Bush to Announce; DPO House Parties Tonight
Someone at the Democratic Party of Oregon is either brilliant, clairvoyant, or both.
Three months ago, they announced statewide house parties to organize Democrats around the upcoming Supreme Court nomination fight. The house parties kick off tonight at 6 p.m.
Well, it appears that President Bush is playing right into the DPO's hands. He'll be announcing his Supreme Court nominee tonight at ... wait for it ... 6 p.m.
So, if you want to gather with your local Democrats to watch the President's announcement, find one of the many many house parties happening - from Ashland to Portland, Pendleton to Waldport - and sign up right now.
Oh, and in the interest of open discussion, who will the nominee be? And will he or she have an easy or hard road to nomination?
|
July 19, 2005
Posted in in the news 2005. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
11:17 a.m.
Jul 19, '05
Speculation is that the Supreme Court nominee will be a 5th Circuit judge named Edith Clement. See the initial flurry of coverage here, here and here.
12:50 p.m.
Jul 19, '05
Timing is everything and it keeps Rove off the front page.
12:54 p.m.
Jul 19, '05
What, no pool? Seems like there should be a Blue Oregon T-shirt in it for the first to guess. Mooney's in with Clement (or is he?). Solid money seems to be on her, but the question is: does Bush see this as a "woman's" seat? I think no--I predict not-very-dark-horse Emilio Garza. (As bad as I am on predictions, Garza-haters should breathe a sigh of relief.)
12:57 p.m.
Jul 19, '05
Rove's 3 D"s: Duck, Divert, Distract
Compliments of Billmon
Jul 19, '05
ABC just reported that Clement is NOT the nominee. My guess is he swings for the fences on this pick, knocking Rove off the front page and inspiring the base.
Jul 19, '05
I'm not totally suprised that the President is announcing his appointment for the SCOTUS this evening (it does draw attention away from Rove), but now that he's done it (or is about to) does it mean that the prez expects a confirmation before the Senate takes its August vacation? Or is he willing to leave the nomination hanging out like a wang in the breeze until September - possibly meaning that the next session of the court will begin without his new nominee on the bench?
3:01 p.m.
Jul 19, '05
I'm standing by my initial pick of Cornyn.
3:32 p.m.
Jul 19, '05
I'm going to have to side with Kurt Vonnegut. Judge Judy is the only rational choice.
3:35 p.m.
Jul 19, '05
Reuters is reporting Kay Bailey Hutchison.
Jul 19, '05
Whoever it is, the DPO house parties will be great venues to discuss the nomination and to hear from Democratic leaders what that means.
It's not too late to sign up to host or attend a party!
Click here to host or attend a DPO House Party tonight!
-d
Jul 19, '05
If bush was to fire that lying rove then it would open a new can of worms. bush himself is a lier and so is his sidekick chaney and his assistant. Wow what a clean-up...get all the liars at once....ok lets start with bush/and assistant, chaney/and assistant, rice/anyone next to her, all the military generals, the slime that crawled out of texas delay, and then we can move over to the liars that work for "homeland security" whoo hoo! then lets move over to the friends of chaney that are raping the country while we are told to believe "they" were the only company to handle the job...halbution (can't spell it but know who they are. Ok lets then move over to the supporters for bush and the republican party....they are stupid enough to follow a liar! Ok now I think I got a good start....anything else? I'm too scared to laugh about it so I might as well cry and hope for the best future we can squeese out of this messed up country. There is so much good about our country and so much that is so very wrong and bush and all those that believe in him are so very wrong. History will tell.
Jul 19, '05
Whoever Bush announces tonight to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, Democrats should not reflexively oppose the choice.
Three considerations for liberals and progressives of all stripes:
Using those filters, Democrats should not mount a campaign to oppose Edith Clement. Edith Jones, however, is another issue.
For more background, see:
"Supreme Limitations: Considerations for Democrats "
4:36 p.m.
