I know we are in the minority here. But just to make myself feel better:
Bitch. Ph.D.: SCOTUS nominee Roberts: Nope, not acceptable....Time to fight.You know, these quotes were a damn sight harder to put together than they should have been. The road to hell is paved with liberal "reasonableness." I'm a firm believer in the Disraeli theory that it is the job of an opposition party to oppose.
Amanda a Pandagon: On the abortion issue, I want everyone to memorize these words--"criminalize ordinary women." Something like 1 in 3 women will have one in their lifetime. Abortion is exceedingly common. Selling out women who obtain them for political gain is not only wrong, but it is politically stupid. Anti-abortion laws turn every woman into a potential criminal. Rinse and repeat until people get how extreme that position is. For some stupid reason that I can't understand, people can get behind the jailing of teenage girls who have sex. But they won't feel that way when it's 40-year-old soccer moms.
Matt at 1115.org: Roberts is an in-your-face nominee. He vigorously opposes one of our core principles: that women should have the right to control what happens inside their own bodies. That Roberts doesn’t drag his knuckles on the ground can’t possibly mitigate the danger he poses to a right we hold sacrosanct.
Pinko Feminist Hellcat: So George Bush has nominated John G. Roberts to be Sandra Day O'Connor's replacement. And he's not too conservative, which in this political climate means he still thinks that voting is okay for land-owning White men.
The Volokh Conspiracy: Indeed, Roberts was blocked when the first President Bush tried to appoint Roberts. As the Alliance for Justice puts it:President George H.W. Bush nominated Mr. Roberts to the D.C. Circuit, but he was considered by some on the Senate Judiciary Committee to be too extreme in his views, and his nomination lapsed. He was nominated by President George W. Bush to the same seat in May 2001.Feministe: I’m terrified. This is so troublesome. Please contact your federal representatives. Now. This is an activist judge.
Feministing: Well Bush certainly didn’t pull any punches. John Roberts’ nomination not only serves as a convenient distraction to the Rove madness, but is also a great big “fuck you” to all the folks that thought Bush was leaning towards a moderate nominee....So pretty please take some fucking action and put a stop to this nightmare nominee.
Liberal Oasis: Roberts’ judicial career is short and his judicial writings thin. Not good enough for a lifetime Supreme Court appointment.
Mahablog: Roberts is a pleasant-looking white guy who wears suits well. Smoke does not billow out of his ears, nor does he have horns and a forked tail. Some leftie bloggers are saying the nomination could have been worse. Yeah, like ebola is worse than cholera.
Lindsay at Majikthise: Democrats have to shake off Bush's manufactured sense of entitlement. The first step is to identify John Roberts' values and qualifications. Are they consistent with the values of the Democratic party? In a word, no.
Maurinsky at Laughingwild: If he gets on the court, which is likely, we shouldn't be surprised to see not just an end to legal abortion in the U.S., but an end to legal contraception and affirmative action. Bad news for American women and American minorities.
Scott Lemieux: I continue to believe that any justice Bush could plausibly nominate--which obviously includes Roberts--should be filibustered, simply because this would force the use of the nuclear option, which would destroy the filibuster in the long term, which would obviously be good for progressive politics on in the long-term. In addition, I would like to note that the next person who can offer evidence that being labeled "obstructionist" has any significant political effects will be the first. Yes, Virginia, Joe Klein and other Beltway hacks do not, in fact, reflect the concerns of ordinary voters.
But theory aside, Roberts only seems "reasonable" because the political climate has gotten so unreasonable. You don't want to fight him based on pro-choice? Fine. Base it on environmentalism, on human rights, on keeping the power of the executive branch in check, on not handing out a lifetime appointment to the most powerful court in the land like it was bag of party favors. But please, please don't make the mistake of thinking that by not fighting this nomination that it is possible to somehow stockpile political momentum that can be saved for the next fight. The GOP seizes every opportunity they can, no matter how small or stupid, to state their case loud and long whenever they can grab the microphone. And they never got a goddamn thing by being "reasonable."
As Bill Clinton famously once said, "When people are insecure, they'd rather have someone strong and wrong, rather than weak and right." It's time for the Democrats to prove they are strong and capable of leading this country. And there's not going to be a "better day" to do that.
Time to fight.