Posted on 07/19/2005 7:39:11 PM PDT by dukeman
A quick scan through DU's latest posts after the Roberts announcement produced the following:
GarySeven (718 posts) Tue Jul-19-05 09:33 PM
Original message
To WAR!!!!
Bush's pick is a direct assault on the social progress of the 20th century. This creature, Roberts, is the spawn of the Federalist Society a twisted, sick and perverted "school" of "scholars" whose theories on the Constitution are warped and distorted with no basis in fact and with no fidelity to nearly 250 years of American jurisprudence.
As of tonight - unless we act - not only is Roe v. Wade overturned, but so are ALL federal powers to enforce fair commerce, ensure safe products, food and medicine, not to mention the rights and civil liberties of anyone not fortunate to be born white, male and Christian.
Bush was elected - excuse me, selected - for the sole purpose of destroying social progressivism and returning the country to the post-Civil War level of individual protections. NO MATTER WHAT this person says, he WILL overturn the laws his conservative masters desire him to and there will be NO way of stopping him.
Maat (1000+ posts)
Response to Original message
1. Amen!
Reporting for duty, Sir.
ClintonTyree (1000+ posts)
Response to Original message
2. We have 5 weeks to prepare for that battle....... at this moment we are locked in another battle that may make the other moot. We must concentrate on Plamegate and not be distracted by this Neanderthal selection. For now. There will be a time and place for that battle, but it is not now.
In 5 weeks there may be no bush White House left. THAT is what we must concentrate on now.
OrangeCountyDemocrat (338 posts)
Response to Reply #2
3. TREASONGATE...Not Plamegate
CubsFan1982 (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #2
4. No Bush White House left?
Methinks someone's being a little unrealistic.
New Thread:
bribri16 (267 posts) Tue Jul-19-05 09:32 PM
Original message
Dems should confirm Roberts immediately and get back to Rove!!
There is nothing I can see about Roberts that deserves a filibuster or a difficult time during confirmation. If they want to screw this administration they should get rid of the distractions and get back to Rovegate-DSM-Bush lies.
Langis (1000+ posts)
Response to Original message
1. I agree
Let's get back to Rove
liberaliraqvet26 (295 posts)
Response to Original message
2. i'd vote for him....
lets get back to the fat cherub
cally (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #2
5. Why would you vote for him?
He's for keeping the Cheney energy task force secret, he's against Roe v. Wade, he's against environmental protection.
liberaliraqvet26 (295 posts)
Response to Reply #5
12. because were not gonna get any better
he's a wild card and is definitly capable of moving to the left over time.(like souter & kennedy have) he does not appear to be a knee jerk wacko like thomas and scalia. he is capable of thinking unlike those two. fact is hes going to be confirmed so lets not drag it out and get back to beating up on rove
newsguyatl (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #12
15. yeh, yeh
let's just pass on through a guy who'll help overturn roe v wade...
hurry hurry!
move along, nothing to see here!
bowens43 (1000+ posts)
Response to Original message
7. This is far more important then 'screwing the administration'.
This man is an extremist. A partisan hack who has twice been rejected by the US senate. He is a rabid anti-choicer and helped the bushies steal the 2000 election. He is YOUNG we are talking about decades of this conservative lunatic making choices that affect our lives.
clitzpah queen (5 posts)
Response to Original message
24. This Either/Or Thinking is Dangerous This is just what Repubs want folks to say. Why choose between legitimate fights? Both battle fronts are important -- but the Supreme Court because of its scope of influence and the potential length of time this justice could serve his corporate masters (a an oh-so-nice, friendly and professional manner, no doubt) is even moreso. Before you say "nothing I can see about Roberts that deserves a filibuster" -- do your research. This is a VERY STEALTH CANDIDATE because of the limits of paper trail on him. My guess is that he probably doesn't have as many outrageous quotes as Ms. Brown had from speeches she gave -- which doesn't mean he doesn't have the evil in him. Already a few days ago he supported a team that defended unprecedented sweeping powers of the Executive to deem who is an enemy combatant and what happens to them.