Jul 19, '05
Please, not Kay Bailey or Cornyn! Ugh. I'm so tired of dumb-ass politicians from Texas.
Good news from Texas is that a Democrat brother-sister team are running for governor/lt. governor. It sure would be nice to see a Dem in the gov's mansion there again. Kay Bailey was going to run, but after the White House spoke with her it was announced she would not. That is a big reason why so many rumors are revolving around her and the SCOTUS and running as VP.
If you can't make one of the house parties tonight, consider heading over to mine tomorrow night. Since I have a small apartment (with a large home office in the living room), I'm hosting it down at the "club house" at our complex. It was booked for tonight, so I'm holding mine tomorrow.
So if you want to come over tomorrow, we're out in SW Gresham. Here's the details: http://www.party2win.com/dpo?e=jenni
Jul 19, '05
I was a registered Republican and Bush voter during the 2000 election. Seeing what kind of person George Bush was, I changed my registration to an Independent. During the Kerry election I worked hard to elect a thoughtful amn and genuine hero as president. We lost, but I have come to realize that I am more of a liberal than I ever thought. I am still pro-gun ownership and I love to fish and hunt, plus I am a regular church attender at my local Calvary Chapel. But I am pro-choice, pro-gay rights, for a national health care plan, opposed to outsourcing American jobs, and for good and honest government run by competent people. Does that make me a Democrat? I think so.
Jul 19, '05
"President Bush has chosen federal appeals court judge John C. Roberts Jr. as his nominee to the Supreme Court, a senior administration official says..." - Drudge Report.
4:56 p.m.
Jul 19, '05
AP confirmed it... Roberts.
Jul 19, '05
I'm sitting here ignoring whatever Bush has to say. I think those calling this a diversion from Rove facing the firing squad are dead on. Sorry to be so cynical, but basically I've sensed for a while that whenever Bush is pointing in one direction it's to try to prevent us from looking in a different direction. So, why the big rush all of a sudden, when last week he "hadn't even looked at any of the candidates"? Me thinks he's got Rove all over him. Like a virus. And the more we and the media look, the itchier and scratchier it's gonna get.
Bush is bad news. And a lame duck. My guess is that we've been seeing the beginning of the end of his career and though he and the R's are still in charge, this house of cards is going to fold big-time very soon. I think they'll just try to take whatever money they can until they are sent back to Texas.
I'm looking forward to that day.
Jul 19, '05
Does anyone see Roberts' birthdate published? Looks like its 1955 in Buffalo, and some suggestion it is in June or July, but I don't see the date. Wow, and if you had the birthtime, that'd be great. My astrologer friends will have it in a few days, probably. And, since I'm too lazy to look it up, is he married (what's his wedding date) and does he have kids (what's their birthdate(s))? I can take it from there. This seeing-the-future scam is better than see-under-the-clothes x-ray vision.
<h1></h1>10:31 p.m.
Jul 19, '05
Dude, Tensk, back to the meds, man.
Jul 19, '05
Seriously now, Roberts' nomination poses a dilemma for Democrats in the Senate. Bush has chosen a "white bread" nominee with not much of a paper trail to document whether he allows partisan doctrine to influence his judicial decisions. If that cannot be demonstrated, there could be little justification for standing in the way of his confirmation, whatever the suspicions harbored about his intentions.
This is somewhat of a gamble for Bush also, in that SCOTUS justices can express their independence in ways frustrating to the constituencies that supported their elevation. Small comfort to be sure...
Jul 20, '05
Bush's nomination is a GIANT leap backwards! If people in this country were concerned with equal representation, no male, no matter how "brilliant" or conservative or liberal, would be considered for the Supreme Court until 50% of the court justices were female. People of conscience (male and female) need to stand up in protest! Bush's nomination has shown how easy it is to undo any strides that women have made since the 70s. His appontment shows that we cannot rely on the "good will" of leaders to promote equality. We need a constitutional amendment that mandates that the Supreme Court composition is reflective of the gender make up of this country. Because discrimination against women is so deep that we can be elected to national office only rarely, the appontment of women to this body represents the only chance for remedy. Hell, even Laura Bush's gut told her that to replace a woman with a man on the court was wrong.
