For Senate Democrats, a last stand on Alito

[Algorem]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0117/p01s04-uspo.html

By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – After an unflappable 18 hours before a panel of 18 senators last week, Judge Samuel Alito is all but assured confirmation in the full Senate - just not by Friday.

At 11 a.m. Tuesday, Senate Democrats are expected to delay the vote, despite an agreement with the panel's chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter (R) of Pennsylvania, to move Judge Alito's nomination toward a final Senate vote by Jan. 20.

The delay would give Democrats a last chance to discuss strategy on this vote face to face, to sift through Alito's response to written questions, to revisit hearing transcripts, and to do one last nose count on whether there is support for a filibuster to block the vote.

"It is a momentous decision, and they need more time to think about it," says Carl Tobias, a constitutional law professor at the University of Richmond Law School...

[depakid]

1. The echo chamber

If the Dems got some courage and stood up to the far right, they'd be striking a blow at the corporate media too- and they get lower marks than Republicans these days.

[baby_bear]

2. This gives people more time to write to their senators

Borrow from mine if you like. This one is for senators who are up for reelection in 2006.

Dear Senator :

I urge you and the other Democratic senators to filibuster the Alito nomination. This is an extraordinary time calling for extraordinary measures.

I don't need to tell you why the prospect of Judge Alito as Justice Alito is frightening. But in addition to the very real likelihood that civil and privacy rights will suffer, while corporations and the executive branch will be afforded vast new powers in our society, there is the overriding issue of President Bush potentially having committed criminal violations of FISA. He should not be allowed to name a justice until this issue has been resolved. That is an eminently reasonable position for the Senate to take.

One other thing bothers me. I read an article in the Los Angeles Times that seems to indicate that Democratic senators are unwilling to mount a filibuster solely because of fear that it might cause some of them to lose their reelection bids.

Here is a snip from the article (and its URL):
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/scotus/la-na-alito14jan14,0,8432.story?coll=la-news-politics-supreme_court

<quote>
It appears the only way Senate Democrats could block Alito's confirmation would be to mount a filibuster. Although some party activists are calling for one, Senate Democratic leaders have shown little enthusiasm for the idea, in part because it could create problems for party members facing reelection in Republican-leaning states.

"The fact is that a filibuster would put moderate Democrats from 'red' states and others up for reelection in a difficult position," said a senior Democratic aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity when discussing the party's strategic thinking on the Alito nomination.
<end quote>

I realize that you are up for reelection this year, and that it may be a tough battle. It would concern me that any senator would consider his or her own reelection to be more important than preventing the lifelong appointment of a Supreme Court justice who is likely to provide the pivotal vote that would adversely affect the democratic principles, including the rights of individuals, in this country for decades to come. Judge Alito’s deference to executive authority is equally troubling.

I trust that you agree that the decision whether to filibuster is one that transcends the aspirations of individual senators. I ask you to actively encourage all of your colleagues to seriously ponder the gravity of a decision to acquiesce to this appointment without at least an attempt to mount a filibuster.

This nomination, at this time, truly meets the definition of "extraordinary" in every sense.