clinton was able to get away with X, so Bush should, too." or "Democrats had corrupt control of Congress for decades and now it's our turn." These things will be flipped whenever/if Dem's regain control of the White House and/or Congress. Then we'll hear the complete opposite. The politicians do this, but there's little sense in our doing it.

    So I'm sorry if Ginsberg got off easy or if Bork got worked over too harshly. Big deal. Let's agree that every congressional task should be done well and leave the childish arguments to the little tykes currently infesting Washington and their awful special interest guardians.

    That commercial was pretty embarrassing.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/17/2005 @ 5:38pm

56. KC, sorry if that was misconstrued. I was referring back to my original charge that Mr. Berman's characterization was a distortion. Not you or your statements.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/17/2005 @ 5:53pm

57. I hope Ted Kennedy does not freak out and kill more people with his car if Roberts wins. Better lock up your daughters guys.

    Posted by whyme at 08/17/2005 @ 6:22pm

58. Overall, I don't think Democrats are going to be able to come up with a whole lot to hang an "activist" label on him. And the fact that Democrats on the committe approved him for the federal bench not too long ago, they're not going to have much validity in not approving him again; if they do, the obvious criticism leveled at them is going to be, "Well, gee, why didn't you take exception to him then? What, do you not hold someone up to an equally high standard when approving him for a lesser judgeship?" The only angle I can see is Roberts has only served two years on a federal bench, but so far I don't read Democrats mentioning this, and this in itself doesn't necesssarily not qualify him for the job.

    I think the real controversy will come with Bush's second nomination after Reinquist inevitably steps down, but I could be mistaken.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 6:32pm

59. I hope Ted Kennedy does not freak out and kill more people with his car if Roberts wins.

    Ditto Bush unleashing more unnecessary wars and getting more of our soldiers killed.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 6:34pm

60. It's more likely that Bush will attempt further tax "reform", ie, elimination of taxation on the very rich.

    Posted by Zero at 08/17/2005 @ 6:52pm

61. Here's what a former Reagan Treasury appointee and editor/writer of Wall Street Journal and National Review says about Bush:

    Slouching Toward Armageddon? Get Ready for a Wider War

    By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

    With every poll showing majorities of Americans both fed up with Bush's war against Iraq and convinced that Bush's invasion of Iraq has made Americans less safe, the White House moron proposes to start another war by attacking Iran. VP Cheney has already ordered the US Strategic Command to come up with plans to strike Iran with tactical nuclear weapons.

    Bush refuses to meet with Cindy Sheehan, instead using his vacation time at the Crawford ranch to talk war with Israeli television. In a recent interview with Israeli TV, Bush said: "All options are on the table" with regard to Iran.

    Likudnik Israel is Bush's last remaining ally, or egger-on, in his war against "Islamic terrorism." Israel, which is loaded with nuclear weapons and is not a signatory to the nuclear pacts, is the accuser against Iran, asserting that Iran's nuclear energy program is just a veil behind which to produce weapons. Israel's Likud Party fears that Iranian weapons would be a check to its plans to complete the dispossession of the Palestinians and further expand Israel's borders.

    Iran has signed the nonproliferation pact and is willing for the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor the nuclear energy program.

    Bush, however, dismisses all facts and assurances and is willing to attack Iran based on nothing but Israel's paranoia.

    Bush can ignore the American public, because the Democrats, like the Tory Party in the UK, have completely collapsed as an opposition party. The Republican Party is now increasingly referred to as the Republikud Party.

    The only check on Bush is the lack of US troops. Bogged down in the Iraqi quagmire, US commanders are stating that a third rotation of our exhausted and demoralized troops in Iraq can be avoided only by troop withdrawals by next spring.

    However, on August 11 Bush nixed the military's talk of reducing US troops in Iraq. The next day the commander of US logistics in Iraq announced that the number of insurgent attacks on US forces along supply routes has doubled in the last year, making it clear that far from winning, the US is not even holding its own.

    Cindy Sheehan has the right question for Bush: What noble cause is being served by all this suffering and destruction?

    Bush is in hiding from Mrs. Sheehan, because he knows only ignoble causes are being served. According to the CIA, the main beneficiary of the war is Osama bin Laden's recruitment drives. While America's military recruitment falters and US generals announce that the war has broken the Reserves and National Guard, the cause of Islamic extremism basks in the Iraqi war.

    Gentle reader, do you realize the danger of having a president so disconnected from reality that he plots to attack Iran--a country three times the size of Iraq--when he lacks sufficient forces to occupy Baghdad and to protect the road from Baghdad to the airport?

