« Dean on Roberts: Ain't no sunshine til he's gone | Main | Question for Liberals »

September 15, 2005

Dear Democrats

I know you're agonizing over whether you should confirm John Roberts or not.

Here's a ticket to the clue train: your base finds him repulsive, and with good reason.

Let's go over why, shall we?

First of all, no papers. You haven't been able to look at his whole history, because the White House refused to release his papers. Um, 'kay, but would your hire someone to work in your office who didn't provide you with any information about their work history? That alone would earn a no vote from me, but I'm a stickler for information.

Second, he hasn't been straight about his membership in the Federalist Society. He insisted he wasn't a member, and when documents revealed that he sat on a committee in the Society, he said he didn't recall being a member or doing that. Really? The man is either a liar or he's got cognitive issues. Either way, he's not equipped to sit on the highest court in the land.

Second, Robert's civil rights record is, shall we say, lackluster. Or we could say that it's godawful. He thinks that it's too easy to prove violations of the Voting Right Act. He thinks equal opportunity is hogwash (and that the Justice Department should be above settled law). He thinks that job discrimination is just dandy. And fair housing? Bah. Take your time, no one really needs that program to move along.

Third, Roberts isn't that jazzed about the separation of church and state. He'd allow government representatives to endorse a religion, he wouldn't be bothered by school prayer or religious displays in public buildings, and he'd be okay with government-funded religious discrimination.

Fourth, Robert's dim views of the the environment mean that we can open areas for development even if it means wiping out endangered species, and that mining on public land is A-OK.

Oh, there are plenty more reasons to not confirm him. One of them is the choice question, but that's only important at election time.

So here's the thing--you can play nice and bipartisan, but considering the fact that one of the GOPers likened bipartisanship to date rape, is this something you really want to do? Not the sort of people I'd want to work with, frankly. You can accept him and promise that you'll be tougher on the next one, but you'll leave a lot of us skeptical. This isn't a game--and he's acting like it is. No documents? No straight answers? No dice.

There's something to be said for voting unanimously against this. You may not win, but you'll make a helluva point. Besides which, voting to confirm someone because gosh, "we don't know how he'll do as a Supreme Court Justice" isn't logical. Don't deny it, I've heard that from a lot of quarters. So what? Are you willing to risk the bench via a gamble? I hope not.

Do not confirm him.

Posted by at September 15, 2005 09:29 PM