John Roberts

Why I'm Voting for Barack Obama on November 4

dlindorff — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:04:31 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

Okay, I was going to vote for Ralph Nader this November 4.

It was an easy decision. I live in Pennsylvania, which is now,
according to all the polls, reliably in the Obama column, with the
Democratic candidate holding an insurmountable lead in the polls of 14
percent over Republican John McCain—enough to overcome even the most
devious Republican vote suppression techniques and voting machine
chicanery.

I was going to vote for Nader because I find Obama to be a
seriously flawed candidate. He ran early on an anti-Iraq War platform,
saying not that invading Iraq was wrong legally and morally, but that
it was “the wrong war.” Since then, he has backed away even from saying
he wanted the war ended, opting for a 16-month withdrawal timetable
that would have the killing and dying in that sad land going on longer
than most wars this nation has fought. He has also called for an
escalation of the war in Afghanistan, despite clear evidence that more
troops just will make the situation there worse, and has called for an
expansion of the US military budget, to increase the size of the Army
and Marines, which will only encourage more warmongering, more killing
and more waste of precious resources.

Obama also sold us all out by going along with a bill sought by
President Bush granting immunity to telecom companies that aided and
abetted the illegal and unconstitutional spying on Americans by the
National Security Agency—spying that we now know is massive almost
beyond our imagination, even including the monitoring of private family
conversations of American service personnel in Iraq, of journalists,
and almost certainly of Bush administration political “enemies.” By
backing that obscene bill, Obama has made it almost impossible for
victims of this police-state surveillance campaign to sue and find out
what the Bush/Cheney administration has been up to all these years.

In so many ways, Obama has tacked to the middle or even the right, while spouting soaring but empty rhetoric about “change.”

Meanwhile, everything Ralph Nader says makes perfect sense. He has
consistently called the Iraq and Afghanistan wars the crimes that they
are. He has consistently called for a nationalized health care system,
which every other modern nation has long since proven to be a more
cost-effective and health-effective way to run a medical system than
the failed free-market approach advocated by Obama and the rest of the
Establishment political system. He has correctly denounced the economic
bailout as welfare for the rich and for the corporate criminals who
have been sucking the life out of the US economy for years.

And yet, I think I have to vote of Obama this year.

The reason is partly because I know I would vote for Obama if I
lived in Ohio or Indiana, where the race between McCain and Obama is
too close to call, and so, to vote for Nader when it is simply safe to
do so here in Pennsylvania is really a cop-out.

But even more important, when I see the hate-filled racists and
right-wing yahoos braying at McCain and Palin rallies, when I hear
people calling for Obama to be killed or lynched, and when I see the
rabid hate mail circulating in email inboxes falsely labeling him as a
secret Muslim, a terrorist, a Marxist and a black nationalist, I want
to see the man resoundingly win this election.

But it’s more than that. I also, perhaps against all logic and
experience, admit that I expect something good of an Obama presidency.

Call me naïve, but based upon my own life experience, I keep
thinking that a guy who has worked as a community organizer, a Harvard
Law School grad (and even law journal editor!) who could have named his
price at a Wall Street law firm, but who chose instead to be a
political and community activist, a guy who has relatives who live in
humble surroundings in Kenya, and who spent some of his childhood
actually living in a Third World Asian nation, not to mention a guy who
has surely felt the sting of being called a nigger, has to bring
something new to the White House. Certainly no other president in the
history of the country has come to the office with such a background.

Sure Obama is no leftist candidate. But if he were, he wouldn’t be
heading for an election victory. He wouldn’t even be the Democratic
nominee. He’d be, at best, where Dennis Kucinich is—holding a seat in
Congress where his every progressive effort would be stymied or mocked
by the House leadership.

The unfortunate reality is that the true left in the US is a joke
(many of its purists even mock successful left candidates political
figures like Kucinich, for god’s sake!). Fractured and fractious small
groupings have little or no link to the organized labor
movement—traditionally the bedrock of any successful left political
power. And the labor movement itself is as weak as it has ever been and
keeps growing weaker. The left in the US, such as it is, has even less
connection with the broad mass of the American public, thanks to years
of successful propaganda linking it to Stalin, Mao and Soviet Communism.

I have no illusions about the progressivity of the Democratic
Party. Certainly it has its progressive elected officials who have made
it into office—people like Kucinich, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Russ
Feingold, Rep. Maxine Waters and the like. But clearly, the Democratic
Party has shown itself to be in thrall to the moneyed interests on Wall
Street and in the corporate suites.

That said, there are important things that could happen—and I
stress the word could, not would—if this election were to be won by
Obama and by Democrats in the Congress. One of these things is that
there will be new Supreme Court justices named over the next four
years. Some will inevitably replace some of the aging “liberals” on the
bench (some of whom have not always been so liberal on economic
issues). Some could also replace current conservative justices
(Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, both obese men, don’t
look terribly healthy to me, Justice Kennedy is getting on in years,
and even Chief Justice Roberts, while looking hale, has a problem with
epilepsy or some other ailment that has caused him to collapse in a
frothing fit of unconscious on occasion).

Also important is legislation to make it less of an obstacle course
for workers to win union representation and labor contracts on the job.
A major reason that unions have shrunk from over 30 percent of the
workforce in the 1950s to just 9 percent of the private workforce (and
13 percent of all workplaces, public and private) today, is that labor
law has been whittled away and turned to management’s advantage to such
an extent that it is almost impossible now to win a union election.
Employers who break labor laws suffer no penalty even when found
guilty, and workers who are unfairly fired for union activity can hope,
at best, if they are lucky, to win reinstatement and back pay after
fighting for years. Most just give up.

If a Democratic Congress passed new labor legislation and a
President Obama signed them into law, as he has promised to do, and if
new pro-labor officials were appointed to the national, regional and
local labor relations boards that adjudicate labor issues, we could see
a genuine revival of the labor movement in America with consequences
for workers’ lives, and for the political system that would be far
reaching and profound—and that could even pave the way for a resurgence
of a left/labor political movement.

Finally, with respect to war and militarism, I tend not to take
Obama’s warmongering seriously. Given the man’s background, I am
confident that he is not a militarist by nature. It may be politically
opportunistic for him to try during this campaign to out-tough McCain
on Afghanistan while calling for a wind-down of the war in Iraq, but it
would be a disaster for him to pursue a wider war in Afghanistan after
taking office, ensuring that his presidency, like Bush’s, Lyndon
Johnson’s and Richard Nixon’s before him, would be dragged down by an
endless bloody conflict.

A President Obama will have his hands full trying to deal with an
unprecedented financial fiasco, and will want the wars off his plate as
quickly as possible. Maybe I’m being a Pollyanna, but I simply can’t
see a smart guy—and Obama is a smart guy—getting dragged into another
quagmire.

Besides, I have a darker vision, which is that the crisis of global
warming, so long denied by the Bush administration, is going to make
itself felt soon in ways that will be impossible to ignore, and which
will demand a crisis response. Obama, I believe, will be the right
person at the right time, to lead that response.

And that brings me to the final reason I am voting for Obama. As
crazy as John McCain clearly is, with his default setting on war as a
solution for all problems, this sickly and possibly terminally ill old
man has chosen to have a certifiable right-wing, closed-minded, bigoted
and stunningly ignorant religious zealot as his back-up. Sarah Palin,
as vice president, would in all probability end up becoming president
during a McCain first term.

This country and the world simply cannot risk having as the leader
of America an end-of-times believer at this critical moment. It’s not
just the polar bears and the wolves in Alaska who would suffer under a
Palin presidency. It would be all life on earth.
_____________

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist.
His latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006
and now available in paperback edition). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

digg_url = 'http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/36876';
digg_title = "Why I\'m Voting for Barack Obama on November 4";
digg_bodytext = "By Dave Lindorff\r\n\r\n Okay, I was going to vote for Ralph Nader this November 4.\r\n\r\n It was an easy decision. I live in Pennsylvania, which is now, according to all the polls, reliably in the Obama column, with the Democratic candidate holding an insurmountable lead in the polls of 14 percent over Republican John McCain—enough to overcome even the most devious Republican vote suppression techniques and voting machine chicanery.\r\n\r";
digg_skin = 'standard';

News Flash! Bush Judge Does the Right Thing!

dlindorff — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:32:30 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

A federal district judge appointed by President George W. Bush to
the bench has done the right thing, ruling definitively this morning
that the President’s claim of absolute immunity for his advisors from
Congressional oversight and subpoena is “entirely unsupported by
existing case law.”

The ruling, by Judge John Bates, is as important as much because of
who issued it as it is for its impact upon Congressional investigations
into presidential wrongdoing.

Certainly the ruling will open the way for Democrats in Congress to
move harder to investigate the abuses of the current administration,
which have been stymied by administration refusal to provide witnesses,
even to come in and plead the Fifth Amendment protection against
self-incrimination.

In the specific case under consideration here, the House Judiciary
Committee had been attempting to force the appearance of Josh Bolton,
the president’s former chief of staff, and Harriet Miers, former White
House legal counsel, to testify about the White House role in the
firing of a number of federal prosecutors around the country who were
reportedly deemed insufficiently political in their unwillingness to
“go after” Democratic elected officials, or to interfere with the
election process.

Bush had asserted that all such aides have blanket immunity from
Congressional inquiry under the concept of “executive privilege.”

But Judge Bates disagreed, saying that the White House had failed
to show a single case in which the courts had held White House aides to
be immune from Congressional subpoenas. In a strongly-worded 93-page
ruling, he not only said that no such blanket immunity existed, and
that aides had to respond to congressional subpoenaes. He also ordered
that the White House must hand over requested documents—something that
the White House for both of the president’s two terms, has been
unwilling to do.

Of course, it is a certainty that the Bush administration will
appeal Judge Bates’ ruling to a higher court, and the process could end
up dragging on beyond the end of Bush’s term of office, which ends on
Jan. 20. But with this ruling, Congress should feel much more confident
about going after those, like Miers, Bolton, Karl Rove (recently cited
for contempt of Congress himself) and others, who refuse orders to
appear and testify. Congress should also be more willing to consider
using its own power of inherent contempt to go after such witnesses by
having their own officers arrest and jail recalcitrants.

The other important thing about Judge Bates’ ruling is that it
suggests, happily, that there are principled Republicans, even among
the slew of so-called conservative “constructionist” judges that Bush
has been larding the federal bench with, from the district level to the
Supreme Court. At least some of these judges, apparently, once
confirmed in their lifetime offices, do take their oaths of office to
uphold the Constitution seriously. Judge Bates (who, though I didn’t
know him personally, attended Wesleyan University in Connecticut at the
same time I did, graduating in 1968) worked as a deputy independent
counsel in the Whitewater Investigation of President Bill Clinton,
which was an obvious political plus in his gaining a federal judgeship
nomination by the Bush White House. In 2006 he was also appointed by
Chief Justice John Roberts to serve on the secret Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court that is supposed to oversee domestic spying
activities of the National Security Agency.

I am assuming the best of Judge Bates, i.e. that he ruled based on
his reading of the Constitution and court precedent. But of course it
could also be that this ruling is a sign that Bush judicial appointees
are reading the political handwriting on the wall: that the Bush era of
seeking to aggrandize absolute executive power is coming to an end.
With the president’s public support dwindling to just 21 percent, and
with all signs pointing to a big Democratic win in upcoming
Congressional elections, not to mention a possible Democratic president
in the White House this November, we may start to see at least some
Bush-appointed judges concluding that supinely acceding to the wishes
of the Bush/Cheney White House may not be the wisest career move for
anyone hoping to move up to a higher court.

Whatever the reasons for this important decision, I commend Judge
Bates for upholding the Constitution, and its all-important
establishment of three separate, co-equal branches of government.

Now if only Democrats in Congress would do the same thing.
______________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His
latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and
now available in paperback edition). Because of a clerical error and his own inattention to bureaucratic detail, he graduated from Wesleyan University in 1972. His work is available at
www.thiscantbehappening.net

digg_url = 'http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/35170';
digg_title = "News Flash! Bush Judge Does the Right Thing!";
digg_bodytext = "By Dave Lindorff\r\n\r\n A federal district judge appointed by President George W. Bush to the bench has done the right thing, ruling definitively this morning that the President’s claim of absolute immunity for his advisors from Congressional oversight and subpoena is “entirely unsupported by existing case law.”\r\n\r\n The ruling, by Judge John Bates, is as important as much because of who issued it as it is for its impact upon Congressional investigations into presidential wrongdoing.\r\n\r\n Certainly the ruling will open the way for Democrats in Congress to move harder to investigate the abuses of the current administration, which have been stymied by administration refusal to provide witnesses, even to come in and plead the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.\r\n\r";
digg_skin = 'standard';

Bush Court to Women: Drop Dead

Bob Fertik — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:17:03 -0400

NOW's outstanding President Kim Gandy speaks for me:

Today the Supreme Court upheld this nation's first abortion procedure ban—a ban enacted by George W. Bush and conservatives in Congress. Five justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito—both installed by Bush and a Republican-majority Senate—ruled that the law does not violate a woman's constitutional right to abortion.

Not since Bush v. Gore has the Supreme Court made such a political decision, or one that so completely distorts the law and disregards the U.S. Constitution.

The law is so vaguely written that it may ban the most common abortion procedure used after 12 weeks of pregnancy, and there is no exception to allow its use if the woman's health is in serious danger. The joint ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood is a major step in the campaign to outlaw all abortions, first by chipping away at and then by fully overturning Roe v. Wade.

Bush used his allies' control in Congress to push through anti-abortion legislation, and he used their power to confirm anti-abortion justices to the Supreme Court—justices who have now upheld that same legislation.

The National Organization for Women and other advocates predicted as much, and fought tooth and nail against the confirmation of Roberts, and even more passionately against Alito, who replaced Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Now we see that apparently, everything Roberts and Alito said at their confirmation hearings about respecting precedent was a pack of lies.

When the time came for women's rights supporters in the Senate to prevent confirmation of Sam Alito, the "fifth vote" against abortion rights, only 25 senators stood up for women. And indeed he was the fifth vote for the majority in today's decision. The senators who voted to end the Democratic filibuster, thus allowing Alito to join the court, must be reminded that their failure led to this day. We must stop the stacking of the federal courts and work toward a congressional majority that supports women's rights.

Tellingly, seven years ago in Stenberg v. Carhart, the Supreme Court ruled against an almost identical ban enacted in Nebraska. The clear precedent set by Stenberg in 2000 was the reason three U.S. Courts of Appeal declared the federal ban unconstitutional. But last year the Bush administration pressed on with appeals to the Supreme Court by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

So why did Gonzales forge ahead when a clear precedent had been set only six years earlier? And why did the court uphold this ban, effectively undoing that precedent? In the dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg explains it quite clearly:

"Though today's opinion does not go so far as to disregard Roe or Casey, the Court, differently composed that it was when we last considered a restrictive abortion regulation, is hardly faithful to our earlier invocations of the 'rule of law' and the 'principles of stare decisis.'"

In other words: The Supreme Court changed, stupid!

This is a clarion call for feminists, progressives and everyone who cares about justice, equality and democracy. We must link arms and say "No more."

We must elect a Congress that will repeal this ban and a president who will sign the repeal.

November 2008 can't come soon enough.

Priceless Freudian Slip

davidswanson — Sun, 02 Oct 2005 22:14:05 -0400

From Sam Husseini:

Roberts in his speach just after being sworn in: "The process we have just completed epitomizes the separation of powers that is enshrined in our Constitution. My nomination was announced some 10 weeks ago here in the White House, the home of the executive branch. This morning, further up Pennsylvania Avenue, it was approved in the Capitol, the home of the executive [sic] branch. And tomorrow, I will go into the Supreme Court building to join my colleagues, the home of the judicial branch, to undertake my duties."

I was kind of surprised the WH didn't cover it up -- http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/09/20050929-3.html

Video available from C-Span.org -- http://c-span.org

Roberts Confirmed with Support from "Democrats"

davidswanson — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:08:27 -0400

New York Times: "The Senate confirmed Judge Roberts by a vote of 78 to 22, with unanimous support from Republicans and with many Democrats voting for him as well."

Let's get a list of the Democrats, add it to those who supported CAFTA, the energy bill, the bankruptcy bill, the war, and "tort reform," and deny any of them any money or support, and promote serious challengers in primaries.

Roberts and Obstruction of Florida Recount

davidswanson — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:38:35 -0400

Check out these images of a guy who looks just like John Roberts helping to obstruct the recount in Florida in 2000. Think the media will look into this one?

Stopping Roberts

davidswanson — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:03:23 -0400

Democrats who have announced their support for Roberts (16):
Max Baucus of Montana, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Carl Levin of Michigan, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Ken Salazar of Colorado.

Democrats who have announced their opposition (18):
Evan Bayh of Indiana, Joseph Biden of Delaware, Barbara Boxer of California, Maria Cantwell of Washington, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Jon Corzine of New Jersey, Mark Dayton of Minnesota, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Dianne Feinstein of California, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, John Kerry of Massachusetts, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, Barack Obama of Illinois, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Harry Reid of Nevada, Charles Schumer of New York and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.

Democrats who have not announced how they will vote (10):
Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, Tom Carper of Delaware, Byron Dorgan of North Dakota,Tom Harkin of Iowa, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Patty Murray of Washington, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, Paul Sarbanes of Maryland and Ron Wyden of Oregon.

Neither has Jim Jeffords of Vermont.

Call the Senate switchboard at 202-225-3121

Million Phone March to Stop Roberts

davidswanson — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:22:46 -0400

Take Action Now to Stop the confirmation of John Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court! Remember, this is the body that may "elect" the next president. Go here and act now:
http://www.millionphonemarch.com

Feingold Ignores Fascism and Kisses Presidential Hopes Goodbye

Bob Fertik — Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:11:32 -0400

Senator Russ Feingold made headlines in August when he became the first 2008 hopeful to call for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2006. This won raves from progressive pundits like my friend John Nichols and even a highly-coveted appearance on Meet the Press. And it generated enough buzz in the progressive blogosphere to move Feingold into 2nd place in the dKos Straw Poll (behind Wes Clark and ahead of John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and No Freakin' Clue).

But today, Feingold threw it all away.

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On the Nomination of Judge John G. Roberts To be Chief Justice of the United States

September 22, 2005

Mr. Chairman, I will vote in favor of the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be the Chief Justice of the United States. This has not been an easy decision, but I believe it is the correct one. Judge Roberts's impeccable legal credentials, his reputation and record as a fair-minded person, and his commitment to modesty and respect for precedent have persuaded me that he will not bring an ideological agenda to the position of Chief Justice of the United States and that he should be confirmed.

Impeccable legal credentials - like being a leader of the Federalist Society - and lying about it?

Reputation and record as a fair-minded person - like helping George Bush steal the 2000 election in Florida?

In early 2001, Russ Feingold provided the deciding vote on the Senate Judiciary Committee to confirm John Ashcroft as Attorney General, despite massive opposition from netroots Democrats. Why did Feingold support Ashcroft? Because Ashcroft gave him a ride home from the Capitol one day, and because he promised to nominate Ronnie White for the next Federal judgeship - a promise Ashcroft broke immediately.

I blasted Feingold relentlessly at the time for his vote. Perhaps out of remorse, Feingold was the only Senator to vote against the USA Patriot Act immediately after 9/11. Five years later, I was prepared to give him a second look because of his Patriot Act vote and his semi-courageous stance on Iraq. But not now.

When he cast his deciding vote for Ashcroft, Feingold said "maybe I'm naive." Five years later, nothing has changed. Feingold's vote for Roberts proves his naivete is his fatal incurable character flaw - just like Bush's greed, cowardice, and stupidity.

Senator Feingold, you worse than naive - you are a suicidal idiot. Right in front of your eyes the Federalist Society - led by John Aschroft, John Roberts, and their "modest" cronies - is turning the American judicial system into an instrument of Republican Fascism. Don't you remember how they conspired to appoint Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor for Clinton, and then set a perjury trap for him? Didn't you read Bush v. Gore, which legalized the theft of the Presidency? Haven't you read the Torture Memos? Didn't you read the 4th Circuit's latest ruling in Padilla v. Rumsfeld, which gave the President the unlimited powers of a dictator? These are all the products of the Federalist Society, and they are systematic steps towards fascism.

When the Busheviks fire up the concentration camp ovens, the Niemoller of our time will write: "First they came for the enemy combatants, but I was not an enemy combatant." And when they come for the Jews - because Fascists always come for the Jews - there will be no one left to speak up for you.

