THE ARGUMENTS:
1. CONCEALMENT OF CRITICALLY RELEVANT DOCUMENTS
Some people thought that the compromise on the filibuster would doom any opposition to offensive nominees, and indeed, some very offensive ones were allowed to pass to obtain that compromise. And yet, just three days later the Senate sustained a filibuster of John Bolton (which continued to hold), on the grounds that the administration was refusing to disclose documents relevant to the consideration of the nominee. That is exactly the situation here. They have totally frustrated any meaningful opportunity to cross-examine this nominee by stonewalling access to any of his memos from the last 20 years, materials that previous administrations have always disclosed as to other Supreme Court nominees.
2. AN UNPOPULAR PRESIDENT HAS NO PREROGATIVE
The primary argument we have heard from the other side is that he's the president's choice and that should be enough. They are saying in essence, "Ha, ha, we won the last election, too bad." And yet now, just 10 months later, Mr. Bush is the most UNPOPULAR second term president in history. His bad judgment in crisis after crisis has brought shame and destruction to our country and cost thousands if not tens of thousands of innocent American lives. There are now too many dead bodies for even them to hide, though they've tried that in New Orleans too. Bush's nominee Bolton, who he stubbornly rammed through over the objections of the good judgment of the Senate, has done nothing but create chaos and disruption at the UN already, to the dismay of even our closest ally, Great Britain. His selection of partisan cronies for FEMA management positions crippled that agency's ability to protect us. We no LONGER trust the choices of Mr. Bush.
If there were to be an election today, with his popularity in free fall, there is no doubt Bush would be soundly defeated. And by calling on people to contact their members of Congress, what we are doing is calling for a NATIONAL REFERENDUM, by email, by fax, by phone call and by letter to the editor, not only on this nominee, but on the Bush presidency. If the other side wants to rest their argument on whether this president has any mandate, then let us demonstrate just how little support Bush actually retains. Roberts will wreck the Supreme Court just as Bush has wrecked every other aspect of our lives, and we must speak out now to stop the looming catastrophe.
Indeed, even the last election would certainly have gone the other way had it not been for widespread vote fraud and suppression, COMBINED with the corrupt collaboration of the corporate mainstream media in suppressing or ignoring any stories negative to Bush's election prospects, and exaggerating the importance of any stories smearing his opponents. Just yesterday there was a story on the AP wire service with the headline "Roberts DODGES questions about abortion," and yet within hours the word "dodge" had disappeared from the Yahoo site and was REPLACED with a spin job using the word "rebuff" and the word "abortion" was gone too. This is scary, SCARY stuff. There's a Greek chorus out there of big media voices trying to sell the public on this nominee like it's a foregone conclusion, but still they have NOT heard from we the people yet. Be ye not conned, this is not over no matter what the talking heads say.
3. ROBERTS HAS NOT BEEN CANDID ABOUT HIS TRUE AGENDA
Who are they trying to kid? We ALL know exactly how Roberts is going to rule. He's going to vote AGAINST us, we the people, and in favor of every corporate special interest, in favor of absolute power for the chief executive, every single time and without exception. They know it, we know it, and Roberts himself knows it. That's why all the most extreme reactionaries in the country are so hot for this guy. And the shame of it is that this nominee will not even admit he has an opinion on PAST cases upon which we have come to trust on and rely. Even worse, for all his theoretical legal platitudes about stare decisis he has been breathtaking in leaving the door open that under him it would be open season on revisiting just about every progressive court decision of the last 100 years, if only a case were to come before him.
The Republican senators on the judiciary committee have repeatedly encouraged the nominee to NOT answer questions on the merits, to be evasive and call it integrity. Roberts has testified at length and said absolutely nothing of substance, like the enormously slick lawyer he is. But one interesting thing he did say is that as a lawyer he could take EITHER side of a case and make a reasonable argument. And you better believe that in ruling against us time after time, he will always find a CLEVER way to make extremism sound reasonable, and that is precisely why he is so dangerous. He said it is not the job of a lawyer to have a position on the issues, but ultimately it IS the job of a judge. The law is not just a mechanical exercise in applying precedents to the facts. All judges have values that they bring to every case, which they at last must fall back on. And in not disclosing the agenda that his entire career strongly suggests that he has, he does NOT deserve and cannot be trusted with the job of a Supreme Court judge, let alone chief justice.
The American people now understand that they were sold a dishonest bill of goods in the last election and are having big time buyer's remorse. As recently as a year ago Mr. Bush seemed to many like a wise and capable leader, but now many more realize the depth of his perverse bad judgment. The only reason why he has not ALREADY been called out for impeachment for his many crimes and catastrophes is because the Republican party cares more about their own power than the good of the American people. He has wrecked our economy, our budget, our military, and in the exercise of his criminal negligence now an entire major U.S. city. But still he will be removed eventually. It is not so easy to remove an equally destructive Supreme Court chief justice.
And superficially Mr. Roberts may seem like a nice, reasonable guy. That is the biggest lie of all. His hearing responses bear an uncanny resemblance to a press conference with Scott McClellan, only infinitely more smooth. He might as well have said over and over, "Again, we're not going to get into playing the agenda game." In fact, for all we know he is WORSE than the flaming reactionary that peeks through some of his early memos, he's just gotten a lot better at concealing it. A person who claims to stand for nothing is the very DEFINITION of someone with an agenda. If he would just be honest with the American people, we might consider him on that basis. His failure to evidence any such candor makes his rejection mandatory.
FINAL THOUGHTS
Nobody expected Roberts to beat himself. We all expected a masterful exercise in dodging any questions about what he really stood for. The reactionary elements who are pushing this guy were not going to repeat the Bork mistake, who spoke freely and was quite forthcoming about his positions on the issues, and who left a wide paper trail of statements, writings and speeches. Instead they have spent decades grooming a stealth candidate, with little visible record, and are trying to hustle him into the top slot of the Supreme Court before anybody else can get a handle on what they are really voting for.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
