It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Political activists having a hard time taking on John Roberts.

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 11:55 AM

WASHINGTON — What happens when an army prepares for World War III — and ends up in a border skirmish?

That question looms for liberal groups that have been collecting millions of dollars and preparing for years for a scorched-earth battle over President Bush's first Supreme Court nominee.

But now that Bush has chosen John G. Roberts Jr., a respected jurist with bipartisan ties in Washington's legal establishment, Senate Democrats do not seem as eager to go to war.

That means abortion rights advocates and other liberal groups lobbying against Roberts may first have to fire up their allies if they are to have any hope of blocking the nomination.

The challenge facing the interest groups grew larger Thursday when several moderate Democrats said they had not seen anything in Roberts' background to justify blocking him with a filibuster. The Democrats are part of the so-called Gang of 14, a bipartisan group that banded together this year to thwart a showdown over use of the filibuster against judicial nominees.

Some Senate Democrats say their low-key response to Roberts' nomination results in part from the relatively thin record of information about his judicial philosophy, given that he has been an appeals court judge for only two years.

But it also reflects a calculation that Democrats would have more to lose than to gain by quickly opposing a nomination that so far appears hard to beat. Such a move would probably fuel Republicans' efforts to portray Democrats as knee-jerk opponents of anything Bush wants.

"We're not shying away," said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "But we're picking our shots."

One senior Democratic strategist, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said some Democrats believed Roberts' confirmation was a "foregone conclusion." But that has not stopped liberal activists from battling as if it were a wide-open contest.

E-mail alerts have been sent around the country, fundraising appeals have been started and petitions are being circulated.

"The interest of the senators may be a little different from the [party's] base," said Guy Molyneux, a Democratic pollster. "Senators want to look as reasonable as possible. But if you get a lot of Democrats saying this guy is in, it's over before the [Judiciary Committee] hearings, the base will be pretty unhappy."

So far, no Democrat has said that publicly. But since Bush nominated Roberts on Tuesday, Democratic senators have been among those offering praise for the nominee's intellect and credentials.

tsk tsk, i feel sorry for them, they raise money to prepare for war over Bush's nominee to find out this guy is sombody even their own Democrat allies cant take on. wonder if they are willing to risk fillibuster.

[edit on 22-7-2005 by deltaboy]

posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 01:03 PM
Roberts is most likely unsinkable, even Democrats have come out said there's hardly a need to count the votes -- he's in.

Goes to show that Bush is indeed Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious or at least brilliant!

posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 08:09 AM
Another great example of Bush stupidity.

I would feel stupid myself if someone I claimed was stupid kept kicking my butt.

2 elections and now the most important Supreme Court vacancy in decades!

All the Republicans need now is a Hillary nomination for President!

posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 10:23 AM
Something that none of you can take away is the fact that he has a very nice solid record of been one of Bushes man.

Favored over a women or other racial nominee is going to stand all on his own.

As a Bush man he has a trail of favoritism withing the everything that is wrong with the Republican party and the Bush administration.

Ye the battler is going to be dirty, I will not put my hope high but at least the dirty trail on the present administration will shine more than ever.

posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 06:21 PM
I have no problem disagreeing with John Roberts. And as Marg stated, he's been a perfect yes-man. So if that's what you're into... support him. I, for one, think there is probably someone far better out there. This guy, though, will cover G.W.'s butt no matter what. (Hint: his allegience is to the syndicate over the people.)


Statement from the International Action Center on the nomination of John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court

Judge John G. Roberts has built his career advancing the far-right agendas of the Reagan and Bush Administrations. He has worked to overturn abortion rights, blur the separation between church and state, undermine affirmative action, and advance a narrow right-wing interpretation of the Constitution.

His record on civil rights and the environment is poor.

Sorry that I don't sound like anyone else right now from the right or the left. I don't do groupthink.

[edit on 23-7-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]

posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 11:40 AM
I don't know, there might be an issue with the releasing of documents. For example:

Whit Houe to Withhold Nominee's Tax Returns

The Bush administration will not give Senate investigators access to the federal tax returns of Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr., White House and congressional officials said yesterday, a break with precedent that could exacerbate a growing conflict over document disclosure in the confirmation process.

My statement is, If he hasn't done anything wrong, then he's got nothing to hide!

posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 12:32 PM
I saw that, but skipped by it.

What possible reason would they have for not releasing his tax records?

posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 12:42 PM

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
What possible reason would they have for not releasing his tax records?

Gosh, I don't know. Maybe he's another freaking crook! They don't mind releasing all the crap that has nothing incriminating in it. Tax records? Puh-lease! He's as corrupt as the rest of them. Rove Jr.

posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 12:45 PM
I havn't seen or heard anything much that would tarnish the guy other than some positions he's taken that I highly disagree with (presidential powers, mainly).

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 04:00 PM
Well now it seems that his adopted children are to become an issue for the investigation following his nomination.

But occurs he has nothing to fear right?

top topics


log in