John Roberts has the tacit approval of every democrat in the Senate -- none has spoken publicly against him. His middle-of-the-road attitude towards how the Supreme Court should handle hotbutton cases like abortion and gay marriage (he has referred to the ideal court situation as "modest") hardly warrent the filibuster promised by Democrats in event of "extrordinary circumstances." Even Ed Kennedy and Charles Schumer have not made any objections to the nomination -- their silence is a sort of unspoken, though grudging, endorsement. As I am a democrat myself, I rankle at the thought that Bush's first pick might go through with out much fight. But I am attracted to the possibility of another swing voter to replace Judge O'Connor. In any event, I cannot bring myself to fully trust Bush's motives for immediately giving the senate democrats what they have asked for. So what do you think? Is John Roberts an undercover pansy, fully controlled by the republican machine? Or is he a genuine almost-moderate, swing-voting gift? Is Bush merely dangling the possibility of fairness above our heads, or is he actually bending to the advice given by democratic Senators to consult them before making a nomination? Other opinions are welcome, or course :sunglasse
from what i hear in the national news, hes a moderate. But I also read an artical that made it prtty clear Roe v. Wade is first on his list to overturn, and he even supports removing the seperation between church/state. So, were fucked.
Prolly so. Ever wonder why the talking heads don't use the terms 'strict' or 'anti' Constitutionalist instead of conservative or liberal?
He seems like a reasonable man, even if his personal politics lean to the right. If we filibuster him, it will make us look bad, plus we could end up with someone else who is a lot worse. I don't think the senate democrats should put up much of a fight. Alex
