Why "justice" for the Justice is up to the GOP
decaffed in a rare moment when Christie doesn't feel like linking sources.
1. The Democrats have held back ANY negative comments.
The "worst" thing from any Senator on Roberts is "I won't say until I know more," or "We'll see how he does in the hearing." Is that so terrible? In fact, unless Roberts has a history of bombing abortion clinics, or vows to overturn Roe v. Wade (which he won't if he wants to be confirmed, and won't do anyway) the Democrats will probably let him pass. They might not vote for him, since he's strongly pro-corporate, but a filibuster might be a bad move that'd backfire.
2. A timeline doesn't guarantee justice.
In fact, it might hinder it. What's so bad about a thorough hearing? He's still getting a hearing. The Dems won't filibuster. So it's also a fair hearing. So just because the Senate might not rubber stamp Roberts according to some juvenile timeline doesn't mean he isn't getting a fair confirmation.
3. As any good lawyer should know, evidence is crucial.
The party that doesn't give up the pertinent data and papers is the one obstructing justice. Get it? Bolton will get a vote when you relinquish those damn papers. I mean, isn't this administration's theory "if you're complaining about how much you have to reveal, maybe you've got something to hide"? If so (and it does, since the Patriot Act was extended recently), shouldn't the same standard be applied to the Bush administration?
1. The Democrats have held back ANY negative comments.
The "worst" thing from any Senator on Roberts is "I won't say until I know more," or "We'll see how he does in the hearing." Is that so terrible? In fact, unless Roberts has a history of bombing abortion clinics, or vows to overturn Roe v. Wade (which he won't if he wants to be confirmed, and won't do anyway) the Democrats will probably let him pass. They might not vote for him, since he's strongly pro-corporate, but a filibuster might be a bad move that'd backfire.
2. A timeline doesn't guarantee justice.
In fact, it might hinder it. What's so bad about a thorough hearing? He's still getting a hearing. The Dems won't filibuster. So it's also a fair hearing. So just because the Senate might not rubber stamp Roberts according to some juvenile timeline doesn't mean he isn't getting a fair confirmation.
3. As any good lawyer should know, evidence is crucial.
The party that doesn't give up the pertinent data and papers is the one obstructing justice. Get it? Bolton will get a vote when you relinquish those damn papers. I mean, isn't this administration's theory "if you're complaining about how much you have to reveal, maybe you've got something to hide"? If so (and it does, since the Patriot Act was extended recently), shouldn't the same standard be applied to the Bush administration?
posted by christie at 1:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home