The LINK TO ROVE of this issue is that ROVE probably helped push for him as a choice and gets to mastermind a lot of the spin as to what gets said about him. If Dems get sucked in by this "moderate and reasonable" PR then they deserve to go down in FLAMES. It'd be like saying "SCREW the women, SCREW the children, SCREW the unions, SCREW the environment, SCREW our privacy" etc.
New Thread
alcibiades_mystery (1000+ posts) Tue Jul-19-05 09:31 PM
Original message
"If we don't fight this, I'm Leaving the Party!!!"
My response: Good. Leave. You're a pain in the ass.
This guy is filibuster proof, pure and simple, and alienating the vast majority of Americans with a drawn out filibuster will do much more damage to the Democratic Party (and to abortion rights) than alienating the party purists, who will come moping back here in 2006 anyway.
There should be reasonable hearings with aggressive questioning, especially on women's rights. The Democrats should promote a women's rights campaign to coordinate with these hearings, just to get people's radar up. If anything ugly comes out, a filibuster should be discussed then. As it stands, however, the guy looks acceptable, and starting off swinging is just plain stupid. You wanna leave? Leave. I, for one, will be happy to see some of the dogmatists depart.
imenja (1000+ posts)
Original message
who said they'd leave the party?
Some people on this site threaten that at least once a week. It's sooo boring.
LoZoccolo (1000+ posts)
Response to Original message
45. The first and last refuge of the vegetating Internet "activist"...
...is to sit back and act like they have power to do things by posting messages. [Shhhhhhh! You'll wake the others]
Carni (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #7
38. All I needed to hear was this guy was involved in the 2000 *recount*
I want to claw my own eyes out and then dip my head in lye but what difference would THAT make?
Because behind him bush will have a myriad of nutcases and extremists and loons and eventually one of them will be confirmed--so what is the point of directing the media into a frenzy at the expense of rovegate and Iraq-gate etc.
I see doing that as giving the rove team exactly what it wants currently.
I say the hell with this and stay on the trail of bush's assorted crimes, because we will be stuck with some ****head of bush's choosing on the supreme court anyway.
jsamuel (1000+ posts)
Response to Original message
5. Why do you give up so easily? Are you weak?
Can't have two balls at once?
Look at the Neo-Cons they are attacking us on all fronts! We can't affort to fight one battle at a time.
liberaltrucker (211 posts)
Response to Reply #5
23. In case you haven't noticed
We're the minority right now. We must choose our battles. That doesn't mean we're weak.
VelmaD (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #23
47. And when will we actually chose women's rights... as our battle? You know...rights that affect more than half of all Democratic voters. Let me know so I can mark my ****ing calendar.
New Thread
drdon326 (1000+ posts) Tue Jul-19-05 09:29 PM
Original message
Goodbye Roe ; Hello Back-alley Butchers
Amazing how people forget before R v.W.
Rich people will fly to europe to get abortions.
Poor people will get coat-hangers, pelvic infections , sterility and possible death.
Unbelieveable.
Even my 91 year old aunt/godmother is past outraged.
Lecky (438 posts)
Response to Original message
1. What if he doesn't want to overturn R v. W?
mdmc (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #1
3. still be outraged
that it isn't Gore nominating Cuomo.. [Sorry, forgot to give the barf alert warning!]
New Thread
cupcake (35 posts) Tue Jul-19-05 09:21 PM
Original message
What else will this Roberts guy do?
This is so depressing, everything we have fought for is slipping away. He'll probably make bible reading mandatory and put guns in every home. What can we do?
Tux (1000+ posts)
Response to Original message
1. Er
Michigan Militia? Who knows? It's all over till CAFTA makes people wake up from lost jobs, lost homes, and their college grads can't get good jobs.
enigami (794 posts)
Response to Original message
2. I already got a gun
kinda short on blbles. Is that a problem? come on you can do better than that.
lvx35 (404 posts)
Response to Original message
3. Free guns!
Wow, now there's an interesting approach to welfare!