    Despite all the high profile "sweeps" of US forces through insurgent strongholds, US commanders report a doubling of insurgent attacks.

    The Bush administration is insane. If the American people do not decapitate it by demanding Bush's impeachment, the Bush administration will bring about Armageddon. This may please some Christian evangelicals conned by Rapture predictions, but World War III will please no one else.

    Posted by Zero at 08/17/2005 @ 6:56pm

62. SAME CRAZY STATEMENTS WERE MADE ABOUT REAGAN...JUST SILLY SCARE TACTICS

    Posted by aludra at 08/17/2005 @ 7:16pm

63. ITS A BEAUTIFUL THING WATCHING THE DIMS CRACK UP AND BECOME UN-HINGED....

    Posted by aludra at 08/17/2005 @ 7:18pm

64. It would be a national disgrace if this administration uses nukes first. It would also be a tragedy, an environmental disaster, and probably would result in the US being more hated than ever around the world. I wouldn't be surprised to see our allies abandon us if we nuked Iran.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 7:22pm

65. ILOVEPHYSICS , would you feel the same if we were hit first? Or would you say we asked for it and then blame this administration for that as well? Just asking.

    Posted by whyme at 08/17/2005 @ 7:27pm

66. ILP and WHYME,

    Attacked by whom by a nuclear weapon, exactly? I missed the previous part, I guess.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 8:09pm

67. KEVIN COLLINS, WOW that's a good one, did you come up with that all by yourself? How about this one. The Detroit mayor unleashing all his unnecessary law enforcement and getting more cops killed.

    Or how about this one. The New York City mayor unleashing all his unnecessary fires and getting more firemen killed.

    We did not start this war, we may have picked this battle in Iraq and the battle in Afghanistan but we did not start this War. I guess you are of the same mindset that think the Jews brought the Germans down on them because they are money grubbing Jewish people. Or maybe women are raped because of what they have on. If you think we started this war you are part of the problem and not the cure.

    Posted by whyme at 08/17/2005 @ 8:31pm

68. KEVIN COLLINS, Bush is not getting anyone killed. Men and women volunteer for a job and you do not understand that. Just as police or firemen volunteer for a job. They do get killed and that's part of the job. It's sad but it's War. Read a history book and tell me how many men died to liberate France within two hours or read about how many men died during a one hour battle during the Civil War to keep this nation together. More people were killed in LA last year that the number of Troops we lost in all of Iraq last year and yet you could care less. It's just about bashing the President because he does not have a ‘D' after his name.

    Posted by whyme at 08/17/2005 @ 8:37pm

69. KEVIN COLLINS, Read the long post by ZERO citing a Paul Roberts column. I quote from Roberts' first paragraph: "VP Cheney has already ordered the US Strategic Command to come up with plans to strike Iran with tactical nuclear weapons."

    I was referring to this.

    WHYME, No I would not feel the same if we were hit first - I would feel like I did on 9/11 only ten times moreso. And of course in that case, if Bush used nuclear weapons it wouldn't be a first strike, would it?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/17/2005 @ 8:46pm

70. We did not start this war, we may have picked this battle in Iraq and the battle in Afghanistan but we did not start this War.

    First, I've never written a word criticizing attacking Afghanistan; that was a logical place to hit after 9/11. Iraq, however, had nothing to do with 9/11; we started the war with them needlessly and unnecessarily, yes.

    I guess you are of the same mindset that think the Jews brought the Germans down on them because they are money grubbing Jewish people.

    I guess you're of the mind-set that validates a war unleashed under false pretenses yet is validated in your mind just as long as the administration involved is getting you that deficit-contributing tax cut and trying to ensure those gays can't marry.

    Or maybe women are raped because of what they have on.

    Unlike Bush & Co, I don't support a partial-birth abortion ban that makes no exception for a woman's life.

    If you think we started this war you are part of the problem and not the cure.

    Save your bollocks for Hannity. This is an obvious smokescreeen to try to distract from the substance of the arguments I've made here.

    Bush is not getting anyone killed.

    Hmmm, lying about the rationale for engaging in a poltically- and monetarily-motivated war isn't getting them both maimed and killed? Keep telling yourself that.

    Men and women volunteer for a job and you do not understand that.

    Please cite the blog post backing that up.

    Just as police or firemen volunteer for a job. They do get killed and that's part of the job.

