MyDD :: Getting a Sense on the Opposition to Alito

Getting a Sense on the Opposition to Alito

by Chris Bowers, Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 09:53:51 PM EST

After the opening statements today, I spent some time wandering around the press conference area in the Hart Senate building. I was able to talk to the Presidents of two major advocacy organizations and ask them about their idea of success for the hearings. There were the obvious concerns about making Alito answer the questions he was asked, making sure that the Democratic Senators asked the right questions, informing he American public about Alito's freeperesque record as a judge, etc. After a little egging, and because they knew I was a blogger and not a "regular" journalist (although it was hard to tell the difference when I was in the press conference area), I was able to coax a little bit of more direct information out of them.

The first President I talked with wouldn't say "filibuster," and instead relied upon the term "opposition." However, she indicated that she felt the best possible scenario would be if Alito said things during the hearings that directly contradicted his record. This struck me a smart, because it was really the only remaining avenue where Alito's nomination could face serious trouble without a filibuster even being necessary.

The second President I talked to was somewhat more direct in her support of a filibuster of Alito, as she indicated that the goal was to stop him from being confirmed, and there was no reason to take any option off the table. This isn't a direct quote, but the general gist I took from it was that if a filibuster was the only available means of stopping Alito, then filibuster it would have to be.

These two interviews, combined with private conversations I have had with staffers from several other advocacy organizations, have made it seem to me that within the progressive advocacy world there is far more serious and determined opposition to Alito than there was against Roberts. Back then, I couldn't get anyone down here to even tell me in private that they thought filibustering Roberts was a good idea. The general sentiment was that we needed to force more answers out of Roberts, and rack up as many "no" votes as possible in order to change the composition of the next nomination. By contrast, this time the mood is definitely that we need to stop this geeky, lying freeper, and if that means the filibuster, well then that means the filibuster.

I have no idea if this sentiment is shared among Senate staff on the Hill, but I do know that I will spend much of my time tomorrow trying to find out. Also, while there is much more determined opposition to Alito than there was to Roberts, that still doesn't mean that we are going to be able to get the 41 votes necessary. If things go our way--and judging by Alito's stunningly nervous and uncomfortable performance in front of the cameras today they just might--this could end up being the biggest political fight Washington has seen in a couple years.

Of we might only get something like 32 "no" votes and nothing happens. Stay tuned...

Tags: Judges (all tags)

Permalink :: 16 Comments :: Post a Comment

Prediction (none / 0)

My sense is that there will be over 40 votes against Alito, and a fillibuster BUT the Senate GOP will indeed invoke the "nuclear option" and he will be confirmed. The key to stopping him is to try to pick off ANY Republicans - such as Chaffee, Snow & Collins -- to give cover to Democrats like Pryor, Nelson, Lincoln, etc., and firm up the Democrats. Chris is right, there is much more serious opposition to Alito compared to Roberts. It already looks like Lindsey Graham will be a spokesman for Alito, and John McCain. Folks, you can talk and blog all day and all night but the bottom line is that the Republicans have the numbers. Anyone who thinks it makes no difference which party controls the Senate is wrong and this will be a textbook case to prove that point.
Howard Park

by howardpark on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 10:35:29 PM EST

Still we can nudge 'em to do the right thing: (none / 0)

Here's a new "No to Alito" tool:
Write a letter to the editor of your local paper and contact your congress critters -- all with one click.

Also: Moveon.org gathered 300,000 signatures in their Anti-Alito petition -- in a day!
They're shooting for 500,000, please sign if you haven't already:

Move On.org's stop Alito petition

People for the American Way have sent over 60,000 letters to the Senate:

Save the Court Petition

American Rights at Work also
Oppose Alito Petition

Defending the Constitution's Stop Alito Petition

http://ga3.org/...

Democratic anti-Alito petition:

Democratic Party's Reject Alito Petition

Stop the NRA is also getting in on the party:

Stop the NRA's Oppose Alito Petiton

And while you're at it: sign Planned Parenthood's anti-Alito petition, too:

Planned Parenthood Petition

NARAL is shooting for 500,000 signatures, please add yours:

Naral Anti-Alito Petition

And don't forget: urge Congress to support Plan B:

Plan B Petition

by judybrowni on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 11:24:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Prediction (none / 0)

You may well be right. It occured to me though that any judge that would accept position obtained by an abuse of the rules of the Senate is unfit to serve on any court. The filibuster was first used on a Supreme Court nominee almost 40 years so the weight of Sentate precident is definately with the filibuster and rule changes are supposed to require a 2/3rds vote.

