T1B

1. Nominee is named. Dems say they will be open-minded and fair but have important questions. (Honeymoon period.)

2. Dems express concern over “issues that have been raised.”

3. There will be a personal accusation, at first anonymous; Dems say the charge must be investigated and taken seriously.

4. First Dem senators will state they cannot support nominee.

5. On substance nominee is labeled “extreme,” with media and Hollywood now in full-throated opposition.

6. Dem senators say they need more time and information.

7. Leftwing groups demand filibuster.

We're slowly moving into Stage 2 with the demands for documents. It's a stalling tactic for the Dems in their hope that ammunition to use against him will develop in the meantime, then we'll see that first anonymous smear.

Stage 2? How dare the Dems do their Constitutional duty!

What is an interesting twist is that the attorney-client priviledge that Bush is invoking may not be valid thanks to a court ruling that was brought by Ken Starr in his investigation of Clinton.

See You Next Wednesday wrote:Stage 2? How dare the Dems do their Constitutional duty!

What is an interesting twist is that the attorney-client priviledge that Bush is invoking may not be valid thanks to a court ruling that was brought by Ken Starr in his investigation of Clinton.

Dumbass, 7 former SG's disagree with you (4 dem and 3 Rep).

And it's not surprising you missed it there at #2. The "issues that have been raised" by them are always considered "serious" and merit investigation. Meanwhile, the issues raised by Republicans are considered suspicious, right-wing, Taliban-esque.

It's all bullshit.

They are only interested in whether he is a conservative with religious faith and whether he'd vote to overturn Roe. Their interest ends there despite their carping otherwise.

mvscal wrote:

See You Next Wednesday wrote: How dare the Dems do their Constitutional duty!

Yeah...that's what they're doing.

Fucking idiot.

:roll:

Your rhetorical skills are overwhelming, poopypants.

See You Next Wednesday wrote:

mvscal wrote:

See You Next Wednesday wrote: How dare the Dems do their Constitutional duty!

Yeah...that's what they're doing.

Fucking idiot.

:roll:

Your rhetorical skills are overwhelming, poopypants.

Much could be said of the democrats, too...

See You Next Wednesday wrote:

mvscal wrote:

See You Next Wednesday wrote: How dare the Dems do their Constitutional duty!

Yeah...that's what they're doing.

Fucking idiot.

:roll:

Your rhetorical skills are overwhelming, poopypants.

Don't let these two shit heads drag you down to their 8th grade level of posting style. It realyy is best to ignore the stupid comments. Makes the threads easier to read.

As for this nominee, on the face of it he seems a reasonable choice, but I don't know much about him yet. War the Dems working on point #2 so in the event there are any odd factors we do know better.

See You Next Wednesday wrote:
Your rhetorical skills are overwhelming, poopypants.

Outing trolls again, are you?

The new news is that this guy actually seems to be what he says he is, someone who stands for constitutional rights without being concerned about the political viewpoint.

I don't have my personal copy of the constitution in front of me, but I'm thinking that is a good thing from our judges and from what I learned in government class...probably what the framers were thinking of when they set up the judicial branch.

The litigation history of Roberts has always been public, but now with the Supreme Court nomination there is obviously more interest. So, now we know that he actually represented the interests of gay people who thought they should have the same rights as others in employment.

Doh! Is it that much of a surprise that someone who knows the law and believes in the rights given to us as citizens would fight for those for others even if he may or may not follow their own way of life?

I like this guy. I think his history shows that he is a jurist that will follow the law.

I hate the fact that folks in his position have to have their private lives so exposed. Already his wife's work with Feminists for Life and his adoption of kids from Central America have been issues for talk, and while that is all very interesting stuff for folks to read and consider...it really has nothing to do with what kind of justice he would be on the Supreme Court.

DrDetroit wrote:1. Nominee is named. Dems say they will be open-minded and fair but have important questions. (Honeymoon period.)

2. Dems express concern over “issues that have been raised.”

3. There will be a personal accusation, at first anonymous; Dems say the charge must be investigated and taken seriously.

4. First Dem senators will state they cannot support nominee.

5. On substance nominee is labeled “extreme,” with media and Hollywood now in full-throated opposition.

6. Dem senators say they need more time and information.

7. Leftwing groups demand filibuster.

We're slowly moving into Stage 2 with the demands for documents. It's a stalling tactic for the Dems in their hope that ammunition to use against him will develop in the meantime, then we'll see that first anonymous smear.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now there's a person who really understands OUR democratic process...

sin.

Howard Dean, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi