MyDD :: Alito's Confirmation: It's Not Over

Alito's Confirmation: It's Not Over

by Scott Shields, Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 11:48:36 AM EST

So many people have been saying that, since Alito's confirmation hearings are over and he survived it without throwing a tantrum or a water glass, it's a done deal. It's not. In order to win his seat on the Supreme Court, he still has to win the votes of a majority of the US Senate. Now, this is all completely obvious. But reading some of the defeatism out there, you'd think that he already has.

At The Nation, Bruce Shapiro explains why it is so important that Democrats do not give up fighting against the Alito confirmation. Essentially, there is no reason that it shouldn't be clear that Alito's positions are those of a judicial extremist.

...This is the first confirmation to transpire in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis--with the balance of the Supreme Court itself part of that crisis, along with the NSA domestic spying scandal, the confrontation between President and Congress over torture, and the CIA leak investigation.

That constitutional crisis is why the politics of Alito's confirmation do not end with this week's hearing. The judge himself made that certain. Over the last several days I have described Alito's clear indications in his testimony that on sexual privacy, the power of the executive, even the authority of Congress, he appears at odds even with the conservative mainstream.

Likewise, Steve Gilliard makes an incredible case for continuing the fight. I wholeheartedly recommend reading the entire post, but here's what I consider the operative section.

Bork wasn't beat in the committee, but by ads after the fact. The pressure to defeat him grew externally.

Politicians are like any other person seeking public favor, they respond to their voters.

So the next act in this drama is to make a stink, call your elected officials, your Senators and ask them point blank about Friday's Times editorial, the one which claims Alito will vote to overturn Roe, and then ask them if they are going to do anything to stop him.

Now, personally, this moaning to the media is counterintuative, after all, why piss people off by claiming no fight. Not even DC Dems are that clueless. And of course, everyone expects them to fold. So why announce it so early, when you know the GOP is growing more unpopular by the day.

But regardless of a genuine collapse or gamesmanship, there has to be a sustained public outcry, win or lose. There has to be pressure put on the Dems to do whatever it takes to oppose him, and that starts with you calling your Senator.

With a Democrat like Diane Feinstein openly saying that she does "not see a likelihood of a filibuster," it makes our job that much harder. But it also makes our job that much more important as well. We need to make it clear that confirmation for Alito is not acceptable to moderate Americans. Not only do we need to convince the Democrats, but also shaky Republicans who need to win Democratic votes. So let's get to work. Stopping Alito is something we should now throw our full support behind. And despite what you may have heard, it's not yet out of the question.

Tags: Judges (all tags)

Permalink :: 37 Comments :: Post a Comment

Unfortunately... (none / 0)

The difference is that when Bork was nominated, he faced a Democrat-controlled Senate. He was narrowly rejected 52-48.
It comes down to math. Democrats only have 45 votes and they need 51. Now subtract Ben Nelson who is going to vote to confirm, and we have to somehow convince 7 GOP Senators to vote "no" to a qualified conservative, which would be about the biggest revolt in party history. I'm not dooming our future by saying it aint gonna happen, just as I wouldnt have doomed the future of the Bears last night when I said "its over."
I agree with the WaPo: I dont agree with Alito's views, I wouldnt vote to confirm, but I dont think there should be a fillibuster. I say rack up the 45 no votes, and if a moderate like Linc Chafee votes "yes", give him hell to pay in November. But this is the price you pay for losing elections, lets swallow hard and move on... we're still in great position for 2006.

by AC4508 on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 11:59:38 AM EST

Re: Unfortunately... (none / 0)

the only math that matters is 41

by bruh21 on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 12:05:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unfortunately... (none / 0)

I do not believe they have 41 votes to confirm a fillibuster, that is not to say that 41 Senators would vote against Alito I think they will, but if forced to vote on a fillibuster I think enough Democrats will vote for cloture to give Alito the votes knowing this I doubt the Senate will try it.

by THE MODERATE on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 01:00:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unfortunately... (3.00 / 2)

as I say below its ironic on a day where people should be celebrating having a long term goal and believing in it- it's the "no" approach, the approach of fear that wins out. You maybe right, but I also remember a day after the nomination of Alito, where there were already more than a few people on here saying "no" he can't be opposed even before trying. It's like that's where some of you start. As a black guy, all I can say is thank god that people like King didn't listen to the people saying "no" around him. I am also glad in my personal life I did't take that approach. But, that seems to be the mantra of most Democrats- fear of your own shadow. You don't have the votes- or you may not. What's more interesting to me about the democrats these days as that you start off with the assumption that you don't and don't bother to see if you can get them. No hustle. Just acceptance of your neutered status.

by bruh21 on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 02:12:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How to make a stink (contact Congress and more!) (3.00 / 1)

Let them know where you stand: if Repug, tell them "No" to Alito; if Democrat: FILIBUSTER!

