JABbering Stooge

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Sorry Dubya, We Won't be distracted from Treason-gate

Wow. Bush's choice of nominee certainly was a dog-and-pony show worthy of Karl "I'm a Traitor and I'm O.K." Rove. For the benefit of those who had something better to do the last week, at 9 P.M. Eastern Time last night,President Bush announced, after a day of allowing the press to speculate that he would tap the slightly less wacko Edith Clement to replace retiring justice Sandra Day O'Connor, that he had decided instead to nominate Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. to replace O'Connor.

While this is clearly a perfect fecesstorm (say that three times fast!) to distract the press and the co-dependent Democrats from Rove and "Scooter" Libby's two-minute treason drill, I sill think that the Sacless Party can still salvage something from this - if they play it smart.

So let's start with why Judge Roberts is such a bad idea. Here's just a small listing of documentation on him that should make any neutral observer think twice before advocating for his promotion to the highest court in the land (all links courtesy of AMERICAblog).

  • FEC records of Roberts' political donations: Roberts gave significant buckaroos to various PACs and candidates, almost exclusively Republican - this suggests a certain ideological tilt that is very worrisome, if not outright inappropriate, for one who sits on the highest court in the land - supposedly representing all Americans.

  • Women's Rights:
    1) As Deputy Solicitor General in Bush I's administration, Roberts co-wrote a brief in the case of Rust v. Sullivan that stated "[w]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled..."
    2) In the same position as the above, Roberts wrote an amicus brief defending anti-abortion terrorist group Operation Rescue in Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic.
    3) In a 1999 radio interview in which he ranted about the evils of every single federal law on the books (okay, not quite, but pretty close), he singled out the Violence Against Women Act, stating that "We have gotten to the point these days where we think the only way we can show we're serious about a problem is if we pass a federal law, whether it is the Violence Against Women Act or anything else."

  • Religious Freedom: As Deputy Solicitor General (boy, he sure was busy then, wasn't he?), Roberts submitted an amicus brief in Lee v. Weisman that, according to People for the American Way, "while [acknowledging] that coerced participation in a religious ceremony [at graduation] was improper...'A voluntary decision not to witness a civic acknowledgment of religion...cannot be considered a response to coercion.'" In other words, Roberts was arguing that a graduating student cannot exercise his/her First Amendment rights to protest an illegal mingling of church and state at a public ceremony! Additionally, the brief instructed the court to throw out the Lemon test in favor of the much more lenient standard derived under Marsh v. Chambers.

  • Roberts decides against veterans: When the D.C. Circuit Cort found in favor of veterans who had been tortured in Iraq in Acree v. Republic of Iraq, Judge Roberts wrote a dissent claiming that the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act (EWSAA) "'deprived the courts of jurisdiction over suits against Iraq' for damages resulting from torture and other terrorist acts" according to PFAW; a decision that would've made restitution to vets tortured in Iraq virtually impossible.

And that's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Read up more on Judge Roberts (here, here and here), and weep for democracy should he ever be confirmed.

However, the nomination of Judge Roberts is only a small part of the larger picture - one in which the President and his flunkies have repeatedly placed party loyalty and partisan politics far, far, far ahead of doing what is best for America. It is with this in mind that I suggest the following talking point to our spineless leadership, in the hopes that they can get back on the subject of Karl Rove's treason.

I am deeply saddened that President Bush has squandered an opportunity to build bipartisan consensus by nominating a far-right ideologue who has shown repeated disregard both for settled case law and for the ideals upon which our country was founded.

This act of naked contempt for the President's critics, shamelessly designed to divert attention from the discussion of possible criminal activity on the part of the executive branch, is just one more example of his devotion to party politics over his supposed devotion to the people who entrusted him with executive authority. It is also part of a larger pattern of active deception that perfectly illustrates what the Downing Street Minutes were about - a rush to judgment and blatant disregard for the safety of the American people in order to "win" a petty domestic squabble. This is behavior most unbecoming of a head of state, and possible grounds for removal from office.

I fully intend to send this to all who may listen. We shall see if they follow up on my advice...

Update: Silly me, I forgot to give a hat tip to fellow Bartcopper Liioni for the statements in the chatroom that were the genesis of this post.

We've moved! Check out the new site here!