Even though the Repugs would likely win a nuclear option battle, I say it's better to eliminate the filibuster option against future nominees from Democratic presidents than leave it on the books for Repug use only. If nuclear threat were to deter the Democrats from attempting it, the Repugs have no shame and use it when when tables are turned.

by Monkey In Chief on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 01:44:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Democrats MUST Filibuster (none / 0)

Senators Reid, Durbin, Dorgan, Leahy, Schumer, Nelson, Pryor, and Landrieu,

The decisions that are made in the next five to seven days will determine the future of this country for the next 30 years. Do not let Bush, Boyden Gray, Ed Meese, Rove, Jon Kyl, and John Cornyn tactically out maneuver you. The progressive/moderate 65% of this country and the U.S. Senate Democratic Caucus must not allow a president who was installed into office by a 5 to 4 party line Supreme Court vote, to pack the U.S. Supreme Court for the next 30 years with an extreme right wing ideologue like Alito.

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. 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. Bush was never even legally elected to office in 2000. Al Gore should be president right now. The only reason Bush is president is because of ideological right-wing justices like Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas. And Alito is to the right of Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas. 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.

If Bush, Boyden Gray, Ed Meese, and other right-wing thinkers succeed in packing the Supreme Court right now with a clear Constitution-in-Exile adherent, at the very moment of Hurricane Katrina, when no holds barred classist and racist extreme-capitalism has been shown to be an ideology that works to forsake the least among us, then something about America and what is good in humanity will indeed have been forsaken forever. This country is still mourning (from Katrina) the death and maiming of the very disadvantaged people who have been thrown away and abandoned by radical right-wing, government-is-always-the-problem economic policies. Hurricane Katrina happened just a few months ago, and conservatives completely dismissed the whole thing several months ago, and moved on within a week, to their ideological dream of taking over the Supreme Court. Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, David Brooks (and the small handful of other inside the Beltway rightist ideologues who sunk the Miers nomination) do not own this entire country's legal system.

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. Dems 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. Dems 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 Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 05:26:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Democrats MUST Panic! (none / 0)

JT, Bush-Gore was two elections ago. You embarrass yourself with your over the top use of hyperbole. THE SKY IS FALLING!!!! There. See, I can do it too.

There have always been people like you that have foretold the impending doom of our society, but what is usually betrays is a lack of belief in America. Whatever your political leaning, America is and will continue to be the best form of government yet devised.

As for the effect of this nomination on the next 30 years, what effect, would you say, the great society has had on this country up to now? Won that war on poverty yet? You bring up Katrina. Why wasn't New Orleans a beacon of liberal utopia in action? It was run by and for liberals for decades, and I fail to see the fruits of your theories.

by bekind on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 06:14:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Translation (none / 0)

Translation of the wierd phrase

"progressive advocacy world"

is..

"America"

Try it again, and see how it works. You'll be amazed how easy it is to oppose fascism!

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 11:21:33 PM EST

speaking as a geek... (none / 0)

we need to stop this geeky, lying freeper

...I have to object to that remark. ;)

by arenwin on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 12:17:44 AM EST

Re: speaking as a geek... (none / 0)

motion second. carried. heretofore , fascists shall now be referred to by the wild, catch all term of .. "fascists" and the term geek shall be reserved to oven stuffer turkeys with slide rules in their pockets.

by turnerbroadcasting on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 09:18:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Speaking of dirty words... (none / 0)

Fascist?

Since the level of this intellectual debate amongst people with such differing views has risen to the high plateau of name calling, I have an interesting question.

Why is "liberal" a dirty word? Please don't deny that it is, in today's political climate. Kerry ran from it, Hillary is running from it, and when conservatives use it to describe someone it is seen as part of an attack.

Also, isn't it true that as things stand now, we know one interesting thing about our next president... they will either be conservative, moderate, or convinced the majority of the country that they are moderate?

Try to remain calm while responding please.

by bekind on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 05:59:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In theory, I am bothered by the Democrats' tactics (none / 0)

Recently, I researched something that's confused me: What is the appropriate meaning of "advise and consent", inasmuch as it seems clear that a job of the POTUS is to select SC Justices. If so, why DID the founders see fit to put the "advise and consent" provision in place? That is, if the Senate is to have the final word on the overall fitness of a candidate, then how is it billed as the President's call?

What I found out is that the advise/consent provision was NOT intended to go to the nominee's politics or "philosophy", and certainly not his/her friendliness or antipathy toward advocates for specific kinds of issues. It was to allow for blocking nominees who were beholden to the President, or he to them, because of prior association. It is the "anti-crony" provision. It means that an otherwise undeserving person (a hack) should not be allowed to take a seat on the SCOTUS due to personal affiliation with the President or by "having somethiing on the President" -- i.e., being "bought off".