CONTACT YOUR TWO SENATORS

John Edwards has endorsed this petition for FILIBUSTER!

Phone, fax, and email addresses for the Judiciary Committee.

People for the American Way has collected over 60,000 signatures to send to the Senate, please add yours:Save the Court Petition

Move On.org's Stop Alito petition

Democratic Party's Reject Alito Petition

Stop the NRA's Oppose Alito Petiton

And while you're at it, please sign: Planned Parenthood Petition

Naral Anti-Alito Petition

Urge Congress to support Plan B

UPDATE:
MORE NEW ACTIONS AND PETITIONS:

National Coalition for Disability Rights

Brady Campaign

Human Rights Campaign

National Abortion Federation

National Council of Jewish Women

National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association

National Organization for Women

National Partnership for Women and Families

National Women's Law Center

Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

US Action

by judybrowni on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 02:59:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How to make a stink (contact Congress and more (none / 0)

Thanks for this confirmation..I have spent a few hours tonight writing a letter to the entire Judiciary Committee who are meeting tomorrow to discuss the nomination. I told them that they had a duty to uphold the consititution and Alito had no plans to do that, other that to annoint Bush as king of his own kingdom. I told them also that they represented us and the American people do not want this jerk. I quoted Al Gore in a few instances re making noise and I told them that the entire committee was a disgrace that not one of them asked a question that we, the public, would have asked. I told them if they appointed this nerd that the American people would remember and they would all go down in a flame of defeat. I honestly believe that this is what must be done and you have already listed this. I intend to contact all the Senators on the D side and some of the R's and give them more baloney!! I don't worry about my Senators...Kerry and Kennedy, but I will razz them a little. As far as I know, the vote for Alito comes down a week from today (tues)
and then the entire group of Senators will vote the following week. There is enough time to get the work out to bombard The Senate and maybe even some of the Congress...
I will also sign all of those petitions ...I believe I have signed some alread...but will go thru the list.
Is there anything else that can be done? Just say the word, and I will do it.
Keep up the good work! Thanks.

Best from Boston,
Moesie

by momaloney on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 12:54:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unfortunately... (none / 0)

PS

I have said this before, but one of the reasons I don't like you calling yourself moderate is not only that it's awefully presumptious, it's that it presents the image that all moderates are incapable of fighting the good fight when their values are at stake. I consider myself a moderate (Powell Doctrine; free trade if it's on a level playing field; people's faith should be respected; strong belief in the 1st ammendment even if it means a burning cross by a racist; etc), but I don't consider myself afraid of doing what's needed either. When Bush was questioned about the warrantless wire tapping he went into the discussion- not backing down although he was wrong, but instead saying he was right, and by the process shifting the center of the debate. They have done the same with Alito, because there was no effective opposition against him. Where exactly does a moderate fall on Alito? He's not for limited govt- the imperial executive; he's not for the little guy- the narrow readings that he takes on the laws that on the books designed to promote his own version of judicial activism, and the list goes on and on from what I heard last week. So for a moderate to get on here saying there is not point to oppose because we can't win, is to me a sign that you aren't really a moderate. You aren't interested in finding say a moderate conservative in the form of a Sandra day OConnor. You are more interested in the appearance of moderation, not the substance of what that entails or means. When looking at Alito as a true moderate- I asked myself would this guy show judicial restraint or would he be an activist. From my training as a lawyer, I can tell you he's not even close to the word. His willingness for example last week to say that he can substitute his views for those of the fact finder in lower cases turns the judicial process on its head. People never asked, and by our approach never do ask is this person right for the court anymore. Biden said as much- he called the process on Free Speech Radio- a sham that is about form over substance and this frustrates him.

by bruh21 on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 02:27:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unfortunately... (none / 0)

You have left me much to comment on, first of all I do not remember any past arguments we have had so you will have to refresh my memory of what you have said in the past. Moderate can mean many things to me I fall into a somewhat consevative on social issue but populist on economics. Years ago it may not be moderate but today where I live it has become that. I have some concerns about Alito on the court but the fact of the matter is, it is very low on my proirity list on politics and I just see it as a waste of time and effort. I think that whatever changes he causes the county will survive. As for the practical side of this 45 Democrats will meet on Wednesday if 5 Senators oppose the filibuster its over. 2, Nelson NE and Pryor AR have already done so so that just leaves 3. Baucus, Johnson, Conrad, Dorgan, Nelson, FL, Bingaman, Lincoln, Landriue, Byrd, Rockefeller, and Salazar. All come from state Bush carried and all voted for Roberts. If only 3 of those
11 Senators say they oppose the filibuster, not even that will would vote not to confirm Alito, then its over and you and I can do the math. This year there will be another Social Security fight, do not think for a second it is not coming back, a tax fight, and possibly another trade deal which will mean more jobs going out of the country these fight are fights the party is unified on and can win, and are in my opinion high priority, not the Alito fight.

by THE MODERATE on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 03:50:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unfortunately... (none / 0)

The problem with you claiming to be moderate is that you aren't a Democratic moderate- you are a Republican lite trying to shift Democratic politics because your voice no longer has a place in modern Republican politics. Frankly, that's not a Democratic Party problem, and nor should it be. It's along the lines of a Patrick Buchanan who is also a social conservative and populist candidate. There is a BIG difference when one claims to be a moderate in progressive circles and what you call moderation. Less than two decades ago, and still today, many of the so-called social conservative issues were about Blacks and today it's about issues such immigration and gays. The only difference is the name of the group being used as a scapegoat. That's what progressivism, and what the Democratic party used to understand. I can give you a huge amount of pointless analysis of the Southern Strategy to point out that this divide and conquer approach has been with the Republicans - your natural inclination despite what you say- since the 1960s. It's funny how people label themselves- you claim to be moderate, and people like Andrew Sullivan - a gay man claims to be conservative, and yet you both are bizzare in what you actually advocate. He's okay with Alito too. He's against Roe, but it seems to slip his judgement that Roe is at least in part a precursor to the Lawrence decision out of Texas in that both are premised on a right to privacy. But, that's the social side- and it's pretty easy for you to defend your comments there as saying- well but I am socially conservative.

Okay- let's really test do you mean what you say though. As a 'populist,' I have no idea how you can support Alito, and I certainly don't know why you are trying to raise the red herring of SS reform- which is indeed dead. The split the baby Solomon like choice you wish people to make between Social Security and Alito. Exactly, what part of the fact that he is also an extreme economic conservative who is perfectly willing to screw over the little guy didn't you get from listening to him last week. Were the mining cases not instructive to you about how he will treat the rights of workers? Didn't you get the discussion of the anti trust cases? There are mutliple other cases such as the Family Medical Leave act, medical issues such as the right of the family to decide what to do with family members who are brain dead, and multiple economic issues such as HMO related questions that will come before the court that will fundamentally affect what happens to the population. On all of these issues- Alito has shown a record that is in the extreme- and yet- you say he doesn't matter because you fake an issue like Social Security as a concern.

Also you choose to do the lazy man's argument- well it is what it is. Yes, and if the republicans accepted that argument- hell if Regan who was a dark horse candidate accepted that argument- the Reagan revolution would never have happned. The point here wasn't that it would be easy to sway voters or Senators. It was that you don't get shit by sitting around doing shit. It's like the trade argument you make- the same Senators in question have also supported the trade agreements. What's to prevent them from doing exactly the calculus that you are asking them to do here? The answer of course is nothing- because historically- we both know the facts show I am right. They have done nothing except retreat in most cases.

I can go on and on- but basically I want to go back to this notion of moderation. Moderation has a specific meaning to me- it's not one of what labels you choose to slap on yourself. It's one of where are your basic values and what ideas do you choose to live by. I am a moderate because I don't believe in extremist from the left or right. At this moment in this country, the threat of extremism is coming from the right. It's this bizzaro land belief that its coming from the left that is beyond my ability to comprehend. Recently over at Andrew Sullivan's blog he had a post by another so-called- moderate claiming he feared the left more than the right. I will subject you to the same analysis I wanted to give to him. Who the fuck is in charge of all three branches of govt at this point? Who sets the agenda and policy? And what do you even mean by left when comparing it to countries like Chile?

As for your opinion again about priorities- the first priority has to be to redefine the party- because without that- things stay the same. That's my biggest extremist view. Being chicken shit in how one approaches a fight doesn't get us anywhere other than continuing to lose. The moderate part of this is that I say that because I realized things are not working as they are. A moderate looks at why things are not working, and tries to find better approach- he or she doesn't slap himself with a label and let that be the end of is. Moderation in other words is a process of thinking that as I have said doesn't accept the extremes. By letting the Republican Party run rough shod that's exactly what we have been doing.

by bruh21 on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 04:54:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unfortunately... (none / 0)

You spend more time attacking me though I do not know you then the argument. I am a mere Democratic Precint Chairman in a Red State. In the end the Senate will do whatever no matter what I think or you think but the result is more likly to be its over.

by THE MODERATE on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 05:01:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unfortunately... (none / 0)

I am not attacking you- I am attacking your positions and what they mean for the party. You aren't your ideas. I don't think given the state of the party that being a state chair is something that is something to write home about until you can show that we are winnng. I am about our results. I also question why any Democratic leadership would not think the selection of a S Ct justice is not important.

by bruh21 on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 05:51:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unfortunately... (none / 0)

Several people in this string have been talking about needing Republican votes like Chafee, Collins, and Snowe to stop Alito. It is true that their votes would be needed to defeat Alito if the actual vote on the nomination took place. But these Republican votes aren't necessary at all for a filibuster to take place. Dems can give away something like four or five of the Democratic caucus votes and still sustain a filibuster. Salazar and Lieberman (for starters) have both publicly said since Alito's nomination in the fall that they would consider a filibuster (Lieberman said it just the other day) -- that's two key moderate Dems from the Gang of 14 right there. Inouye, Pryor, Landrieu, and Byrd could also all be convinced to stand with the rest of the Dem caucus in order to keep the Supreme Court from veering far to the right for the next 30 years.

If there was ever a time in the history of this country when a minority party should filibuster a Supreme Court nominee, it should be after the horrendous Bush v. Gore Supreme Court decision that handed Bush the election when Gore got half a million more votes than Bush in 2000, and the horrendous decision split along exact ideological lines. Add to that still suspicious plane crashes that killed two Democratic Senators who would likely be casting votes at this very moment (Mel Carnahan got elected and Wellstone was on the verge of re-election), and Alito's very evident non-moderation, and why shouldn't Democrats filibuster?

Dems should force Bush to nominate someone else in the same way that Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol forced Bush to withdraw the much more moderate Harriet Miers.

Every major opinion poll that has been released in the last six months shows that 70% of Americans think that the Democratic Party should fight Bush much more than they currently are. Bush and the GOP have been majorly bloodied by Abramoff, DeLay's resignation, Libby's indictment, fuel prices, and the unpopularity of Iraq. This key nomination of Alito is what all of the political maneuvering of the past five years has been leading to. What is the point of gaining a majority back in the Senate this November when the major reason for having such a Senate majority is to filibuster -- the very thing that Dems could do this week anyway with the numbers they currently have. As Mark Tushnet, Jeffrey Rosen, and other leading progressive legal scholars have made clear on TV and on the internet over the past several months, Alito is to the right of Scalia and Thomas: THIS NOMINATION IS THE NOMINATION that will decide the future of the Supreme Court for 20 to 30 years into the future, not some future nomination. Why allow the right-wing 30% in this country to steal and dominate the Supreme Court for the next 30 years because of Katherine Harris' illegal actions in 2000? Roe v. Wade should not be overturned because of Katherine Harris' illegal actions.

All of the filibusters for the Appeals courts seats that took place earlier this year will mean nothing if Alito gets on the court. The O'Connor seat means much, much more than all the Appeals court seats that were fought for combined. Democrats must wage this fight by filibustering. Even if the GOP pulls the nuclear trigger option, Dems will still win the fight, because Alito's authenticity as a validly seated judge will always be questioned because it was done via the nuclear option. A counterfeit nuclear option justice will undermine the extreme right wing's never abating thirst to undo critically important Warren Court precedents that deserve to actually remain part of the American legal system. Democrats must filibuster. If Democrats don't filibuster a Constitution-in-Exile and anti-Roe nominee like Alito after the constitutional crisis of the year 2000, what Supreme Court nominee would they ever filibuster? There is no point in saving the filibuster for a rainy day, especially when the nuclear option is always on the table at any time. The GOP could pull the nuclear trigger at anytime. And if the GOP pulls the nuclear trigger, all the better for Democrats in 2009 and beyond. If there is no filibustering of Supreme Court nominations allowed in the future, that would only help a Democratic president in 2009 or beyond to install the judges he or she wants. If not a filibuster now, when? If not a filibuster for this, what?

by JT on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 08:44:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unfortunately... (none / 0)

The numbers are 44D 55R and 1 Independent. So if the Dems and the one Indep all vote against, we need 6 Republican votes to defeat him. This looks extremely unlikely.

To support a filibuster, if all the Repubs vote against it, we need all but 3 Democrats. Why can't Reid exert a little discipline on the Dems? I know several Dems have said that they haven't seen any reason why to vote against him yadda yadda yadda. But they are wrong, and whatever can be done to convince them otherwise by the Senate leadership (as well as John and Jane Q Public) should be done. It's not just our opinion. Alito's views are way out of the conservative mainstream, which is way to the right of the Democratic congressmen, which is way to the right of the public.

To defeat what the Repugnants call the "nuclear option" we again would need 51 votes. But this could well backfire against the Repubs. And Reid has already promised to bring the Senate to a halt if this happens.

Needless to say, if any Dems vote for Alito, or against the filibuster, every effort should be made to remove them from office, since they are acting as tools of the Empire, and replaced with real progressives. No Democrat who supports this man should go unchallenged.

by Hong Kong Chevy on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 02:15:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Bork was defeated 58-42 (none / 0)

Making this vote a vote on ethics (the GOP's and Alito's)and domestic spying is the way to go.

What would really make this worthwhile is to hit Specter, Snowe, Collins, and Chaffee with the abortion rights hammer. Minus Nelson, this would make the vote 52-48 then the above paragraph might work.

Personally, I hope Alitro is confirmed and the backlash punishes the far right for decades to come

by kmwray on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 12:18:22 PM EST

Re: Bork was defeated 58-42 (none / 0)

You're right, I was incorrect: Bork was defeated 58-42. Going on that topic, the balance of the Senate at the time was 55-45 in favor of Democrats. That means that only 3 Republicans voted against confirmation. Once again, you are only likely to find about three GOP senators- perhaps Snowe, Collins, Chafee- who would vote no. That still leaves the total at about 46.
A fillibuster should not happen. What should happen is a public discussion about privacy, civil liberties, and the power of the executive. Hopefully we can convince a majority of Americans that we're right (and I think polling bears that out), and that next election Democrats should actually use social issues TO THEIR ADVANTAGE. Til then, a fillibuster on a very qualified SC nominee (which hasnt happened for a long time) lends Democrats to the charge of obstructionism, and not falsely so.
Chafee's vote on Alito is very interesting. If he votes "no", then he further puts himself in danger of losing a serious primary challange from Laffey (?). If he saves his hide and shows he not a RINO by voting yes, then he's going to be in trouble in the general election against Whitehouse/Brown because RI is the most democratic state in the nation.

by AC4508 on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 12:57:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bork was defeated 58-42 (none / 0)

Actully five Republicans voted no I know Stafford, Warner, specter, and Packwood voted no I can not remeber the other Senator two Democrats Hollings and Boren voted yes.

by THE MODERATE on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 01:03:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bork was defeated 58-42 (none / 0)

Chafee, John (RI)

by kmwray on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 03:13:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bork was defeated 58-42 (none / 0)

Chafee's only hope is to vote "no." He is highly unlikely to be beat by Laffey and his band of fringe conservatives in ri -- the majority of people who vote for him are independents who will vote in the repub primary just to make sure Laffey is out of the contest. If he votes yes, it is surely the end of his political career, imho. RI is a very liberal little state -- the people who vote do so on an informed basis, and he will be punished if he betrays his constituency.

by ngay on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 07:12:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

More Lee Atwater (none / 0)

I think you have a point that Alito's confirmation suddenly puts Chafee and the Northeastern Republicans on the hot seat. But Specter just found himself re-elected and so was one of Maine's two female senators.