New Thread
BullGooseLoony (1000+ posts) Tue Jul-19-05 09:19 PM
Original message
Poll question: Would you have given up the Alamo?
Poll result (14 votes)
Yes (11 votes, 79%)
No (3 votes, 21%)
How should I know? Don't make me imagine being in that position. (0 votes)
whyverne (12 posts)
Response to Original message
1. Why Texans drive me nuts.
They had no legal right to be there and they were outnumbered thousands to one. That's not bravery, that's dumb.
despairing optimist (959 posts)
Response to Original message
2. Considering what's been coming out of Texas lately, hell yes
I'd have gotten Bill Moyers and Molly Ivins out before surrendering, though.
Jersey Devil (1000+ posts)
Response to Original message
11. Are you saying all Dems should fall on their swords over Roberts?
Don't you understand that the Repubs are baiting the Dems into opposing them so they can make the Dems look like the party that stands for nothing and opposes everything?
Unless there is some dirt on Roberts we don't know about that surfaces during the hearings the Dems will look stupid opposing him.
Did you shower after compiling that mess?
We're all gonna die? ROFL!
And we're supposed to be the dumb, red state rubes!
This is my first day here. I love RedState, and enjoy the site, but this is really a great site. Thanks for letting me chat, and thanks again for the "huge" laugh. I am already in "trouble" with "mamma", cause I am still at work bloggin!!
This just in:
Ellen Goodman has slashed her wrists and Streisand has taken a dive off the Golden Gate Bridge.
Go ahead, act up. Roberts will be confirmed anyway. In fact, I predict he'll get at least 70 up votes. And there you'll be, still out there in la la land, except then everyone will know that you're out there.
But in reality, it is sad and pathetic that we have fellow Americans that think the way they do.
Welcome aboard!
C'mon, dukeman, admit it. You made that whole thing up just to make the Rats look stupid! :-)
I looked up Ruth Buzzy -
JUNE 14, 1993: Avowed feminist and ACLU activist Ruth Bader Ginsberg was appointed to be an associate justice on the Supreme Court. Based on a report she co-authored and on her previous decisions, these are some of the positions she has expressed in the past.
- The traditional family concept of the husband as a breadwinner and wife as a homemaker must be eliminated.
- The federal government must provide comprehensive child care.
- The Homestead Law must give twice as much benefit to couples who live apart from each other as to a husband and wife who live together.
- In the military, women must be drafted when men are drafted, and women must be assigned to combat duty.
- Affirmative action must be applied to equalize the number of men and women in the armed forces.
- The age of consent for sexual acts must be lowered to 12 years of age.
- Prostitution must be legalized. She wrote, "Prostitution as a consensual act between adults is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions."
- All-boy and all-girl organizations must be sexually integrated, as must all fraternities and sororities. The Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts must change their names and their purposes to become sex-integrated.(14)
The woman who holds these and other radical views was designated "a moderate" by the press, and the American people were never the wiser. Ginsberg was confirmed in the Senate by a vote of 96-3, with one abstention.(15)
http://www.jeremiahproject.com/trashingamerica/clint_fam2.html
But it's nice to know the opposition is so stupid. This will be an easy one. On to Rove, indeed!
The funny thing is if this whole Rove thing turns out to have been a setup helped along by Rove as a deliberate issue to allow SOTUS nominees to get some breathing room.
I would not put it past Bush and Rove to have set all this up from the beginning.
My Pleasure,....is it Ms.or Mr. Pendence? (notice my "PC" Ms, and I put it first) RWRCC can reform/conform? Nah..., we needn't! We Have "W", Rove, and now Roberts. Put CJ in front of Thomas and I am Soooo...happy!
Thanks for the welcome. Really glad to be here.
Judging from how much the liberals look like suckers in this issue I think the correct term should be "Baitbate."
Is this true, or just another empty promise?
Make that "Baitgate."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.