The party of No is gearing up...

[FromTexas]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Supreme Court nominee John Roberts didn't disclose that he once lobbied for cosmetics makers, or mention that he'd once given a TV interview about justices' independence...

"I'm convinced that even if there's not anything, there are groups out there who are going to try to make this nomination controversial even when it shouldn't be," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a member of the Judiciary Committee that will question Roberts early next month...

But a trickle of omissions from Roberts' public resume have some partisans smelling blood and demanding more documents. Roberts, a U.S. appeals judge, has acknowledged that he should have told senators before he was confirmed for that job that he worked as lobbyist for the cosmetics industry in 2001.

News link...

Cosmetics lobbying and an interview are all they got, but it is a big issue?

 

[vraiblonde]

Did you hear how reporters went after his children, demanding that the courts release their adoption records so they could make sure there was nothing shady or illegal about it?

 

[FromTexas]

Did you hear how reporters went after his children, demanding that the courts release their adoption records so they could make sure there was nothing shady or illegal about it?

My favorite is the abortion commercial.

If it is done by Bush, it must be painted evil.

 

[SamSpade]

Did you hear how reporters went after his children, demanding that the courts release their adoption records so they could make sure there was nothing shady or illegal about it?

Which only illimunates the obvious political reality that their "fact-finding" has NOTHING to do with his fitness for the bench, and solely a fishing expedition for dirt.

EVEN IF DIRTY - it's low to go after children.

 

[SamSpade]

My favorite is the abortion commercial.

If it is done by Bush, it must be painted evil.

Boy did Sean ROAST the NARAL guy he had on yesterday. Sometimes, he's obnoxious - I always hate when someone gives someone else a very loaded question and says "answer, yes or no", knowing full well if they BEGIN with "yes" or "no", they won't be afforded an explanation.

The guy was really back-pedalling when Sean made it clear that the "bombing" and Robert's actions in '91 had NOTHING to do with each other - and that Roberts held the same position at the time of two-thirds of the Supreme Court.

(Of course, Sean THEN proceeded to take all his cues from the same Fact-Check page we ALL read. I *hate* when he does that - he needs to thoroughly research things before he just reads Drudge like a cue card. It's clear he and Rush BOTH get their news items from Drudge).

 

[Larry Gude]

Here's the story...

...per Bob Novak:

Essentially, Roberts is a shoo in and they know it but they don't want him to be too much of a shoo in. They'd rather he get 60 votes than 70 or more and allegations, true or not, a la the abortion bombing thing will peel off a few Democrats and maybe the odd Republican or two.

Why?

Because it was believed that the first nominee would be replacing Rehnquist so, at worst a conservative like Roberts replaces an existing conservative; no net loss from the left wing view.

Now, with O'Conner, thought of as a moderate, being replaced with a conservative and Rehnquist obviously just around the corner, the idea is to set the stage that Bush can't nominate another conservative which would tilt the court rightward.

If Roberts squeeks by, and he is squeeky clean, then, suppossedly, if the balance of the court is at stake, then another conservative can't make it.

Thus the machinations of advise and consent.

I guarantee you that the so called nuke option WILL come into play in order for Bush to get who he wants on the court. There is no way he finishes his second term without having that feather in his cap.

 

[SamSpade]

Then I don't figure the Dem's strategy. If they figure they can make Roberts' ascension to the bench costly and thereby cut off they possibility of a MORE conservative candidate, they figured wrong.

If they fight and squawk and kick up dust and at the end of the day, they all fall in line and surrender - MY INCLINATION would be to nominate the most conservative man possible. I mean, if you can win the tough battles - as this one is proving to be - why not engage them FURTHER?

Nominate Rush!

 

[ylexot]

I'm thinking that Bush nominated someone that should easily pass scrutiny to draw out the nutties. The nutties predictably say he is the most evil man to walk the Earth and the nutties are seen for what they are. Then when Bush nominates someone more controversial, the nutties can easily be ignored because their thinking was shown to be so completely out-of-whack.