Update: John Nichols called it a most disappointing vote for progressives. But he is at a loss to explain why Feingold cast it.

The fact is that Feingold asked some of the best questions of Roberts on those very issues, and he got some of the worst answers.

Unfortunately, Feingold does not appear to have taken those exchanges seriously enough to decide that Roberts failed the test.

Update: My statement was quoted by Tom Curry of MSNBC.

Hurricanes turn Capitol's politics topsy-turvy

If Katrina had utterly changed the political landscape and weakened Bush, then why was Roberts approved by a bipartisan vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday morning, with “aye” votes coming from one of Bush’s harshest critics, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont and from potential 2008 presidential contender Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisc.?

Feingold explained that he had "talked to a number of people who know John Roberts or to people who know people who know John Roberts." And those who know him, Feingold said, don't see Roberts "as a narrow ideologue who wants to impose his views on the country."

Asked for her reaction Thursday after Feingold cast his vote for Roberts, Nan Aron, head of the liberal advocacy group Alliance for Justice, said she was “totally perplexed and shocked.”

As for the oft-heard argument that a “yes” vote on Roberts would somehow help a Democrat senator cast a more credible “no” vote on the next Bush Supreme court nominee, Aron said, “I’ve never understood that argument — never have, never will.”

According to Democrats.com, a group of left-leaning Democrats, Feingold got grass-roots party members excited when he became the first 2008 presidential hopeful to call for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2006.

“But today, Feingold threw it all away,” said Democrats.com in a statement. “Senator Feingold, you are worse than naive — you are a suicidal idiot.”

The Baucus Betrayal

Bob Fertik — Wed, 21 Sep 2005 07:55:58 -0400

The progressive blogosphere is on fire over The Baucus Betrayal, led by Armando at DailyKos:

A Baucus Betrayal
by Armando
Tue Sep 20th, 2005 at 18:29:09 PDT

On a day that Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) showed great leadership by announcing his opposition to John Roberts' confirmation to the SCOTUS, Max Baucus, Senator from Montana, demonstrated his wonderful backstabbing skills, undercutting his Leader by supporting Roberts:

Montana Senator Max Baucus announced today he will vote to confirm President Bush's pick for Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

"After reviewing Judge John Roberts' credentials and meeting with him privately, I have found that he meets my criteria for judges. And that is: only the brightest, most objective minds shall serve on the bench," said Baucus, who acknowledged the decision was not an easy one.

"I call 'em as I see them," he said. "Judge Roberts indicated to me personally that he has a healthy respect for precedent and the hard-won rights of Americans. My only yardstick or litmus test is whether or not Judge Roberts is right for Montana and America. I've determined that he is." . . . "Throughout my career, I've always tried to reach across party lines to do what's right," Baucus said. "This isn't about being a Democrat or Republican; it's about being a Montanan and American."

Well, I call em as I see them too. And I have found that Max Baucus meets my criteria for a gutless son of a bitch. Baucus demonstrates a healthy disrespect for his Leader in the Senate and for the values and principles that define the Democratic Party.

Throughout his career, Max Baucus has been kissing Republican rings and can not seem to break that habit, even with George Bush at the nadir of his Presidency.

The White House spits in the face of the Senate, refusing in an unprecedented fashion to release documents critical to determining Roberts' fitness for the Court; Roberts refuses to discuss his judicial philosophy beyond mere platitudes but Max Baucus can't say no to Republicans and George Bush.

Let's face it Senator, you don't know a damn thing about what kind of Justice Roberts will be. You know about as much about Roberts as you knew about Clarence Thomas. But wait, you voted against Thomas' confirmation. What's the difference between them Senator? Is there a dime's worth of difference between the two? How do you know?

My yardstick tells me you are a gutless, unprincipled political coward with not an ounce of loyalty to your Party or respect for your Leader. What a useless tool you are.

Update [2005-9-20 21:37:59 by Armando]: Contact Baucus.

Update [2005-9-20 22:13:55 by Armando]: Via Phoenix Woman, Baucus sez:

If you have an emergency, please call my office directly at (800) 332-6106 (from MT) or (406) 657-6790.

I think this is an emergency, don't you? And here is a DC number - Washington D.C.(202) 224-2651.