    Well, usually they're not lied to that there's a fire or burglar when there isn't.

    It's sad but it's War.

    Spare me. Afghanistan is a valid part of the "war on terror"; Iraq isn't. People like you try to take people who oppose the lie-ridden Iraq war and aver they don't support the "war on terror", which are two totally different things.

    Read a history book and tell me how many men died to liberate France

    Point: This war was launched under the guise of WMD, not "liberating" or "spreading freedom". Duh.

    or read about how many men died during a one hour battle during the Civil War to keep this nation together.

    And this is related to Iraq how exactly?

    More people were killed in LA last year that the number of Troops we lost in all of Iraq last year and yet you could care less.

    Please cite in these blogs where I've written that I don't care about the slain people in L.A. C'mon, to prove you're not a knee-jerk windbag, provide it.

    It's just about bashing the President because he does not have a ‘D' after his name.

    It's about bashing a president who launches a full-fledged war based on numerous lies. With you, it's about not bashing a president because he's getting you that tax cut, no doubt.

    Enjoyed how you succinctly backed up each and every thing you wrote here. (stifles laughter)

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 9:15pm

71. Whyme: you don't think the US started the war with Iraq?

    I don't know what war you are talking about, but here the discussion seems centered on the Iraq war. I think most rational observers tend to agree that the US did, in fact, start a war with Iraq.

    Posted by Zero at 08/17/2005 @ 9:16pm

72. The "conservatives" of the web need to do better in justifying the actions of Der Schrubbenfuehrer in the Middle East than simply claiming that the US did not start the war with Iraq, and that Bush has gotten noone killed by starting any war. I am sure that Bush himself would agree that he has gotten a number of people killed. He would in all likelihood agree that this was an explicit part of his intentions when he and his administration ordered Iraq invaded by the Army and Marine Corp after long naval air and Air Force bombardments directed at for example cities.

    Posted by Zero at 08/17/2005 @ 9:22pm

73. KEVIN COLLINS ,, WOW, Is it grape or orange flavored?

    Posted by whyme at 08/17/2005 @ 9:24pm

74. Ah, the rhetorical Wonderland of the Internet: we can believe anything we can type, or see visibly rendered in a parseable language in the view area of a web browser program. No, we didn't start a war with Iraq. Not at all! "We were attacked" on 9/11. Therefore, Iraq started a war with us. Right. Got it. Understood.

    Posted by Zero at 08/17/2005 @ 9:26pm

75. KEVIN COLLINS ,, WOW, Is it grape or orange flavored?

    Translation: I can't counter any of Kevin's statements that blow my nonsensical ones out of the water.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/17/2005 @ 9:26pm

76. Kevin: as far Whyme's naval armada is concerned, he arrived at the web site pre-blown out of the water. You can't sink what's already rusting at the bottom of the sea.

    Posted by Zero at 08/17/2005 @ 9:29pm

77. I just wish Bush would stand up in front of the Fox "News" cameras once and say to his base: "It's ok, you can admit that the US attacked Iraq. We started it. That was the whole point. Chill out."

    Posted by Zero at 08/17/2005 @ 9:30pm

78. Zero,

    "I just wish Bush would stand up in front of the Fox "News" cameras once and say to his base: "It's ok, you can admit that the US attacked Iraq. We started it. That was the whole point. Chill out."

    That's good...

    heh..

    doubt it will happen, but I would like to see it too.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 08/17/2005 @ 9:45pm

79. Guys really.

    The US started the war in Iraq.

    They had some rationale for doing it, but the rationale was pretty weak.

    Was it a good policy? We will see.

    The US is a warlike nation.

    Has been since its inception.

    Posted by jonb at 08/17/2005 @ 10:51pm

80. It has been my opinion from the start this is a preemptive war.

    While there was technical justification, and it was the policy of the US that SOMEBODY overthrow Saddam, it was a choice which was not forced upon the president.

    Posted by jonb at 08/17/2005 @ 10:52pm

81. That doesn't change my view of the war.

    I don't like it much. But I think it may work out well.

    I have a great deal of sympathy for the President. I would not want to be in his shoes.

    Posted by jonb at 08/17/2005 @ 10:54pm

82. Wow! I went out, had a few beers and some greasy food, and suddenly the weak Democrats and the iffy nominee John Roberts have been discarded for Iraq and 9/11.

    That'll teach me for trying to have a life outside of this blog.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/17/2005 @ 11:00pm

83. As I recall, the Dems wimped out in the Clarence Thomas confirmation process too. Biden et.all VOTED for Clarence Thomas, if I'm not mistaken(many drinks and tokes ago).