So I think the calculation was to tie in Alito's unitary executive card to the currently implosion of DeLay's Abramoff machine. Problem is there, the only connection that worked was the NSA wiretaps. National polling suggests that even if Bush has been taping us all the majority of Americans support that.

So the other thing to keep in mind is that now that Scalia will not be Chief Justice, he may retire at an inconvient time for the Republicans. He's old enough that if the Democrats do well in November, he may do it just to go out with a bang.

In any case, the Democrat strategy seems to be Lee Atwater all the way. Let these guys kill each other and then step in once they collapse. If the price for that is Justice Alito, the big players appear comfortable with that.

by risenmessiah on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 05:03:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It aint gonna happen (none / 0)

But it makes some people feel better to talk themselves and others into believing it could. Enumerating the reasons is futile because such deeply held belief to the contrary is immune to logic.

by lynx on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 12:20:04 PM EST

Re: It aint gonna happen (3.00 / 1)

it's funny the reason why things happen and don't. one of them is that people start from saying no- its ironic you say this on MLK DAy

by bruh21 on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 12:56:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It aint gonna happen (none / 0)

which doesn't change the fact that it should.

by Lucas O'Connor on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 01:17:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It aint gonna happen (none / 0)

I dont agree that it should happen. Lets go back in time. In 1993, fresh off a Presidential victory and holding a majority in the Senate, President Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the high court. Now Ginsburg is no doubt a liberal and had the Republicans chosen to fillibuster RBG- and they held more than 40 seats- no doubt Democrats would have screamed, rightfully, about obstructionism. When a party, an ideology, wins elections for the President and Senate, they have a right to fill SC vacancies as they see fit, be it Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives. It is not our job now to make up for our election losses with parliamentarian tactics. Its our job to argue to the American people that we're right about privacy, civil liberties, restrained executive power etc. so that in 2008 and even 2006, when people choose Presidents and Senators, they choose Democrats.

by AC4508 on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 01:36:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It aint gonna happen (none / 0)

This isn't an issue of liberal vs. conservative either, at least as far as I'm concerned. It's about the ability to interpret the Constitution in a manner which will maintain three equal branches of government. While I disagree with Alito's likely position on Roe v. Wade, I don't think it disqualifies him from the bench. What disqualifies him is an established position on executive authority that dramatically limits the power of congress, the judiciary, and thus the people, from restricting the behavior of a president. I don't care if otherwise his ideology is more in line with Hitler or with Ghandi, if he's set on undermining the Constitution, he's the last one that I want in charge of defending it.

And quite frankly, if Senate Democrats (or Senators in general, but I'm not that optimistic) aren't willing to fight to protect the Constitution then what is it that they're doing?

by Lucas O'Connor on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 02:05:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It aint gonna happen (none / 0)

Filibustering judges is something that both parties have engaged in. The difference is that Democrats only do it in cases of very extreme judges. Like Alito. I think the filibuster ought to be on the table, because Alito stonewalled during the hearings and basically told us nothing. The things he did tell us were very disturbing, and Democrats have a right to be heard on the issue of his appointment. If the GOP has 60 votes, go ahead and shut it down. Otherwise, sit down, shut up, and listen to what we have to say.

"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton

by bluenc on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 07:35:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It aint gonna happen (none / 0)

But,it should have happened. Biden and Kennedy blew it. The opposition had months to prepare a tight strategy. We all knew it was going to be a media hearing. What do we get but the 2 of them rattling on and on and on (using "I" blah blah blah ...), while Alito says as little as possible to respond. But, that's now in the past.
It's best to vote no, avoid a filibuster, move on and learn how to get our message across better on the issues.

by judson on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 02:30:27 PM EST

Re: It aint gonna happen (none / 0)

The best way to get our message across might be to filibuster and use this as a stage to tell everyone why the GOP has ruined this country. It may not be. But, I think the option ought to be on the table for Senate Dems. The question is: if this thing turns into a debate over the nuclear option, do we win that debate? I think we do, but we need to be sure we have a plan for tying together Alito. the nuclear option, the NSA wiretaps, and of course Abramoff.