Jul 20, '05
Cheer up, Margaret L! Undoubtedly Bush will soon have another chance to grant your wish...
Hmmm, the SCOTUS fairy?
8:52 a.m.
Jul 20, '05
Brilliant? Clairvoyant? How about just plain lucky?
The Alliance for Justice is one of the left's leaders on supreme court nominations....where's Tim's analysis of the choice?
12:15 p.m.
Jul 20, '05
In the FWIW file, here's Jeffrey Rosen's take on Roberts:
John Roberts, 49. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C., Circuit. Top of his class at Harvard Law School and a former law clerk for Rehnquist, Roberts is one of the most impressive appellate lawyers around today. Liberal groups object to the fact that, in 1990, as a deputy solicitor general, Roberts signed a brief in a case involving abortion-financing that called, in a footnote, for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. But it would be absurd to Bork him for this: Overturning Roe was the Bush administration's position at the time, and Roberts, as an advocate, also represented liberal positions, arguing in favor of affirmative action, against broad protections for property rights, and on behalf of prisoners' rights. In little more than a year on the bench, he has won the respect of his liberal and conservative colleagues but has not had enough cases to develop a clear record on questions involving the Constitution in Exile. On the positive side, Roberts joined Judge Merrick Garland's opinion allowing a former employee to sue the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority for disability discrimination. He pointedly declined to join the unsettling dissent of Judge David Sentelle, a partisan of the Constitution in Exile, who argued that Congress had no power to condition the receipt of federal transportation funds on the Metro's willingness to waive its immunity from lawsuits. In another case, however, Roberts joined Sentelle in questioning whether the Endangered Species Act is constitutional under Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. The regulation in question prevented developers from building on private lands in order to protect a rare species of toad, and Roberts noted with deadpan wit that "the hapless toad ... for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California," and therefore could not affect interstate commerce. Nevertheless, Roberts appears willing to draw sensible lines: He said that he might be willing to sustain the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act on other grounds. All in all, an extremely able lawyer whose committed conservatism seems to be leavened by a judicious temperament.
2:29 p.m.
Jul 20, '05
according to Moveon.org - reasons to be concerned....
Here are some of the areas of greatest concern from Roberts' record:
As a partisan lawyer for the Bush Sr. and Reagan administrations, Roberts threatened:
Civil rights by asking the Supreme Court to severely limit the ability of district courts to desegregate public schools1, and working to ensure the Voting Rights Act could not be used to remedy many cases of actual discrimination against minority votes.2 Women's rights by fighting for a law barring doctors from even discussing reproductive options in many cases,3 and arguing that Roe. vs. Wade should be "overruled."4
Free speech by arguing to the Supreme Court that political speech that some considered offensive did not deserve First Amendment protections. The Court rejected his claim.5
Religious liberty by arguing to the Supreme Court that public schools could force religious speech on students. Again, the Court rejected the argument.6
As a corporate lawyer, Roberts threatened:
Community and environmental rights by working to strike down new clean-air rules and filing a brief for the National Mining Association, arguing that federal courts could not stop mountaintop-removal mining in West Virginia, even as it devastated local communities.7 Workers' rights by helping Toyota to successfully evade the Americans with Disabilities Act and fire workers for disabilities they suffered over time because of the requirements of their jobs.8
Public interest regulations by helping Fox News challenge FCC rules that prevented the creation of news media monopolies.9
In his short two years as a judge, Roberts has threatened:
Individual rights by rejecting the civil rights claims brought on behalf of a 12-year-old girl who had been handcuffed, arrested and taken away by the police for eating a single french fry in the D.C. Metro.10
Environmental protections when the dissent he wrote on an Endangered Species Act case, had it been in the majority, would have struck the Act down as unconstitutional in many cases, and would have threatened a wide swath of workplace, public safety and civil rights protections.11
Human Rights by voting to strike down the Geneva Conventions as applied to prisoners that the Bush administration chose to exempt from international law.12
Roberts' confirmation is not inevitable. As Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said yesterday, "The President has made his choice. Now the Senate will do its job of deciding whether to confirm John Roberts to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court."