    Posted by philbq at 08/18/2005 @ 06:49am

84. Let us attempt to get the hidden info on Roberts made public. To add your name to a FOIA petition to release Roberts records from when he worked for Bush 1 (and why not, it is this record of arguments before the SCOTUS that the current Bush touts as one major credential) go to

    http://www.democrats.org/page/petition/foia

    Posted by leftofcenter at 08/18/2005 @ 10:54am

85. All this talk of a war in Iraq is nonsense - there is no war - there is no opposing army - we are "liberators" who are destroying the village to save it - and if a few towel headed chillen' gots to die - whatver, they'll get to Allah (or wherever they go) just a bit sooner.

    Posted by jabelson at 08/18/2005 @ 11:46am

86. There are a lot of interesting comments and points being made in this ongoing "thread" of discussion, but sadly I find that Ari and many of you are missing the boat by blaming the Democrats... or more to the point the centrists who happen to where the Democrat label.

    The sad truth is that interest based politics [read special interest groups] and centrist tactics have weakoned the DNC's once strongly ideological stance. I could blame Clinton for that, and yet now this very centrist power base is what the author is blaming for not opposing Roberts? The DNC has picked its own poison... though maybe Ari could blame Terry McCaulif and James Carville? The GOP just does it better, and with more money.

    The alternate question I pose to Ari and to those who "blame" the dem's for not being the true opposition party is this, does not Roberts represent the interests of those who have been elected?

    To answer my own question, I'd say Robert's is as corrupt as those interests that are in control, and perhaps too closely represents the interests that the DNC themselves are corrupted by.

    Posted by dk303808909 at 08/18/2005 @ 1:39pm

87. excellent point DK

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/18/2005 @ 2:02pm

88. Ari, with all due respect, you are still operating under the assumption that there are any Democrats left in Washington. There are Republicans and there are republicans who call themselves Democrats. I'd like to "blow up" the Democratic Party (a.k.a. the DLC) and begin afresh with a "new" party called the Progressive Party.

    Posted by billsheasf at 08/18/2005 @ 2:43pm

89. BILLSHEASF, I understand how you feel about it. I think a revolutionary change in the party is probably not possible, but an evolution of the party into a principled, progressive and visionary party is entirely possible. A good first step was getting Howard Dean elected as chairman. Goodness knows we have a LONG, LONG way to go but it can be done!!!

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/18/2005 @ 2:47pm

90. on reflection, maybe we should blame Dean? Where the heck has he been on his grassroots revival? Frankly, I question the unity of the Dem's on opposing Roberts until this thing gets to the floor.

    Now, to be clear, I think Roberts is a stealth conservative and I would filibuster him on the grounds that he is simply unknown and not experienced enough. The very notion that Roberts is likely a very young religious moralist looking to grap a life-long judiciary seat on the high court scares the secular crap out of me.

    I guess Ari makes a good point about Minority LEader Reid, but is Reid speaking as minority leader, as a citizen, or as a representative when it comes to Roberts?

    Posted by dk303808909 at 08/18/2005 @ 4:17pm

91. I am somewhat concerned about Roberts, but I don't think we can expect anyone better to be nominated by George W. "It'd be a lot easier if this were a dictatorship (chuckle)...as long as I'm the dictator" Bush.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/18/2005 @ 7:31pm

92. We have the DLC, the "real domocrats", the new democrats...really all we have are the LDD (LIMP-DICK DEMOCRATS). Such an opportunity, the reps are screwing up big time, and the LDD offers nothing, not even opposition, not even a voice, instead only a complacent silence.

    Posted by remark at 08/18/2005 @ 10:51pm

93. As a progressive, I am not so concerned about Roberts. I suspect he, like many justices appointed by Republicans, will turn out to be more centrist on the court. The American Bar Association gives him a "well-qualified" rating, their highest. He could be a David Souter or Sandra Day O'Conner, disappointing the rightwing. When smart legal minds meet the awesome respondsibility of the Court, they often move left: Harry Stevens and William O. Douglas were appointed by Republicans.

    Posted by philbq at 08/19/2005 @ 01:39am

94. Well, Souter disappointed a lot of progressives with his ruling to allow private entities to take private property. I hope he gets his house taken...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/19/2005 @ 1:29pm

95. sorry, I went off on a tangent there. Let's not get started on that one...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/19/2005 @ 1:29pm