"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton

by bluenc on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 07:38:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A Sign It Is Over (none / 0)

Since the hearings ended, neither MoveOn nor PFAW have emailed me urgently asking for money to wage a media campaign against the confirmation. It is not just the Dems in the Senate who seemed resigned.

I don't understand why it is/was thought that Alito's confirmation cannot/could not be stopped. On issue after issue he was given the opportunity to differentiate himself from Scalia and Thomas and he refused. It would be entirely justified to go to the voters now and say, on issue after issue, this is the future of America, the Scalia/Thomas vision of America. Done well, that should scare the beejesus out of all but the wingnut voters.

by Arthurkc on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 02:46:37 PM EST

Bork (none / 0)

Surepisingly, the 5th GOP no vote on Bork came from John Warner of Virginia.

As to everything else. We should have forced the nuclear option and put the GOP in the odd position of knowing that a Democratic President and Democratic controlled Senate would return the favor. A strong no vote by 40 plus Senators is about all we can achieve. The only interesting wrinkle in all this is Joe Biden. He brought up something I have thought for years, no nominee testimony. Here from experts, schiolars, interest groups and then go to a floor vote without watching nominees do the "dance of no opinion"

The Democrats ought to grab this and run with it.

by kmwray on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 03:11:32 PM EST

can't happen (3.00 / 0)

This "we won't win, so why try" attitude is really pissing me off. Can someone tell me the downside of trying and failing? Is it that the republicans gonna call democrats obstructionists? They'll do that anyway. At the very least, an attempt at a filibuster will chip away at the "gutless, do-nothing, stand-for-nothing" label the dems get stuck with every election. It'll also help clarify which dems are so risk-averse and cynical that they'll vote for cloture, then vote against the nominee.
What are we keeping our powder dry for, if not this?

by Jilliker on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 04:45:47 PM EST

Re: can't happen (none / 0)

you are talking about a form of leadership that is alien to most of the left leaning people's of the us. they have been taught self hate- and it's hard to over come that.

by bruh21 on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 05:00:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: can't happen (none / 0)

Is it self-hatred or laziness? From where I sit, if a position is worth having, it's worth fighting for.

by Jilliker on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 05:05:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: can't happen (none / 0)

its complicated. here is how I formulate the present Democrat view of life:

a) Internal (in most people's heads): The Republicans be winning because they are right "The republican views are what people really want." It takes a great deal of confidence and will to over come perception of circumstances to get to what the circumstances may actually be. We don't have a generation of politicans used to have to do this. They are used to being the majority. In that sense, it's laziness- but it's also fear. Fear because they don't know, and they hope what they do know will be enough.

b)It's also some self hatred involved- in the sense that the party is now starting to have people join who feel rejected by the Republican Party- so the things they say aren't Democratic vlaues- but they feel they have no place else to go. This would not be such a problem is there were some agreed on core values. Which apparently there doesn't appear to be.

c) also it's self hatred of party to support one's own fiefdom. It's easier to put down other democrats than show solidarity because that reflects the times we live in. The republicans are clearly in charge. To act against that is to risk personal advancement. THis part is laziness.

So it's complicated in that several factors are involved-including fear- sometimes irrationally so. Even when polls support us we still will buy into a REpublican meme because we are afraid that we won't win. Some of this is also laziness though- we refuse to learn new ways of communications. It's easy to argue facts- its harder to tell a story- which is what hte American people now require, and the REpublicans are giving, but not us. The wife crying thing last week couldn't have been written better if I had set down on one of my stories to write it. My friend a writer just said that to me yesterday- why doesn't the media get that this is to well timed. My question back to him is why didn't the democrats have mine workers come talka bout the effects of Alito's decision on their real lives. That way they would have shown they got the drama aspect of politics.

by bruh21 on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 05:16:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ironic (none / 0)

Both my Senators' offices are closed for the MLK holiday!

by sdedeo on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 05:04:25 PM EST

Missed Opportunities (none / 0)

The Democrats should have brought this up..but did not. What is Alito's view of 14th Amendment..and if his view is similar to that of Tancredo and other thugs in the US House, how does he reconcile his pro life views with denying citizenship to children of illegals.

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/opinions/ci_3400983

by Boilermaker on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 08:11:04 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.