Now it's time for us all to do our job of telling our senators that our rights are not negotiable, and John Roberts does not belong on the Supreme Court.
We hope to see you tomorrow.
http://political.moveon.org/event/RapidResponse/?id=5822-1629644-WxKyXV_gXmV2pqPipgCm.Q&t=6
Thanks for all that you do,
–Ben, James, Micayla, Wes and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team Wednesday July 20th, 2005
Sources:
Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell
Alliance for Justice, Nominee Profile http://www.moveon.org/r?r=794
Alliance for Justice, Nominee Profile http://www.moveon.org/r?r=794
"Same Appeal; Different Styles," Washington Postm July 17, 2005 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=795
United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990)
Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)
"The Making of the Corporate Judiciary" Mother Jones, November/December 2003 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=796
Toyota Motor Mfg., Kentucky v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002)
Alliance for Justice http://www.moveon.org/r?r=797
Hedgepeth v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 386 F.3d 1148 (D.C. Cir. 2004)
Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1158 (D.C. Cir. 2003 cert. denied)
Court: U.S. May Resume Detainee Tribunals, Associated Press, July 16th 2005
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
3:22 p.m.
Jul 20, '05
I'm already tired of seeing Roberts criticized for positions that he took in his capacity as a LAWYER FOR THE ADMINISTRATION. Sure, it's a political appointment, and sure, one can assume that Roberts wanted the job because he felt some ideological affinity with that administration and the Republican party (let's think twice before we make that a disqualifying offense). But to equate all of Roberts' legal arguments FOR HIS CLIENT with his own personal political agenda is idiotic and deceptive. Can't we do better than that?
I'm still ecstatic that Kari was wrong and Bush didn't pick a hack like John Cornyn. Given the likely possibilities, we came out quite well. Roberts seems like an impressive choice. There's a legitimate discussion to be had about his judicial philosophy -- but "philosophy" is the key word. Unfortunately, Moveon is interested only in specific policies, as if we progressives should simply demand policy outcomes from the courts that we can't get from the elected branches because we keep losing elections. What a great way to ensure that we keep losing.
3:44 p.m.
Jul 20, '05
good points, Chris. Albert
Jul 20, '05
While we can concede the his attorney positions were mercenary, the judicial positions may give one pause.
In the first instance, while I am skeptical it was about 1 french fry, why is it ever necessary to handcuff a 12 year old girl? As for the second instance, I'm confused how the Endangered Species Act could effectively "have threatened a wide swath of workplace, public safety and civil rights protections." But perhaps the most disturbing is putting aside the Geneva Convention. It makes one question his values. Personally, I feel that if we believe in American standards for people, they should be for all people. Willfully ignoring the Geneva Convention lowers the bar and we are diminished by resorting to torture, in any circumstance. We are emulating terrorists rather then standing for due process.
Jul 21, '05
Here's what scares me about the nomination. (Perhaps I rely too heavily on the "endorsement" section at the bottom of every candidate's blurb in my Voter's Pamphlet, but I'm left to wonder in this Court nominee debate - what do these people know that I don't?)
"Pat Robertson was almost giddy, claiming that Roberts is 'exactly [the sort of nominee] the president said he would give us.'
Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition said: 'Conservatives who supported George W. Bush have no reason to be disappointed [by Roberts' nomination]. He has more than fulfilled his pledge.'
Operation Rescue praised President Bush for 'being a man of his word by appointing a judge that will respect the Right to Life' and praised Roberts for having 'strong conservative credentials with indications that he will not uphold Roe v. Wade.'"
From www.pfaw.org (People for the American Way). And I have no idea how I ended up on their e-mail list, but I'm blaming it on Gonzalez.