I spent a good portion of an evening reading about the founder debates, as they were recorded, and the voting on the provision. What became clear to me then is that Roberts should not be opposed in the Senate hearings if we are to approach the matter in the way it was intended. Then came Meirs; the opposite is true of her --- it seems she was essentially what the founders had in mind. Not corrupt, not inept, but certainly nominated because of her prior closeness to Bush. And clearly not especially distinguished apart from her association with W. Yet, the Democratic leaders started out being quite supportive.

Which brings us to Alito. Nothing in the prevailing opinion of the founders would support the notion that he should be shot down.

I am not a conservative; I am more of a moderate liberal on matters of social policy. But I AM conservative enough to opt for sticking with the original intent of things having to do with balance of powers. With election to the Presidency comes the right to nominate just about anyone the President wants and have that nomination accepted... as long as it's not a "crony" or hack. Obviously Alito is neither, and when a Democrat sits in the Oval Office again, I would want him/her to have that same power.

by Terry Ott on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 02:32:21 AM EST

However (none / 0)

The court does not have the same powers it had during the debate of the founders. It has expanded its influence far more than they could imagine just from Marbury vs. Madison alone. Look at the original constitutional responsibilities for the court before Marshall claimed the power of Judicial Review.

So I think any kind of "founder's intent" needs to be taken with a grain of salt at least.

Finally, you say, "when a Democrat sits in the Oval Office again, I would want him/her to have that same power. "

Well for starters, they won't. Ever. Not unless every single member of the GOP from the leadership on to the latest Young Republicans disappeared.

Secondly, unless we stop Alito, can a Democrat in the oval office ever happen again?

by MNPundit on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 03:49:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In theory, I am bothered by the Democrats (none / 0)

"But I AM conservative enough to opt for sticking with the original intent of things having to do with balance of powers. "

The big problem with Alito is that he has a long record of supporting the Imperial presidency. That is, he would act to subvert the original intent by moving power to the executive that belongs with the legislative and judicial branches. For this reason you should opt for opposing Alito.

by De Re Rustica on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 05:11:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In theory, I am bothered by the Democrats (none / 0)

"The big problem with Alito is that he has a long record of supporting the Imperial presidency. That is, he would act to subvert the original intent by moving power to the executive that belongs with the legislative and judicial branches. For this reason you should opt for opposing Alito."

What powers does/should the executive branch hold, in your opinion?

I would also like a liberal opinion on why people with obvious political leanings like Scalia and Ginsburg could be easily confirmed in the past, but not today? Try to answer thoughtfully, and not just emotionally.

by bekind on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 05:42:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In theory, I am bothered by the Democrats (none / 0)

The Imperial Presidency is in opposition to the Constitution in that the president usurps legislative power, or defies legislation that is enacted. The judiciary is responsible for preventing or reining in such actions, but Alito will clearly no do so.

This is not a liberal perspective, but a republican one. (With a small "R")

by De Re Rustica on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 03:26:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Alito is unfit for any court (none / 0)

Alito had a chance to prove that he was an ethical man of his word, and he balked. He was dishonest to Congress under oath. An ethical judge would not hear caseS with conflicting financial interests. This is an egregious action for any judge.

I don't know how any Senator could defend this highly unethical behaviour. Alito lied when he decided to hear the caseS. Congress talked of jailing the MLB players if they lied. The only difference between the players' lie, and Alito's lie, is that Alito had much more time to think about his lie BEFORE he lied.

Any Senator that would look the other way, after Alito looked Congress face to face and lied, is neglecting duty directed by the Constitution, disrespecting the peoples' trust, and promoting a culture of unethical and dishonest behaviour at the highest levels of our judicial system. It's no wonder that Congress is under investigation, and people say they've lost a moral/ethical compass.

I find it disingenuous that many media outlets are polling to see if people think that Alito should be confirmed when very little has been reported on Alito's 13 years and hundreds of rulings.
This poll shows:

how the media manipulates public opinion,
promotes a certain position,
fails to report the story fully and fairly.

by Power of Equality on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 07:51:32 AM EST

Alito is ground zero (none / 0)

The whole thing about Alito being a distraction from the scummy lobbyists, is a distraction in itself.

Alito is THE thing that the constituency of the effing crazies, or COTECS, (pronounced "Kotex") have in their sleeve. They want this above all things in the world: a chance to remake America.

Personally, I like Alito, and I think he's qualified. The thing is, the people backing him are freaking nut jobs. Serious nutjobs. Anything Bush has done has cost this country not millions not billions but TRILLIONS. Every thing Bush wants to do, in my view will be set under the glass. I will be listening very carefully to this fellow, he's either a good person with ugly friends, or a mouthpiece for the evil empire.

by turnerbroadcasting on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 09:22:34 AM 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.